Well...even a bad institution can have good resolutions. I think we along with the Brits drafted the original...but don't quote me on that. Thus, it's only natural we follow a resolution we draft.
The U.N. is not without it's purpose...remember keep your enemies close? To the extent that it functions as a conduit in relaying a message to the nations of the world...it may be have usefulness. It's a matter of prospective. The U.N. has it's place, but we should always act in "our" best interests as a soveriegn nation state.
A point John Kerry knew, or cared, little about...he should have remembered George Washinton's farewell address.
I wasn't criticizing the resolution itself. I was criticizing the legitimacy that it confers on the UN when it's stated, as Bush said very clearly to the General Assembly during the run-up to the war, that UN resolutions must be enforced.
The U.N. is not without it's purpose...remember keep your enemies close?
I've heard that said before around here, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. The idea is that keeping them close means we can keep an eye on them, right? But that's assuming they'd consider it a disadvantage to themselves if we kept an eye on them. But if they did, then they wouldn't be there in the UN. So I don't know what it's really enabling us to do that we couldn't do otherwise.
To the extent that it functions as a conduit in relaying a message to the nations of the world...it may be have usefulness.
We can relay messages just fine without the UN. Nonetheless, if all it was was a diplomatic forum, with no kind of assumed legal powers, then I'd have no problem with it in principle.
A point John Kerry knew, or cared, little about...he should have remembered George Washinton's farewell address.
Well, true. I personally think both parties could stand to look it over from time to time.