thjs,
I enjoyed reading your post. I do have a question. You state: Whom do you refer to as our our European and Arab friends ? What countries specifically?

Why do you believe that it will be a healing gesture? And in what ways can it heal the breach between these nations when some hold diametrically opposed values? How can they reach concensus?

Thank you.

Wolf,
I am beginning to agree with your view on the United Nations. I became increasingly concerned with the United Nation's more radical view of appeasement. I was particularly concerned when they kicked the United States out of the Human Rights Commission, yet left Sudan, a government that promotes slavery, not to mention Cuba, Fidel just gave a dissident a 27 year prison sentence for having in his possession Johnson's book Who moved my cheese?,not to mention Syria, and Lybia, Lybia heads the commission.

The questions for me are: Is the U.N. a significant body anymore? Or has its significance been diminished over time? Or has it deminished since the end of the Cold War?
Is it trying to accomplish more than it is possible or reasonable to accomplish? Do all countries hold the same universal values?

I believe that there is a role for this body, such as UNESCO, etc., but I'm not sure that it is a body that we can reach concensus anymore.
What do you think?

I have enjoyed reading most of the posts in this thread, (both sides) and now that it is almost run out, I thought I would add my random thoughts.

In the beginning the US was accused of doing it for money. I keep waiting for someone to comment on the financial reasons for France and Russia's position.

As a Tennessean, I would like to point out that had Gore been able to carry the state he claimed as home, Florida wouldn't have been an issue. Also, there is a reason the American consititution let's the electoral college elect the President. It's the same reason we have a Senate -- to let the less populous states have a say in our government. Works, too.

(BTW, most Tennesseans believe both Bush and Gore won their respective home states --Texas and DC)

It would help a lot if both European and US citizens made more of an effort to understand the relevant geopolitical differences. Some key issues:

Ethnic diversity
Population Density
Infrastructure diferences
Bureaucratic structures
Immigration policies
Legal foundations
History
Educational differences

The United Nations lost relevance when France said "no matter what you say, we will veto." How can there be discourse after that?

France, particularly, is trying to reinforce its destruction of the UN by demanding that it play the lead role in rebuilding Iraq. It's record in that role is dismal -- even worse than the US's. Compare Panama and Haiti. Consider Ruwanda, (or almost anywhere else in Africa), Bosnia, ...

The book Bias, by Bernard Goldberg, (a self proclaimed liberal, NY Jew) pretty well documents the liberal media bias and the reasons for it.

Anyway, both sides had good moments, but from my (biased) viewpoint, there was too much unsubstantiated America bashing, and way too much Bush bashing.

ernesto

Hi, ebatancourt,

People have been commenting on it ad nauseam.

The 2000 election wasn't determined by the Electoral Congress. It was determined by a court in the name of expediency, to get the election over with. That's not the way it's supposed to work. Judging from some of the rhetoric coming out of Africa, the 2000 American election has alarmingly weakened the cause of democracy in places where government structures are in flux. The promoters of democracy have always pointed to the U.S. as a role model. After what many outside the U.S. perceive as a "stolen" election, people are saying, "If even America can't get it right, why should we think democracy will work here?" Regardless of what did or didn't happen in the 2000 elections, that perception is doing damage.

The permanent members' right to veto is as basic to the United Nations' structure as the Electoral Congress is to the United States' structure. The founding members of the UN, including the U.S., agreed to this, just as the American states agreed to the Electoral College. The idea was that the collective voice of the UN would speak only when the permanent members were in agreement. Considering the disparate philosophies of the countries involved, it's a very wise doctrine, and one that the U.S. has taken advantage of by exercising its own veto power. It seems childish for the U.S. to cowrite the rules of the "game" and then complain any time they don't happen to work in America's favor.

el viajero,

Can you explain to me why France had taken the posture nearly a year ago, that the restrictions imposed by the UN against Iraq should be lifted, and now, since the overthrow of Hussein, become steadfast in their resolve to make sure the restrictions are kept in place? It's an ego trip, and theirs was bruised when the U.S. refused to kiss their sorry posteriors. If you're looking for "childish behavior," as you accuse the U.S. of being, you might take a look at the French first.

France is no longer a "super power." In fact, as a nation, they offer little or no significant value to the UN, EU, and NATO. Of course they haven't been of any appreciable value for over a century. They've been nothing more than a piece of real estate that keeps Spain from being an island.

Now that they no longer need the U.S. to keep their sorry arses safe, they turn on us, just like they do every other nation. If we're looking for "arrogance" in a nation, they are the poster boys of the issue.

If you take a look at the record, France is presently involved in three wars on the continent of Africa. Of course they don't get their hands dirty, they hire "mercenaries" to do the fighting. Of course I can understand that reasoning. The French are incapable of handling their own affairs.

I also wonder why a nation would go so far as to elect a President who was a member of the Vichy government so long ago. Apparently they need to cuddle up to the Germans again, because nobody loves them.

By the way. There's a town in Minnesota that used to be named French. They are changing their name to Freedom. I guess that speaks volumes about how most of us view France.

As for their being a "permanent member of the security council," that in itself makes the group a joke.

Wolf

"By the way. There's a town in Minnesota that used to be named French. They are changing their name to Freedom. I guess that speaks volumes about how most of us view France."
And your proud telling us this? Your proud of your promissed land
governeded by extremist cristians who are just as dangerous as Osama
and just as cruel as Saddam when it comes to the treatment of POWS?
Well good for you. Hope you sleep well at nigth. To the rest of America, most of you who are wonderfull imaginative people (You invented my Mac for starts) I send my love and ashure you that you will overcome this dark age of your history.
Totil. Reykjavik.Iceland.

totil,

If this is the Dark Ages here, than the rest of the world would benefit from the Dark Ages. By the way, what's the unemployment rate for Iceland?

Wolf,

I am currently reading Ayn Rand's "Philosophy: Who Needs It" which is a collection of her essays. In 1971, on page 212, Ms. Rand wrote:

"The terrible hoax of the United Nations has failed. Americans were never enthusiastic about that institution, but they gave it the benefit of the doubt for too long. The current polls, however, indicate that the majority have turned against the U.N. (better late than never)."

Parenthesis included by Ms. Rand. I only provide this quote to prove that America has a history of thinking of the U.N. as irrelevant. It is not, necessarily because they disagree with us about Iraq.

Unemployment rate. 3 % or something like that.
What is the relevance?

Come to think of unemployment in Reykjavik the only unemployed guys
I know are Spanish Universety students (funny coinsidence). This is due to a lack of temporal work here rigth now. Dont worry. We are working on it

O yea. And a pro-military English journalist guy with a drinking problem
and an Icelandic x-wife who wants him kicked out of the country for no good reason.
Maybe you have a uniform and a AK47 for him? He is a nice guy .
Maybe you could employ him and let him dig bombshelters in your backyard
or something?

Wolf wrote:

It doesn't matter why. The U.N. is a group effort. You make it sound like everyone has a moral obligation to do whatever the U.S. says, and that any lack of cooperation is suspect.

As opposed to all those "superpowers" that formed the bulk of our "coalition of the willing"?

That's what's nice about debating with some people. All you have to do is let them talk long enough and they'll spout bigoted, posturing garbage that discredits them without help from anyone else.