WHY WE SHOULD LEAVE the un. article from ron paul

[rainstorm]

house of representatives from texas


"Our anticipated war in Iraq has been condemned by many around the world for the worst of all reasons: namely, that America is acting without United Nations approval. The obvious implication is that an invasion of Iraq is illegitimate without such approval, but magically becomes legitimate when UN bureaucrats grant their blessing. Most Americans rightfully resent this arrogant attitude toward our national sovereignty and don’t care what the UN thinks about our war plans. Perhaps our heritage as a nation of people who do not take kindly to being told what to do is intact. Still, only the most ardent war hawks connected with the administration have begun to discuss complete withdrawal from the UN. I have advocated this for twenty years, and have introduced legislation to that effect.

The administration deserves some credit for asserting that we will go to war unilaterally if necessary, without UN authorization. But it sends a mixed message by doing everything it can to obtain such authorization. Efforts to build a “coalition” through the promise of billions in foreign aid dollars only reinforce the perception that we’re trying to buy support for the war. The message seems to be that the UN is credible when we control it and it does what we want, but lacks all credibility when it refuses to do our bidding. The bizarre irony is while we may act unilaterally in Iraq, the very justification for our invasion is that we are enforcing UN resolutions!

Our current situation in Iraq shows that we cannot allow U.S. national security to become a matter of international consensus. We don’t need UN permission to go to war; only Congress can declare war under the Constitution. The Constitution does not permit the delegation of congressional duties to international bodies. It’s bad enough when Congress relinquishes its warmaking authority to the President, but disastrous if we relinquish it to international bureaucrats who don’t care about America.

Those bureaucrats are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes, however. The UN increasingly wants to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. Its global planners fully intend to expand the UN into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these facts are readily promoted on the UN’s own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are actively hostile to it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply aren’t interested in our Constitution and republican form of government.

The choice is very clear: we either follow the Constitution or submit to UN global governance. American national sovereignty cannot survive if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted by an international body. This needs to be stated publicly more often. If we continue down the UN path, America as we know it will cease to exist.

Noted constitutional scholar Herb Titus has thoroughly researched the United Nations and its purported “authority.” Titus explains that the UN Charter is not a treaty at all, but rather a blueprint for supranational government that directly violates the Constitution. As such, the Charter is neither politically nor legally binding upon the American people or government. The UN has no authority to make “laws” that bind American citizens, because it does not derive its powers from the consent of the American people. We need to stop speaking of UN resolutions and edicts as if they represented legitimate laws or treaties. They do not.

The UN is neither wise nor neutral. All of the member nations have national interests that don’t simply disappear when their representatives enter the UN general assembly hall. Like any government or quasi-government body, the UN is rife with corruption and backroom deals. Worst of all, it serves as a forum for rampant anti-Americanism. Perhaps the time has finally come when more Americans will choose to rethink our participation.

[rainstorm]

we also must keep france out of iraq. even today back stabber chirac is causing trouble for us

[Derek Ortt]

We do need to ditch the UN. All they bring is problems

[stormraiser]

I agree JX. Chirac and Saddam are bedfellows, whose friendship has gone back to the 70's from different sources I have seen.

we also must keep france out of iraq. even today back stabber chirac is causing trouble for us

[coriolis]

I say stay in, but only use them when it's convenient. they can serve our purposes sometimes. That's what everyone else does. Otherwise plplplph (Bronx cheer) and (No emoticon for thumbing your nose.)

Cynical? YES. Do I care? NO

Lets all send Jaques Chirac a box of doggie poop!

[mf_dolphin]

The UN still has an important role in the humanitarian area. I think we have to stay for now. JMHO

[JCT777]

Excellent article and I agree with Mr. Paul's sentiments. It's about time the US tells the UN to take a hike!

[sunny shine]

I vote to get France out of the UN. They have already let Iraqi Diplomats into their country. IMO, they are protecting the bunch of baby killers!!

[rainstorm]

i think france is now our enemy, and we should have nothing to do with them.

[wannabehippie]

if you think anomosity is bad now in the UN look back at the records during the height of the cold war, particularly in the 50's, 60's. it was far worse then.

the UN does a great many good things. and will continue to do so in the future.

peace
david

[JQ Public]

i still think its better for us to stay. thats what it was made for...to keep the peace and if war breaks out to regulate it as much as they can. No one can agree all the time.