Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: KLP who wrote (103209)	6/28/2003 4:09:26 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) of 281500

As you mentioned, they have no standing armed forces of their own...they only are as good as the member nations. I should add that I have no desire to see the UN possess standing armies of its own. I'm not ready to see the UN become a Federation, rather than the current Confederation it is seeking to become. My bottom line is that if they don't want to create such current crisis as we have had over the past year, then don't enact these binding resolutions. Make those who oppose them step up to the plate and publicly vote against them. The way I look at it is this... If the UN bothers to pass a binding resolution, we'd better ensure it gets carried out lest the credibility of the institution utterly collapse into the debating club you and I fear. There's wiggle room on non-binding resolutions, such as those currently in place in the Palestinian/Arab-Israeli conflicts. But they are not binding so we cannot justify military force. But if the UNSC issues a binding resolution, it had better back it up with a solid front, even if they voted against it. Hawk

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next