Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (160181)	3/9/2006 3:01:21 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793888

The USA would be the greatest beneficiary of a good international system and the USA with only 4% of the world's population has a good opportunity to lead the world in a sensible reconstitution. Sorry, Mq. It will never work now. It's just too riddled with defects that cannot be fixed. The votes to fix it belong to the countries that don't want it fixed. We can't get rid of it, but we can go beyond it. And we will.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (160181)	3/9/2006 6:18:06 AM
From: JDN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793888

Sorry, but we will have to agree to disagree on this one. To me, and I believe many Americans like myself, the UN has become a corrupt barrel of spoiled fish with its purpose to have the HAVE NOTS get as much as they can out of the HAVES without any of them making a contribution to world peace or any other purposeful event. jdn

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (160181)	3/9/2006 11:11:56 AM
From: ManyMoose	Respond to of 793888

Suppose everyone agreed that replacing the UN with an improved model would be a sensible idea: Why is it the USA's responsibility to lead? Why would the rest of the world accept USA leadership this time around? Why not NZ or a coalition of similar countries? I mean, the USA is not any less of a 500 pound gorilla now than it was the first time around, and everything the USA does is just going to squash the little critters it shares the cage with. How about the little guys coming up with a solution, and let the USA approve (or disapprove of it if it sucks)?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (160181)	3/9/2006 1:00:53 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793888

We do support international organizations for countries that have an international interest, see, e.g., G8. And we support regional organizations for countries with regional interests, see, e.g., ASEAN. And we support international organizations that actually have international work to do, even through the UN, see, e.g., WHO. But (picking at random) Zimbabwe doesn't have much in the way of international interests, and (again picking at random), Chile doesn't have much to tell Zimbabwe about its personal interests. At least, not yet.