I remember hearing a fellow who said "you're either with us or against us". I can't seem to recall his name right now, but I do remember his oratory skills were not particularly well-developed, and neither were these dichotomies he offered which precluded the possibility that one might allow for shades of grey.

AS to the U.N., though, my opinion is to blow it up. It is little more than a soapbox for disfunctional, non democratic regimes to muscle their influence for combatting true democratic principles. In turn, any number of people who fall victim to the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum then give creedence to their pronouncements without so much as a single consideration of the nature of those making them.

To tell you the truth, I'm not really all that interested in allowing a representative from some illiberal totalitarian or theocratic regime influencing me, so it isn't a "conservative" view that the U.N. serves little purpose. Not unless those who represent societies living in the seventh century are to be considered "liberal" for all their backwardness when it comes to human rights.

__________________
I've had a perfectly wonderful evening......... but this wasn't it. -- Marx

I can go with that, but now if you consider the UN irrelevant how can you turn around and use UN resolutions to invade a country when the one bringing the resolutions are irrelevant?

E.Pluribus Unum

__________________
people of power have NO good will and people of good will have NO power.

I should have added that you are right about the hypocrisy. I agree thatthese are hypocritical positions to take. Most people just grab on to something that backs up their argument for the moment instaed of making sure they are being consistant.

I didn't support the war in Iraq, myself. I thought going in to Afghanistan was warranted, though.

__________________
I've had a perfectly wonderful evening......... but this wasn't it. -- Marx

You and I are in agreement.

E.Pluribus Unum

__________________
people of power have NO good will and people of good will have NO power.

Israel has about 200 nuclear weapons and by far the strongest military in the Middle East (after the U.S., of course). If they want strike capability, we should sell them a couple of mid-air refueling aircraft and that should be the extent of our involvement. Since when did the Israelis forget how to kick butt?

Bush will announce to the world that the US has achieved "victory" in Iraq at the end of July (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...ol-840512.html).

Yet another US declaration of "victory" in Iraq at the end of July - however hollow - will nevertheless ensure the 'green light' is given to the US middle-east proxy, Israel, to attack Iran probably in either August or September, despite the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that Iran is any more of a threat to Israel or the US than Iraq was. Expect the US to ratchet up the anti-Iranian propaganda in the coming weeks and months, in a similar way to that fashioned against Iraq as the conflict draws closer.

Watch this space.

Lackluster, the UN isn't about giving non-democratic regimes authority over democratic regimes, as you seem to think it is. First of all, the US is not the only democratic country in the world. There are quite a few others, some with arguably better functioning democracies than that of the US. There are also a whole lot of illiberal, authoritarian and backward regimes too. The point here is that though these regimes may be illiberal, they still represent millions of human beings.

The UN is the only real structure we have that can bring together everyone under the sun to dialogue. It may not work very well when a personalistic and brutal leader decides to throw a spanner in the works (or when a distant superpower decides to ignore it), but it's still the best the human race has got.

The UN never claimed to be a world government, or an effective world sanctioning board, and given the tiny amount of powers it has, it is unfair to judge it by these expectations. It is a forum for discussion and debate, and these things CAN and DO help.

So don't bomb the UN, just look at it another way.

__________________
it is a mistake to throw out the language of equal worth because of its contingent historical association with Western power.

Does anyone care to point out that many of these "illiberal" and "totalitarian" governments are supported by us and our tax dollars?

What do you mean, through the UN?

__________________
it is a mistake to throw out the language of equal worth because of its contingent historical association with Western power.