Also, precisely because it is a "lowest common denominator" organization, many of its positions are filled based on national quotas and political deals. Not competency. And given that there are a great many nations completely incapable of running their internal affairs competently, we get the same level of incompetence infecting much of the U.N.. Nobody is saying we should go it alone. But the choice isn't either "the U.N." or "go it alone". A much better option is multilateral engagements that bring together countries that share our same basic values. Certainly, if there's enough of a consensus for the U.N. to act, you long ago had enough consensus for constructive multilateral action. I was trying to convince Necro of the eternal principles that foster Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. These are the things for which we should be seeking in arriving at consensus. Anything less than these (China, North Korea, Iran, et al) would establish an "entangling [political] alliances" with virtual enemies. The last I knew, that was called treason. Notwithstanding, I believe even trade with such nations will prove to be a big mistake in time.
I applaud and even salute your highly persuasive and reasonable response Sir.
Arrowhead>>>-------> X Grunt & Cannoncocker
Thanks. To me, the best illustration of the U.N.'s flaws is to assume its existence in WWII. Based on the "lowest common denominator" rule that dominates the body, the U.N. would have been powerless and voiceless in the face of Nazi aggression, especially if you tweak it a bit and have a nation like Germany on the Security Counsel. But even as it is, you would have had a veto-wielding Soviet Union stamping out criticism of the dismemberment of Poland, and maybe even the genocide of jews.