Comments on: It\’s Time To Bail

By: Kevin

Kevin — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 02:32:20 +0000

I still don’t see why we need ANY level of bureaucracy to accomplish all that.

“Facilitating communication”??? Tell you what, Thomas Edison already came up with a solution for that. And I bet most “mature democracies” are already wired to use it.

By: J. Ewing

J. Ewing — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 02:26:30 +0000

Quite so, but the idea itself does not require a large bureaucracy or a giant tombstone in NYC, either. I don’t know what Bush has in mind, but I suspect that it would be more like the “Security and Prosperity Partnership” between the US, Mexico and Canada so feared by the Ron Paul foil-hat crowd. It’s a tiny office “facilitating communications” on security and economic issues, not a policy organization or a place where votes are taken. The fact that only “mature” democracies could participate should make agreement easier to gain and minimize mischief-making. It could, for example, get a low-level agreement on how to deal with Iran without all the public uproar, and then present a united front with the individual countries’ military and economic might behind it.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:03:52 +0000

I would argue there isn’t a legitimate need for either the UN or a LoD.

Civilized nations can talk without the need for a complex bureaucracy.

By: J. Ewing

J. Ewing — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:56:36 +0000

You’ve got a heck of a good argument there, and examples of UN fecklessness, perfidy and bungling malfeasance are easy to find– look at anything they’ve done.

But just like voting for McCain, I claim it is very difficult to replace something with nothing. I would fully support Bush’s “league of democracies” if he could get it off the ground, and THEN we could stop “participating” in the UN in this sensible way– stop giving them money, and continue to hold our veto in the Security Council. This would tear them apart fairly quickly, and there would be the LOD to step in!