[ahadams]

and yes this is very much about gun control since the UN has made it clear they do NOT have any respect for the 2nd Ammendment or any other part of the US Constitution. This just in from Best of the Web (put out by WSJ's Opinion Journal):

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This question may have occurred to the administration as well. The Daily Telegraph's Stephen Pollard

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/03/07/do0701.xml

reports:

*** QUOTE ***

Well-connected advisers tell me that if, as now seems likely, the UN refuses to back action against terror, Mr Bush will announce a "temporary" suspension of America's membership, to be accompanied by an offer: if the UN gets its act together and carries out long-overdue reforms, America (and its money) will return. But if there is no reform, the temporary withdrawal will, de facto, become permanent.

*** END QUOTE ***

When we were in Washington earlier this month, we heard similar rumors. There's certainly an argument to be made that the U.N., as presently constituted, is worse than useless. For one thing, despite the U.N.'s professed aversion to war, what it really seems to object to is victory. In the U.N.'s 58-year history, two wars have been waged under Security Council auspices: Korea and the Gulf War. Both ended with less than total victories, leaving in power two of the worst tyrannies on earth, which are now two of the world's most dangerous rogue states. (If the U.N. instead of the Allies had fought World War II, Germany might still be ruled by Nazis instead of weasels.) U.N. peacekeeping operations, too, are at best a mixed bag, with a record of failing to prevent such horrors as the Srebrenica massacre and the Rwanda genocide.

Pollard's report raises an intriguing question: Just what reforms would suffice to turn the U.N. into a responsible body? The problems with the Security Council, in particular, are substantive, not procedural. The council could be a serious body if its permanent members agreed on its purpose. In other words, the problem is France, not the U.N. The New York Times' Thomas Friedman

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/09/opinion/09FRIE.html

suggested last month giving France the boot and making India a permanent Security Council member instead. This would be fitting: France is a former colonist that makes common cause with every Third World thug, while India is a former colony that, while imperfect, is generally a democratic success story.

Of course, this may all be whistling past the graveyard. If the Security Council disgraces itself by refusing to authorize the enforcement of its resolutions against Iraq, it may not be worth saving at all.

The implications of all this for domestic U.S. politics will be interesting as well. Democrats, especially those on the left, have been championing U.N. control over U.S. foreign policy. Assuming the U.S. succeeds in liberating Iraq despite the Security Council's defiance, it's hard to imagine that will play well outside the far-left Democratic base in next year's elections.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Seawolf]

Do you have a source link? I want to share with some people ;)

[Navy joe]

If Bush does that, I hope we all re-elect him by a huge margin despite his faults. For me it would rank as the best executive move since Truman nuked Japan. If Congress votes for nullifying the U.N. treaty agreements, so much the better.

[Seawolf]

NM - found the source :)

[Baba Louie]

That there is some high stakes poker boyz and girlz.

Speculation, mere speculation.

Still and all, reading it, "Makes my heart soar like an eagle, Little Big Man"

A boy can dream.

"AND THEN WHAT?"

Never ask a question less'n ya have a good answer/solution handy.

Now THAT ought to make some interesting Pow-Wow around the campfire

thanks ahadams for the post

Adios

(edited to add...)
Thanks Navy Joe, for bringing in reality. Congress. Can't even break a filibuster, let alone get 2/3 to agree on the above...
darn the reality of the moment. And there I was feeling so chipper

[Blackhawk]

If the Security Council disgraces itself by refusing to authorize the enforcement of its resolutions against Iraq, it may not be worth saving at all.Certainly not as anything but a tea, debating, and relief agency. It will never command any respect as a peace keeping organization again (not that I ever did anyway).

[Tamara]

...this just breaks my heart.

Woodrow Wilson should've done it in 1919.

(Yeah, yeah, I know: "But the League Of Nations was his idea!" Still, though... ;) )

[El Tejon]

If we get the US out of the UN, can we then get DC out of the US?:D

[Mike Irwin]

The "permanent" withdrawal will only be as permanent as long as it takes some stinking American hating liberal world government puke to become President.

[AJ Dual]

Well-connected advisers tell me that if, as now seems likely, the UN refuses to back action against terror, Mr Bush will announce a "temporary" suspension of America's membership, to be accompanied by an offer: if the UN gets its act together and carries out long-overdue reforms, America (and its money) will return. But if there is no reform, the temporary withdrawal will, de facto, become permanent.


Oh God...

Were it only true! Just reading it, I almost had to go home early and change my shorts. :D

The "permanent" withdrawal will only be as permanent as long as it takes some stinking American hating liberal world government puke to become President.

True, but if Bush is a two-termer, much less another conservative of any decent caliber occupy the whitehouse after him, by the time we get another liberal president, either:

A: the liberals, or at least the DNC, will either have imploded, or reformed themselves back into the "Party of Kennedy". (The dead, tax-cutting, virulent anti-communist Kennedy, just so there's no confusion.)

B. Without U.S. propping it up, the U.N. will devolve so rapidly, that even "Prez Hillary" wouldn't spare an ounce of political capital to make us re-join it. This might be enhanced when other nations realizing that the U.N. can no longer be used to hamstring the U.S. out of all proportion to thier actual might or influence, they'll drop out too.

[Waitone]

Be still my heart.

