[Systemz]

My question, Blanco, is which reality we're talking about - because apparently the United States seems to differ from other countries on their attempts to make the UN "see reality". The reality of the situation from where I'm standing seems to be an attempt by the Bush Government to begin a process of preemptive attacks. Last time I checked the UN and NATO were founded on the concept of collective security - that's why we're in this big ol' commonwealth together, why Iraq gets a seat in the General Assembly, and why the countries of the third world get any say at all these days.

So, if Iraq isn't jockeying for territory, supplying weapons to Al Queda or starting a Lord of the Dance revival, I say leave well enough alone. If the US can't stand it, send a few CIA agents into the North to stir up the Kurds.

Undoubtedly, Blanco, you've got a point about the UN being outdated. It's fundamental concepts are sound, I feel - and I think that you and I would agree that a world government is just about the last thing we need on this planet. But the UN is hamstrung by both its inability to pay for itself due to a lack of capital and by its reliance on major players (namely the G8) to pony up the dough to help them enforce and establish law. When a country like the states endorses and respects the legitimacy of the UN (as they did in the early 1990s) the system works pretty good. But when the US chooses to disregard their commitments and obligations to the UN they're playing the role of the spoiled child who picks up their ball and goes home. If the USA would commit itself to attempting changes to the UN system to make it "updated", that would be nice. What would be even better is if the USA realized that its big-stick attitude makes it a target for marginalized groups - and heaven help the USA if it marginalizes the rest of the planet.