Let's Limit The United Nations To Debating Only ... In English.

Now that it is obvious the Iraq war is won, and the Iraqi people have been liberated, and Saddam Hussein has evaporated, suddenly we have some nations who insist that any future action must be done under the auspices of the United Nations. One of those nations, of course, is France. You know, good old France, the country that not only stymied everything we tried to do through the United Nations, but also threatened to veto any action brought to the United Nations Security Council.

The United Nations, as with the old League of Nations following World War I, sounds like a very good idea. It is a forum in which the nations of the world can get together and talk out their problems. If you believe in internationalism, it is a super government which should allow us to settle our differences short of war. There is only one problem: it doesn't work. There are all kinds of examples, but the one at hand has to do with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Saddam brutally invaded Kuwait a decade ago, and the United States put together a coalition and stopped him. Then we turned it over to the United Nations to administer the terms of the truce, and they let that dictator back them down time and again and become a threat to the entire world. The U. N. did practically nothing, and what they did was generally a threat to America and to any other nation that was not socialist in structure.

So what do we do now? Well, first I would suggest we let the U. N. know they have no role to play in Iraq. None. Nada. And secondly, I suggest we start immediately to rewrite the U. N. Charter to make that body nothing more than an international debating society with no powers beyond that. Third, cut their budget, at least in half. And
fourth, why not limit the language to be used in the U. N. to English only ... certainly not French.

This is Gordon Sawyer, and may the wind always be at your back.