I'd be will to bet Bush will try to extract the US from the UN by bypassing congress and simply set up a forum for the Coalition of the Willing. My guess is would be a group of countres that supported the UN and mouth the principals of democratic elected goverment. Contracts for the rebuild would be directed toward our supporters and business will be cut off from those who stiffed the US.

Bush is well known as one who holds grudges until he gets even. Witness what he did to Helen Thomas as the formal press conference. She previously mouthed off on several occasions. He places here in the third row back and refused to let her ask a question. In my view a hard putdown for someone possession a media sized ego.

[ahadams]

For Seawolf and all those who wanted a web pointer to the entire BOTW for today here it is:

http://opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110003180




just imho, but if we've been paying 25% of the UN operating costs for the entire time (to say nothing of all the :cuss: maintenance on that building complex in NYC) and we *stop* doing that...and a lot of 3rd world countries have the choice of spending all their foreign aid that their getting from us and the rest of the west on either building their own countries or trying to prop up the UN, even if Ted Turner and every other liberal in existance goes broke trying, all we need is Bush for a second term and we can wave bye-bye to the UN once and for all! Maybe in the meantime we could talk them into moving out of NYC to someplace more suitable...like Zimbabwe f'rinstance.:D

[Joe Gunns]

Would seema logical step after going out of his way to allow the UN to demonstrate that it is more than a debating society.

If it happens it will be a good day for Pax Americana and the New World Order.

Bush cannot allow UN obfuscation to stand and expect any hope of A) re-election and B) more importantly, anyone paying any attention to any American ulitmatums ever again. This would make it a lock that he, or some future Pres would have to use nukes in extremis to deal with some future situation gone out of hand.



Tempus Revelat Omnia.

[Gary H]

Let's see..Powell would resign..the press would go crazy..dream on..I don't believe that we would permanently pull the plug, but you can always hope.

[aikidoka-mks]

Oh if only that would happen! :-D

Mark

[CaesarI]

Call me an optimist.

If Bush pulls the plug on the UN, or at least has the cojones to get us out for a little while, I'll forgive them their trespasses, and join the Republican party, and bloody hell help their campaign for the next election.

If they kill the '94 Crime Bill, I'll give each of'em a check for $100 that I don't have.

Maybe Ron Paul's right. The Libertarians should try conquering the Republicans. Wouldn't it be grand?

Sure the odds aren't the greatest, but give it a chance ya'll.

-Morgan

[.45Ruger]

That would be excellent because I can think of better things to do with $100 million every year, like cut taxes.

[Baba Louie]

What WOULD happen "If Atlas Shrugged?"

Starring George W. as John Galt, leading those few who produce the actual wealth and goods the world demands on a strike against the collectivist many who clamor for his head (and their products...not to mention money).

Sounds like a good plot for a book or something...:D

Wish I'd thought of that.

Bet Greenspan is figuring out now how to stop him (Not with my money you don't!). Watch the market over the next few days/weeks.

Adios

[ahadams]

when he says
"Bet Greenspan is figuring out now how to stop him (Not with my money you don't!). Watch the market over the next few days/weeks."

perhaps those of us with only a little money need to look at where we should spend that money and where we should not spend it if someone starts playing games with the economy because of this.

[Ala Dan]

To HELL with the U.N.- we have NEVER needed them; and DON'T need 'em NOW!

Put Jacques Chirac, Koffie Annan, and Hans Blix in a brown
paper sack and shake it up; and it would not matter who
fell out first; cuz they all are sleeping with Saddam!

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

[CaesarI]

Alan was definitely an Objectivist at one point or another. He has a few essays in "Capitalism the Unknown Ideal". What is not known for certain is if he still is. One of his essays was in spirited defense of the gold standard. Which leads one to ask, why would a gold bug be supporting the fed? This leads us to certain historical evidence that Greenspan, during his tenure up until the late 90's, and his "irrational exuberance" speech kept the fed in lock-step with gold. The rationale Greenspan appologists offer is that Greenspan felt he could do the job better than anyone else. The lesser of all evils. However, there are also those who argue Greenspan removed Bush the Elder from office thru a manipulation of the market. Greenspan appologists argue he tried real hard to quell a post-war recession.

Long and short of it is, no one knows for sure. However, I've been more receptive to the complaints of those who would condemn Greenspan ever since he attacked Bush's tax-cuts. The counter-argument, is of course that Greenspan, as an Objectivist is rather irritated with the PATRIOT act.

The long and short of it is, Greenspan may or may not be a good-guy. He certainly, however, cannot be just written off as a badguy out of hand. That much is certain.

-Morgan

* as a side note I've heard rumor Bush Jr. is a fan of Rand too, but nothing definite. He's generally considered too religious to be a real Objectivist, however... I consider myself an Objectivist, and me and God had a rift, but are friends again.

[WilderBill]

We have never needed the UN.

I do believe, however, that if we withdraw our membership and 25% of their budget, they might find that they need us. :)

[Jim March]

I really think we're going to go into Iraq, topple Saddam in record time, then find proof France and Germany have been supplying the piece o' poopie with all kinds of nefarious crap. We'll probably find out it went way the heck up to the top of all three countries.

At that point, both NATO and the UN are in for one hell of a shakeout. France's seat on the security council is almost certainly toast, France and Germany could get kicked out of NATO. Turkey is guilty too, but they're safer because we *need* as many moderate ally Islamic states as possible.

Man, this is potentially way cool :cool:.

[4570Rick]

http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/jump.gif