Point taken. Granted, any and all such unions-of-nations will have serious defects. But is it entirely impossible that one such organization will suck less than another? I mean, one step in the right direction would certainly be prohibiting dictatorships, oppressive theocracies, etc. from membership.
I dunno, I guess I'm just grasping for any alternative to the current UN.
I dunno, I guess I'm just grasping for any alternative to the current UN.
posted by Matt | 12:13 PM
1 Comments:
The UN had originally banned dictatorships and other thugs... but have since been slowly and incrementally included due to multi-culturalism.
China is a great example. We can't judge them, you see, because we have white guilt. How can we tell them that mowing down their own (protesting) citizens is bad, when we enslaved people.
My own personal thought is that the ending of the play will never change as long as you have the same cast of performers. And since the cast isn't going to change, neither is the outcome.
You know--the old AA "insanity" remark. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I just don't see how this is any different.
Further, McCain is the biggest BS "compromiser" out there. And compromising does not equate to leadership. (Or so says M. Thatcher.)d
Post a Comment
<< Home