Nonsensical comments, abuse, baiting, ranting and leftist stupidity will not be tolerated.
"President Bush's Iraq war policy was bitterly opposed by two leading democracies, France and Germany,"
Name something that the US has ever done - except liberate French butts, feed, rebuild and democratize Germany, while keeping the Red Army for 60 plus years out of both countries that France and Germany have not opposed?
The UN is the most corrupt,ineffectual and anti-American body on this planet and the American taxpayers should refuse to fund any of it.
I'm not clear on the details of McCain's plan, but I love it in principle. Increasing democracy in the world is our best chance at peace. I would add two observations about such an organization...
1) I wouldn't assume it would be US-centric. That would be a big mistake. If anything an assembly of peer democratic nations would help the US become MORE democratic, not rubber-stamp invasions & such.
2) I would also greatly limit the scope of such an organization...no standing army and a very limited budget. There's a LOT that can be done in the world to encourage the growth of democracy that would NOT include invasions. Iraq is an example of how NOT to spread democracy.
I have my own vision of how such an organization would look...
http://www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org
Any feedback is welcome...
gary
Gary, it would still be better than the UN, but any group of nations will be more cumbersome and inert than any one (democratic) power taking the lead and acting alone.
I can live with cumbersome...
gary
A whole lot of Sudanese and Rwandans couldn't.
Gary it sounds like a good idea-anything would be better than the UN as it now exists.The biggest problem with today's UN is the one vote system where Lower Slobovia with no army and no financial contributions to the UN, has the same vote power as any other nation.
Rotating the HQ say in India or any other third world nation would be a real problem security wise, as it would undoubtably be the #1 target for every enemy that crossed swords with this UDN, and no third world country could provide the level of security that would be found in New York.
Why don't you send your proposal to the non-leftist columnists at the WAPO?
It's certainly an idea whose time has come. The UN couldn't be more of a joke if they did "stand up".
I suspect we're entering an age where New York is no safer than any other city in the world. Nuclear bombs are just too easy to get and set off. All the more reason we need to minimize the degree to which people who might do such a thing would have legitimate grievances. Obviously there will always be fanatics, but it's naive to assume that bad foreign policy doesn't encourage more of them. So I'm still for rotating the headquarters. I don't think any one member should have the appearance of owning the show. Honestly, moving the headquarters out into the middle of a desert somewhere will be much more secure than NY anyway.
I would prefer complete democracy down to the one vote per person, even in global politics, but as an interim measure I'm fine with one vote per member. It definitely shouldn't be a function of money or military size. That only encourages proliferation of weapons and the notion that "might makes right", which is not a recipe for world peace.
I'm particularly annoyed with how the UN's security council functions. France is 20th in population and holds a seat in the UN's powerful Security Council, including permanent veto authority. India is the 2nd most populous nation, yet has no such position. What message does that send to the Indians? Or even the Chinese people? it's a very unambiguous message to the world that democracy doesn't matter.
gary
" I suspect we're entering an age where New York is no safer than any other city in the world. Nuclear bombs are just too easy to get and set off."
Gary nuclear bombs are NOT easy to get and set off, and to say that NY with it's massive security is no safer than any other city in the world is frankly ridiculous.
If said nukes were so easy to get and set off, why havent America's many enemies already done so?
Gary coming out with statements like those detracts from the valid points of your proposal.
kman,
Do you really believe that advances in technology, combined with nuclear proliferation in nations like North Korea isn't going to make nuclear attacks easier for terrorists to pull off? Your confidence in law enforcement is clearly much greater than mine.
gary
Gary -yes nuclear proliferation in nations like North Korea are going to make nuclear attacks easier,but that's not what you said... "Nuclear bombs are just too easy to get and set off."
Once again- Nukes are not easy to get and set off, and since 9/11 and going on 7 years, there has not been a single successful terrorist attack on the USA although there have been numerous attempts. So,yes I do have confidence in law enforcement,but having said that,the chances are that one day there will be a successful terrorist attack in America.
The point we were debating was that third world countries are apt to be much more at risk for any UDN HQ to be located there than NY City.The fact that you can't understand this, and the fact that you twist my comments just further damages your cred. which ultimately will hurt you more than conceding a very obvious point.
kman,
I stand by my statement...nuclear bombs are WAY too easy to set off. The technology is primitive, the only challenge being to acquire the material. Even a government as incompetent as North Korea can pull it off. We've been lucky so far. Law enforcement is as incompetent as the terrorists. And as you say, our luck WILL run out.
New York is a very crowded place. At any given moment there are thousands of trucks driving through town. Any one of those trucks could contain a nuclear weapon and we'd never see it coming. So why add unnecessary risk to the equation? Why not build the headquarters out in a remote location where you can much more easily monitor the traffic? It just doesn't make sense to pick NY of all places for a high profile target. Do you really disagree with this logic?
As for third world countries, they tend to have plenty of remote locations as well. And my argument goes beyond just selection of a location based on safety. It's also important for no one nation to "own" the process. There are countries that see the UN as a tool of the United States. Rotating the headquarters would nulify this issue, and spread the maintenance cost around, which is only fair.
gary
Gary, sorry I can't deal with your reasoning - it makes absolutely no sense at all to me.
Sorry I couldn't do a better job...
gary
Geez I feel bad now - I did not mean to hurt your feelings.
As for easy to set off. It's not the "setting off" that's the problem-it's getting the nuke to where it has to be set off.
The thing is Gary why would any terrorist group drive a truck with an atomic device through NYC to blow up a building, risking discovery all the while from the radiation detecting devices all around the city? And first said nuke would have to be landed in the US and pass through many port checkpoints etc. that are there just for that very possability.
If terrorists did posess a nuke the most logical and easier scenario for a terrorist attack would be from a freighter in the harbour and take out just about the whole city-why waste time on a single building?
al-Quida was reported years ago to own 27 frieghters, and I am sure with ME oil country money,this fleet would have grown considerably.
And Gary believe me a building in heavily fortified NYC is much safer than one sitting in the country side back of Bombay or Delhi.
I agree that the harbor approach is a likely one. But even though a lot of work has gone into detection of nuclear weapons, it appears your faith in our government is greater than my own. Given how incompetent our government has shown itself to me prior to 9/11, it simply defies logic that the situation is that much different today.
> why waste time on a single building?
Precedent?
gary
" Given how incompetent our government has shown itself to me prior to 9/11, it simply defies logic that the situation is that much different today."
There is a mammoth difference in the attitude and preparedness of the government pre and post 9/11.And I reiterate -how many successful terrorists attacks have there been in the US since 2001? And I don't believe any government in the world could do better.
And why would terrorists waste a nuke worth tens of millions on a single building, when a truckload of fertilizer would do the job almost as well without a fraction of the risk of importing and transporting a nuke?
That's it for me though Gary - if you can't see the logic in this then there is no point in continuing.
Good point...if you build it in the city, you don't even need a nuke. You can take out the new building with fertilizer. This also argues for building it outside of town where you have greater control.
Arguing that giving terrorists close proximity to a possible target makes no difference simply flies in the face of logic.
gary
Commenting by HaloScan
