It is generally better for all states to consider each other equals. When two states consider themselves as equals, there is a greater likeihood for progress during negotiations. When a state approaches negotiations thinking it is superior, there will more disagreements and more conflicts.

__________________
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. " — John Stuart Mill

That is true up to a point. Sometimes we (meaning the United States) have to approach a country in such a way that it knows that we are in charge. I am no hawk (ask S-S), but we do have to take a somewhat condescending attitude towards Kim Jong Il, for example, or he will not take our demands seriously. In a side note to rockyreagan, the principles in the Bible were better followed by many Native American tribes than by the so-called Christians who conquered their lands. Westerners committed far worse atrocities than Native Americans in their conflict.

im worried more to south korea in the subject of kim jong il,because i dont belive that he will open a nuclear war,but i do belive that he will try to control south korea in many ways sence he is developing a military power that will someday over take south korea.

North Korea does a good job of standing up to the U.S. itself, as the U.S. and others try to appease them by supplying oil and relief. Thats why the U.N. works well for the most part, one state, one vote. All are equals.

__________________
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. " — John Stuart Mill

In my opinion, we should send them food and medical supplies- nothing more. I certainly don't support going to war with North Korea, but I think that the opinion of the United States, or Canada for that matter, ultimately counts for more than that of Kim Jong Il's government.

i certainly don't like jong ill..........even saddam treated his citizens better..........his country use consertration camps and labor camps(yup,just like the nazzis did),they kill in those camps thousands that oppose that regime,and enslave many others.they have no right for anything...if u thought the patriot act is bad,how about having no personnel life infront of ur goverment.i myself oppse EVERY communist regime. i realize that many countries need socializm in their early start so that the country can be stablize(example: america,israel(not socialist in a long time)) but only for the first years of the country,and only in a tiny use,but full time communsim is BAD!

The U.N. general assembly works in an atmosphere of equality (one state, one vote). Since so many people voted no, do some think that some countries should have more votes in the generally assembly?

In the security council, there are five countries, the United States, China, Russia, France and the U.K. that have veto power. Are these five states superior to others because they have more power?

__________________
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. " — John Stuart Mill

No, might doesn't make right; right makes might. The more ethically advanced a government is, the more power it should have. That stated, power brings responsibility. The United States, being a "superpower" has an obligation to raise the ethical standard in the world. I might add, however, that war seldom does this.

BTW

i was told that syria is in the security assembly...it it's true,what it's doing there?!

That is what happens, unfortunately, when all governments are treated as equal.