I disagree that the UN is an effective mechanism for global governance now. I would assert that the UN has very little to do with global governance because it is essentially an actionless body. It is a way for nations to express their opinions but there is no enforcement mechanism. Countries are not bound to abide by UN resolutions. The UN can pass resolution after resolution but ultimately if it is to get anything done it is by voluntary compliance by its members. If a country doesn't wish to comply then there is nothing the UN can do to make it comply, other than what member states volunteer to do. That being said, I would say that even though there is no true international government, all the international governing bodies such as the UN, NATO and other such bodies are important places for the US to show leadership. It appears that President Bush has just started his international political campaign to get foreign countries on board to support enforcement of the UN's resolution to destroy weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Since September 11, the government and a majority of US citizens have come to the conclusion that we must be proactive in fighting terrorism around the world to prevent future terrorist acts against us. The Bush administration has interpreted this to mean that we should use our leverage to enforce the elimination of WOMD in Iraq. Even our usually flaky regional friends in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and some other Arab states must agree on some level with the goals of Bush's administration because they are allowing the US to use their bases for the next campaign against Iraq even while they publicly urge caution.
Tripack - I think we actually agree - the UN is vastly inefficient and ineffectual - what I meant was that it's the only thing available for global negotiations on that scale. It sucks, but that's all there is for now.
Madison (and others seeking evidence): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2277352.stm TF2000, you may want to read the part about Ms. Short since you quoted her at great length in a previous post. But I'm not holding my breath since you easily discard anyone and anything that doesn't support your beliefs and cling to only those that do. The dossier will be published at 0700 GMT at http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1.asp -------------------- As a side note please refrain from posting previous messages wholesale. If you have something new to add post away but there is not use in repeating what you've said over and over again. Thanks.
US President George Bush has said it would be a resolution "to disarm Saddam Hussein... before he threatens civilisation". http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020923/ap_on_re_us/gore_iraq_5 "After Sept. 11, we had enormous sympathy, goodwill and support around the world," Gore said Monday. "We've squandered that, and in one year we've replaced that with fear, anxiety and uncertainty, not at what the terrorists are going to do but at what we are going to do." What do you think of al gore speech is it a good one or you prefer the one made by the stupid and idiot cow boy...
You know that if it was a democracy based on the number of votes then It would have been Gore president but Bush was elected with a negative gap of 1 million vote
Two hundred thirty-nine thousand children 5 years old and under. That is the latest -- and most conservative -- independent estimate of the number of Iraqi children who have died of malnutrition, wasting and dysentery since sanctions were imposed at the behest of the United States and Great Britain in 1990. "We need to talk ugly: We are knowingly killing kids because the United States has an utterly unsophisticated foreign policy," Halliday says. "No matter how bad this bastard Saddam is, how can we justify that?
that Saddam is the one responsible... this guy is a guy from the UN he saw with his own eyes the crimes perpetrated by the US in Irak and he had the courage to say it and I am sorry that a guy like you basically an Iranian immigrant disregard the death of innocent civilians and say that they deserve it...
Let me get this straight. Are you telling me that Saddam Hussein is not responsible in any way whatsoever in the death of innocent Iraqis? Also when did I say they "deserved it". Please provide a quote or apologize for putting such vile words in my mouth.
Have you read what the UN officer wrote or not ????? Do you want me to publish for the nth time????? this guy is more aware than you me or the uggly cow boy of what happened in Irak and yes he said the US are responsible for the crimes of Iraki civilians not Saddam.... Do you understand english???