World's Holding on Line Two
By: Christopher Taylor, Daily Kent Stater (Kent State U.)
October 24, 2006 9:08 PM
(U-WIRE) KENT, Ohio - One body caused an uproar about the Iraq war and nearly caused some American businesses to rename the french fries to freedom fries. Damn those French.
The United Nations Security Council: always causing discord for the U.S. - when we don't get what we want, of course.
Americans will have no tolerance for alternate, peaceful suggestions from France or any other country on the council. Instead, we'll do whatever the hell we want, and when somebody even remotely suggests the idea of being "respected in the world" - like Sen. John Kerry did in the 2004 presidential election - we'll ridicule him and call him un-American.
The U.N. Security Council is essentially good for one thing: making suggestions on how to avoid conflicts resulting in war.
And now, rather than it being an issue of the U.N. Security Council, many people in the United States continue to feud about who's to blame for North Korea's nuclear program and Iran's potential nuclear program. Did former President Clinton ignore the threat of communist North Korea, or did the Bush administration spend too much time getting their revenge in Iraq?
Why is it the responsibility of the U.S. to be the world's keeper in every bad circumstance? Sure, terrorism is a very real threat to the security of the people, but it is also a threat to other countries as well. We should be listening to what they have to say about the issue. The council provides an opportunity for the U.S. to listen.
We invaded Iraq, attempting to convince the U.N. Security Council that Saddam Hussein possessed "weapons of mass destruction," that he was "enriching uranium" and might have even possessed a nuclear weapon. And even against the woes of the council, who maintained a pro-sanctions attitude, we toppled Saddam and killed thousands of people including our own valiant soldiers. Look how that turned out.
Understandably, it should be of concern that it takes just one vote from the council's permanent members to defeat a proposal, and because of this it is hard to get anything done. But this can also be something good to avoid the irrational use of force in foreign disputes.
Instead, sanctions, all too familiar to the council, can be economically crippling to a country. That's a particularly good idea for new nuclear powers who should not have them. This mentality may not produce immediate results, like a war does, but it does have its strong advantages.
For once, with the recent actions of North Korea, we looked to the United Nations for support. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I commend Condi and the Bush administration for working with the world to establish a comprehensive plan of sanctions rather than jumping the gun again on brute force with little support from other countries.
Disregarding the debate of whether or not she is a drag queen, we should also be aware of Ann Coulter's dynamic and thoughtful ideas about the issue of North Korea. Rather than working with the United Nations, she said in a January New York Observer interview, "I just think it would be fun to nuke them and have it be a warning to the rest of the world."
Unfortunately, I don't think this would work too well.