U.N. Mandate? Is Obama Kidding?


For whatever reason current occupier of the Oval Office, Barack Obama, has decided is good enough, in the past week he’s suddenly started blathering on about not going into Syria to intervene/save the people from chemical weapons (most likely stashed there by Saddam Hussein before we invaded Iraq) without a – get this – United Nations mandate.

Obama doesn’t know how to make a decision so, now we’re hiding behind the organization that has outlived its usefulness and needs to be kicked out of the country?  The U.N. MO is to send in inspectors, not troops or weapons.  Didn’t the Iraq experience teach us anything?

Send in the U.N. to “inspect” and depend on the host country to lead the inspectors to the illegal weapons?  Oh yeah, that’s gonna work.

The United Nations as a civilizing body has less credibility than Obama does.  At least it used to.  At one point, not too long ago, actually, the U.N. pretty much took orders from the US on foreign policy.  It was an arm of our efforts and more or less the cover for invading other countries with or without cause.

Now Obama wants to ASK PERMISSION?????  From China, Russia, other countries with interests in seeing the US taken down several pegs.  From countries with a vested interest in the outcome of any conflict we assist or instigate?

What a great idea.  (Gee, I hope that doesn’t need a sarcasm tag.)

No wonder the world is beginning to see us as pretty weak.  We have a “leader” who refuses to take command.  It doesn’t matter where any of us are or what we do in life, if the leader of the band, or chorus, or choir, or business, or rescue operation, or government does not take control, the players involved lose all respect.  It’s happened to all of us, being under a commanding leader with good, organized control, and after that person’s departure or removal, the successor is not in the same league and an organization falls apart.  In the interview process he or she may have talked a good game, but get them into a job and their real persona takes over, and the people who they want to keep walk out the door.  (In Obama’s case, they are being shown the door, but that’s another issue.)

It’s not that much different with a president who has no idea how to run a kennel for strays let alone the largest entity in the country (the Federal Government) after having a president who ran Texas before assuming office.  At this point, Obama is even losing the support of his own party and the people who brung him.  That is no way to lead, letting the U.N. do the heavy thinking, and having other people make the big decisions.

What is even more troubling about this stance is that there are a number of U.N. treaties and resolutions out there that the US has not, and should not, sign as the conditions of the agreements violate rights enshrined in the first ten amendments to our constitution.  It is doubtful that Obama has read that document lately given some of what has come out of his mouth, but censoring of the internet and any kind of severely restrictive gun control isn’t acceptable coming from our own government, let alone the U.N.  Those are sovereign decisions, not ones for an umpiring outfit that causes more conflict than it solves.

Asking permission from less than friendly nations to help arm people who are defending themselves against an oppressive regime is just cowardly and puts us in the position of answering to the U.N. on topics which no other entity other than our representative government should have any control.

Obama is correct that war is expensive from a variety of perspectives, and none of us really want to constantly be fighting one, but at the same time, a real leader doesn’t ask permission.  He takes command, or explains why he refuses to make a move.  He doesn’t say, “We are not going in without a United Nations resolution.”

Besides, the U.N. has not been much of a concern of this administration, abusing executive privilege as much as it does.  Why bring in the U.N. now?

About these ads

Categories: Barack Obama, United Nations

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

5 replies

  1. I would argue that Obama has already decided to take military action. He is using the Untited Nations excuse to stall so he can time the action for best exploitation. he certainly needs a scape goat to distract us from the collapsing economy and White House scandals. Or, if Republicans really try to “shut down government” due to the deficit talks going bad, Obama can pull out his Syria card and accuse them of wanting babies to continue being gassed to death. Funny how the next round of sequester cuts fall on the military. Does that still happen if we are at war?…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,358 other followers

%d bloggers like this: