Discussions re the impotence of UN and the need for US with its retinue
of NATO, should lead one to the obvious historical conclusion: US
capitalism wants to extend its quasi-fascist hegemony into Central
Europe, and later again into Asia etc.

Regarding central Europe it should be remembered this is a long time
capitalist goal; Churchill (God rest his soul?) proposed after the
Russians had beaten the German army and the duo US and UK were considering
invasion: "invade through the soft underbelly of Europe--the Balkans"

Clinton, freed from his porno show activities has tried to do that.
Russia ever on the defensive, however stands in the way.  We'll see.
wcm
>
> Marques, Jorge writes:
> > Indeed. So let me see if I follow this argument:
> >
> > 1. The UN is ineffective because it can't make quick decisions,
>
> No, one reason the UN is ineffective is because it can't make a quick
> decision when a quick decision is required.  Another reason is that it
> often can't make the choice that the overwhelming majority wants
> because a single nation, usually the US vetoes it.
>
> > when it can make decisions at all given the 5 vetoes, plus it does
> > not wield the authority (read: military violence) to enforce its
> > decisions.
>
> No, read: military violence when military violence is the remaining
> choice.  Read: economic force when that is appropriate.  Read:
> enforcement of the rules, however you propose to do it, but if you
> refuse to solve the problem of enforcement, NATO type structures will
> be created to solve the problem for you, whether or not you agree
> there even is a problem, and whether or not you want to enforce the
> rules.  You can complain speak out righteously until you are blue in
> the face, and it is not going to change.
>
> > However, this model ensures that the UN cannot easily be
> > dominated by a single country or even a group of countries.
>
> No, it does not do that.  The UN is dominated by a single country, the
> US.  It is stopped whenever it attempts to be effective.  Sometimes
> the USSR stopped it.
>
> > 2. The NATO model is much better because it can make quicker
> > decisions, plus is willing to back them up with authority (read:
> > military violence), despite the fact that it can easily be dominated
> > by a single country and the fact that it is willing to act outside
> > its charter.
>
> NATO is dominated by a single country because the other members
> welcome the leadership and resources that country provides, and
> because the membership believes the organization solves the problem it
> was created to solve.  It is effective because it can make a decision
> and then enforce it.  If you don't want to judge success that way,
> then what is your standard?  Do you mean the UN is successful because
> the majority of members had good intentions, even though they were
> blocked from implementing them by a US veto?  Wouldn't you rather the
> UN accomplished what its members want to accomplish so you wouldn't
> have to be a perennial self-righteous critic of the US?
>
> > 3. A single individual, such as me, would be an even better way to
> > ensure world security (as defined by me, of course), except for the
> > simple fact that I do not have the authority (read: capability for
> > military violence) or the power to enforce my decisions. Other than
> > that, this would be the best choice.
>
> No, a single individual would not be better.  A structure with a
> clear, efficient decision making process, where the decision of the
> majority could not be overridden by a single member's veto, and which
> has the will and the resources to follow through on its decision, is
> the best structure.  It also requires a world court that has the final
> say about what the law means.  Its decisions must also be enforcable,
> so the structure must have that authority as well.
>
> Now figure out how to do it.  Whatever structure you come up with must
> take into account that there are evil people in the world.  There are
> elite groups in the world.  There are seekers after power.  They
> aren't about to just down tools and walk naked into the forest because
> you want everybody to live in peace.
>
> martin
>
> Martin Smith                    Email: [log in to unmask]
> P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet       Tel. : +47 330 35700
> N-3194 HORTEN, Norway           Fax. : +47 330 35701
>