Please re-read my post and see if you can help me see where I said that the veto was inherently bad. I think Chirac's use of the veto threat was bad. If one has a veto, and one says "no matter what you say, I will veto" that tends to end debate.
I sort of do agree with Wolf that giving France the veto is indicative of the structural problems that the UN has. Germany is a much more meaningful economy, yet doesn't have a veto. Are we still fighting WW II? But I think the UN's problems are so great that this one doesn't bear worrying about.
Are you forgetting that a group of media organizations (I don't remember them all, but the Miami Herald was one) joined together and spent over a million dollars to finish the count? The final tally indicated that Bush's margin would have been bigger. Doesn't say much for Bush, just that voter's that couldn't follow directions voted for him, too. I won't quibble about the date that the court set. Might have been too soon. But I do believe the court had to set a date or we would still be arguing.
One of the main differences between Americans and Europeans is that a large number here have less patience for long solutions, bureaucracy, and inactivity. Before I get slammed, please understand that I could argue either way for how that impacts quality of life. But for better or worse, we tend to be an impatient people. In commerce that tends to be a good thing, in diplomacy it is occasionally a bad thing. Silicon Valley is in the US. Our president decided 11 years was too long to wait, and most Americans agree, and most Europeans disagree. Maybe we could resurrect Soloman.
I still think the thread is interesting because it highlights many of those differences. I also think we may take ourselves too seriously.
Previous Topic
Index
