These are the “serious consequences” our tough Secretary of State promised.

of why sovereignty has a greater role in world peace than rule by a committee of competing interests.

out of the US should be a major plank in every Republican campaign. It is probably worth at least 5% of the vote.

If someone questions the position the response should be “Name one thing, other than corruption, that the UN has done right in the last 30 years?”

In my youth, I actually worked for a summer as an Intern at the UN. It’s mostly a large, harmless debating club. It isn’t even all that expensive when it comes down to it — the NY Fire Department has a larger budget,

When “action” is taken — rarely — the Big 5 still each have a veto, Even then there are limits. They cannot send UN troops into the US to take away guns (sorry, conspiracy theorists) because they cannot act in that manner. (Moreover, if someone from the UN came to MY house to take MY guns, I’d shoot him for theft.)

The UN has the authority to order coffee — if they can pay for it.

The problem is the UN was designed by Roosevelt the way the League of Nations was designed by Wilson: To prevent the previous war. The likelihood of WWII happening again is small, wars generally don’t happen the same way twice.

Of course, people like Obama want to believe that everyone will obey the treaties they sign. This is why “disarmanment treaties DO NOT WORK.”

“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves,” was from Josef Stalin. This was a man who would happily sign a treaty, then break it. There was no way to “deal” with Stalin unless it was in Stalin’s interest to keep his word. Then he would keep it as long as it was in his interest. The moment it wasn’t the treaty became null and void.

At the recent NATO summit, supposedly Obama took the leaders of Denmark and Turkey aside and “smoothed out their differences” behind closed doors. Does anyone want to bet in a few months Denmark and Turkey will be getting some new money, or guns, or something from the US?

Obama cannot talk Russia OR China into doing anything that is not already in their own national interest.

Unless they are backed by action. Unfortunately, the UN lacks the collective will to do anything. The US is villified for acting to enforce UN resolutions (Iraq anyone?). Yet no one else acts to enforce the resolutions either. The US is the biggest supporter of the UN and the one most likely to follow its resolutions. Yet, it is also the second most castigated nation (Israel being the first).

Unilateral action is still a possibility. But not with this President who thinks that just showing up is enough to get everyone to do what he wants. Leading means doing the unpopular thing sometimes, if it results in a safer world. So, Dear Leader, get the heck out there and LEAD.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/general_current_events/57_want_military_response_to_north_korea_missile_launch

Expect BO to react in a day or two, ha ha