What the UN needs is a standing army, including a rapid reaction force with a peacemaking capability and a streamlined decision making process, doing away with the security council. They need the will and the wherewithal to intervene anywhere in the world to secure and maintain peace, without waiting for permission.
I voted no because on the whole its better to have the current UN than not to, but it needs a hell of an overhaul
Ah but I’ve let the American’s use my drive as an airstrip and my pond as a naval base. Plus I’ve been kissing Bush’s backside nonstop for the last five years. They’re going to veto your veto and sabotage your emergency meeting.
Just seen your earlier edit. I am prepared to accept a cessation of accusations in the interests of regional security and harmony. Just as long as its clear that he started it.
UN is simply what we make it to be.<br>If you want to play the Saddam game then UN is not for you.<br>If you want to play the superpower game like Bush does, then UN is not for you either.<br>But without a strong UN, the geopolitical interests of the superpower will inadvertently be hurt in the end, unlike what the neoconservatives believe.