In response to:

One Hundred Twenty Nations Vote Against President Obama

cholmes Wrote: Sep 10, 2012 10:16 AM
I agree with what you say for the most part. However, we should stop funding them and stay in the UN so that we know what they are up to and not get any surprises by not being a member. We have a big veto vote that we should not give up! Think about it!!!!!!!!!!!
gwharpo Wrote: Sep 10, 2012 1:13 PM
How much heavy equipment do you suppose it would take to push that eyesore into the Atlantic?
Neal from PA Wrote: Sep 10, 2012 1:24 PM
Like I said...the resources exist...however, the leadership and stamina required to actually do it, is lacking...
Neal from PA Wrote: Sep 10, 2012 12:23 PM

Agree, only on the point of veto vote...The UN no longer adheres to its own charter. It is badly in need of reform...but can true reform be forthcoming...

Fat chance…the UN, like the NATO cannot walk and chew gun at the same time without leadership from the USA. If NATO and the UN were unified entities the world would not be in the precarious position it now finds itself. The enemies of the free-world just love both the UN and NATO; and know how to exploit their weaknesses and avoid their strengths.

Although the resources exist, the political leadership and national stamina required to reform these institutions, does not.

Editor's Note: This column was coauthored by Bob Morrison.

President Obama continues to get high marks in all public opinion polls on foreign policy. Much of that, doubtless, is due to his crisp dispatch of Osama bin Laden last year.

The latest dust-up about that raid is a mere tempest in a teapot. Some ex-SEALs are saying that Osama was not armed when he was taken down, that he was shot while looking out the window of his residence in Pakistan.

This really should not matter in the least. Under centuries of international law, Osama bin Laden would have...