"The only thing the man respects is force or the credible threat of force. Anything else is meaningless."
No disagreement there, basically. Not relevant to whether or not the attempt to consensus is or is not a decent and intelligent policy, however.
"Gimme a break. The world survived a long time without it and will survive its demise"
Nobody knows the future. Intelligent people ought not to leave their future to absolute chance. They ought to think. The point is that the UN militates against fragmentation of the world. I have not said that consensus must always prevail; but it is important that the forum and the process is there.
"And about 1/2 % of world population.
You've got a tough row to hoe"
Yeah...:-) If we DO have 1/2 % of the world population (and 1 out of 200 seems high to me), then YOU must have almost 4 % of the world's population? Not a great basis for arrogance, IMO!!
"What has suicide got to do with this?"
It was a long range point. Don't worry about it.
"Saddam has been thumbing his nose at your "discussion" for 12 years"
The discussion the Security Counsel was discussing over the last few months was what was the best way to deal with such an enemy to humanity. If people can work together with a common efort it will be a far better solution than if the coalition is fragmented.
"Cut the crap. That's what that is. We're talking about EUROPE now, not Canada. EUROPE has a population and economy fairly comparable to that of the US. And it sat there and dithered for YEARS while the Balkans burned"
Now do you undestand? Europe was/is not an empire. It is a collection of frightened nations surrounded by intrigue and continual danger (from amongst others, the long arm of the US).
"Europe sat there for YEARS and watched a civil war ravage the Balkans without lifting a finger until the US got involved. Some example of "peacekeeping" they set. Civil wars and wars have raged in Africa and the UN acted like it was in a coma.""
It is all very complicated, but fair comment. One wrong doesn't cancel out two rights, in any case. The unification of Nations is allowing us to "interfere" in genocide and other wars, which when done independently would be simple aggression and a temptation to pillage, land grabbing, and such.
It may be necessary to act preemptively with Iraq. But such aggression would cause much less world strife if it were done as a world exercise expressing the will of the world community.
"The French and Germans have put NATO at risk"
Surely. They speak with a lot of logic. And their arguments are sensible to many Americans--probably to many of your friends...and to many people outside of America.
Intelligent people learn to invite and evaluate feedback from others before they assume that their own answer is the best that can be come up with.
In the end the US will do what it thinks is in its best interests. I see nothing wrong with them talking and thinking before acting. In hindsight we can all regret those times in our lives when we knew it all and acted without thinking or evaluating feedback.
"Their refusal to allow preparation for the defense of Turkey, a NATO member, was outrageous"
It was a political maneuver. Turkey is not being attacked. |
