MunchinMark
You int seen me, right?
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2000
- Posts
- 6,148
Actually there is a point there about the UN. And to my surprise, President Bush referred to it in his speech the other day. The idea is that the UN has the ability to use sanctions and force to enforce its resolutions. At the present time everybody, including the security council prefer appeasement to armed force and sanctions do not seem very effective.
Of course I am not saying that gung-ho militancy is a good thing. Even amongst the strong feelings here a year ago I advised caution rather than bombing. But the UN is starting to appear frighteningly like the League of Nations, its predecessor which failed to avert another world war.
And Bush referred to that possibility by saying that America would pursue its goals on its own if need be.
If UN resolutions are not enforced then the UN will fail and there will be a big war. So it is not hypocritical, it is vital.
Of course I am not saying that gung-ho militancy is a good thing. Even amongst the strong feelings here a year ago I advised caution rather than bombing. But the UN is starting to appear frighteningly like the League of Nations, its predecessor which failed to avert another world war.
And Bush referred to that possibility by saying that America would pursue its goals on its own if need be.
If UN resolutions are not enforced then the UN will fail and there will be a big war. So it is not hypocritical, it is vital.

