I think most EU citizens agree with Fernando on the death penalty, and for that reason I don't think you can say that the EU "dictates" capital punishment, but rather lets its citizen's view be reflected in legislation.

Let me make one thing clear to you Fernando, and anyone else reading this. If the UN was to leave New York City tonight, it would have little or no effect on one single American. They could move that farce to Madrid, Paris, or take it to h--l as far as we are concerned, and no American would miss it. It cost far more in US tax dollars, that could be far better spent, than we ever get back in return from it. The monetary value of it being in the US, to the US citizen is nil. Not one American would miss so much as one meal if it left tonight. To be rid of it would be nothing but an improvement on the NYC landscape.

As far as the EU is concerned it is a system that is doomed before it getts off the ground. Any agreement that has to take 325 pages is going to be so full of loopholes and special interest provisions that it cannot possibly pass the test of time.

It's a pitty it can't move to Madrid. I'm sure UN will be very welcomed here...

But DD, talking seriously, if UN didn't exist, another international forum would be necessary. Don't you think?

The problem with the EU Constitution is not the lenght (which makes it unreadable) but its content. It has been written by Valery Giscard D'Estaing, a chauvinist, corrupt and biased ex-president of France.

Fernando

Hi!

Are you sure? Not a single American?

In fact, the UN Facilities in NYC are probably the most famous ones; however, we do have UN Headquarters in Vienna (European Union) and as far as I'm concerned I've never heard any complaints about it.

http://www.unvienna.org

It is true tha the US pays for 22% of the UN Budget; It's also true that the US founded the UN after WWII and that it helped it to avoid Communism from spreading during the Cold War.

It is also true that the UN has been considered a huge advance in international policy as well as being one of the most powerful weaopns of Propaganda ever. It's been criticised by the USSR, China, some Arab nations including Irak and Iran, and lately the US Government. I find it contradictory, but I must admit that it hasn't dealt some issues properly in the last decade.

With regard to the EU constitution I'd like to say a couple of things. First, I voted Yes because I think that it's an important step for the EU. I know it's not as serious at it seems but I think that any law can be changed or improved at any time so why not changing the constitution if we don't like it now, or in 50 years.

The Spanish constitution (30 million people when it was written) has in comparison somehow a similar percentage of pages because we take into account both amendments and annexed articles. The EU "beta" (450 million people) follows the same pattern. Now, I'm not a lawyer but I know that no loophole is valid within a constitution since it's a "Carta Magna" List of Rights and Musts (I'm not sure if I'm using the correct terms, sorry about that), so what we would have to analyse is not the constitution but the law itself.

I do love my country and my meta-country too, the EU . And I think we're doing pretty well with the union process. Since the Roman Empire there has been nothing but wars and several tries to rejoin Europe unsuccesfully but now we've got another opportunity.

THE US DID NOT FOUND THE UN. The US was instumental in getting other countries to form the UN, after WWII. Frankly I don't know who's idea of a UN was. I do know the reason it is in NYC was to prevent an attack by the USSR. Long before the days of ICBMs. Now Russia is one of the biggest benifactors of the UN, and Putin could knock it out with the push of a button.

Fernando,

What in the world is having the biggest debt got to do with how much we waste on the U.N????? Desert Dweller is correct, for the benefits it provides ordinary U.S. citizens, I wish they would move it to Timbuktu or h__l. Then they could pass all the stupid environmental, CO2, or whatever you want to call them "accords" and leave us out of it, thank you very much. Let all the European doctors figure out which blonde animals can detect earthquakes.

As far as the death penalty. What nations do they use as a participants? The U.S. is very mixed as far as which states support it and which don't. You're free to have your opinion though. I would agree that any country whose justice system is purely arbitrary has no right instituting it.

Well, I really think the right to live is not a matter of opinion, and luckily the majority of europeans seem to agree with me.

As for the environment part, you really made me feel sick. Your **** affects the air I breathe, and that air you don't have the right to monopolize no matter how much you pay.

Sueco,

Justice is a derivative of the right to life. It's the people who are sentenced to death that are denying the right to life....Get it?

Yeah I get it: they don't have the right to but the government does? Besides, I think only the slight chance of someone innocent being sentenced to death makes it worth having the criminals sentenced to life instead. And we all know that's happened in the US.

Sueco,

Isn't that what a government is? What is the purpose of government if it isn't to abdicate our own personal use of force against someone who harms us? So, yes, the government has the right to use a commensurate amount of force against one of it's governed who would deny another this right. Seems simple to me. Denying a victim of a crime justice seems evil.

Oh, now I get your point, let's show criminals mercy, and to heck with the victims and justice. Great. I sure would want to live in Sweden if I were a criminal. Not so sure if I wasn't.

Yeah, I know MM. I'm getting way off-base.