Do You think the UN is Dead after the United States invaded Iraq?

[Dead]

Check out Stormfront.org, a major racist site. Far more people on that site love Bush and hate Democrats and their programs than the converse. The only position that these racists have that might be considered liberal is their opposition to the war. But they don't oppose it for liberal reasons, they oppose it because they hate Jews and think that the war benefits Israel. They still hate immigrants and harbor the same kinds of feelings that a lot of Republicans do.

There are lots of good Republicans, don't get me wrong. People like Bill Cohen and Lincoln Chafee are good Republicans. They are just overshadowed by the Santorums, Lotts, and Falwells.

[Cyrus]

1. Every world power has always used international organisations to promote its interests.

2. The United Nations is an international organisation, ostensibly set up to promote peace, world diplomacy, establishment of rules governing relations between countries (and enforcement of such rules), the end of colonialism, and other such good deeds. However, such objectives, more often than not, run smack against the interests od world powers!

3. The UN's actions are dictated by the Security Council. The Permanent Members of the SC have veto power.

4. The UN succeeds and fails in its missions precisely as its SC succeeds and fails in 'em. As the SC Members go, so does the SC. And so does the United Nations. (General Assembly decisions make for excellent wall paper!)

5. There has been no case, historically, so far, whereby a world power suffered in a matter of its national security as a result of a decision (or, heaven forbid, action) taken by the United Nations. And that goes particularly so for the United States!

6. The UN has been used by the United States a lot of times, in order to steer policy towards American interests (not related to national security but, rather, to economic interests).

7. The United States has ignored, sabotaged or acted against United Nations decisions many time in the past, without having been "punished" for it, at all. (This includes decisions taken by organisations associated with the UN, eg UNESCO.)

8. The United States now stands heads and shoulders (and then some) above the other countries of this planet. It is to be expected that the US no longer feels the need for such "anachronistic" set-ups as the United Nations and is looking for alternatives, eg "coalitions of the willing", "the camp of democracies", etc. In other words, the US is looking for a "legitimate" way to form a world organisation set up "among equals" whereby it will be more equal than the others.

But

9. Trying to set up a world organisation (which will include the United States) on the basis of rules and, at the same time, establishing that the United States will not be binded by those rules, is a self-defeating enterprise.

[jaxmike]

im sorry, you have a klansman in the senate, his name is byrd, next question moron.

[jaxmike]

your argument is nonsense. just because some group who is racist supports republicans doesnt mean republicans. thats like me calling you personally racist because your party is the party of racism.