The Un-tied Nations; why are we suckers?

There is nothing new about a country, or a combination of countries, ignoring the majority in the United Nations. To protect national interests, nations, including the sanctimonious French, have often acted without UN approval. To cite an important example, in 1956 Herbert Morrison said in the British House of Commons, "If the United States will not stand with us we may have to stand without them?" Imagine that? It was in 1956 that the French and British had determined that they would join with Israel and reopen the Suez Canal, even though the United Nations Security Council had not authorized such a "unilateral" action. The UN had said that the closing of the canal by Nasser was illegal, but that's as far as it got. Why? Because the UN was bending over backwards to please the USSR (Russia). But I get ahead of myself.

The Arabs have often looked to an "Arab nationalist" when in conflict with the rest of the world. Back in 1956, the Saddam Hussein of the time was the Russian communist puppet Colonel Gamal Abdel-Nasser, the communist rebel leader of Egypt, who had decided to take complete control of the vital Suez Canal. And that was a huge international scandal. The French and English had for decades regarded the Suez Canal as part of their "metropolitan" territories. They believed that their safety and prosperity depended upon the flow of goods through the canal. In other words, it was in their national interest to fight alongside Israel. But in fact, it was only Israel which met the test of the UN's Article 51, from the United Nations Charter. This article provides for the exercise of the "inherent right of self-defense." Israeli Ambassador Abba Eban, commenting on the crisis of the Suez canal, said in a 1956 speech to the UN that " . . . behind the events of this week lies the unique and somber story of a small people, subjected throughout all the years of its national existence [the new Israel] to a furious, implacable, comprehensive campaign of hatred and siege for which there is no parallel or precedent in the modern history of nations . . . " In other words, Israel fought to save itself from certain death from the Arabs. Britain and France fought to protect their finances. However, the United States did not join Israel in that 1956 fight. Bottom line, the canal was reopened by France and Britain and Israel. Thus, the three of them became the villains in the eyes of Arabia, each for different reasons. And from then on, the United States was to become the most influential outside power in the region, and remained so, until France became the secret godfather of the militant Iranian Islamic revolutions of the 1970's and 1980's. And thanks to the recent "diplomacy" (dishonesty?) of France and Russia and Germany in the UN, America must, once again, arise, with the help of Great Britain, to bring some stability, with all that means, to the Middle East.

But there's nothing new about the UN's failure to act against Russian and French business interests. We do the dying, while they make money supplying arms to our enemies. For example, where was the UN when communist Russia (USSR) invaded Czechoslovakia? Or Hungary? Where was the UN when Pol Pot killed millions of Cambodians? And remember Idi Amin, the psychopathic ex-ruler of Uganda, who slaughtered millions of his own people? Where was the UN then? Idi Amin now lives, lavishly, in Saudi Arabia, go figure that? By the way, Idi Amin once made the English Ambassador to Uganda crawl on his hands and knees before Amin, or die? Where was the UN then? And how well did the German ex-Nazis, and their new French and Russian masters, do recently in the former Yugoslavia and Albania in preventing another German and Russian type genocide? Again, and with no UN "authorization," we Americans came to their rescue? Where was the UN, then? And in Africa, where was the UN when the Tutsi tribe hacked, chopped and mutilated 800,000 of their fellow Hutus Afrikaners to death?

Like the League of Nations before it, the United Nations has never kept the peace. It has never been anything but an expensive debating society. It is a perfect place for Russia and China, and now France and Germany, to unite the UN's bureaucratic hobos and politically retarded of the world against the interests of the American people. Remember this, when the chips hit the fan, the United Nations always borrows its power from the United States of America. Since 1945, the world has depended on American power, and goodwill, to ensure order. We, along with Great Britain and the British Commonwealth, are the "Mecca" of world order. The United Nations, on the other hand, has always been used to "shame" our easy diplomats into obeying Europe's commands. And France's sponsorship of the European Union (alliance) is nothing but a feeble attempt by old Europe to regain control of the world. So they, once again, can screw up the world and cause, as they have many times, the slaughter of millions of people. Who needs that?