Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?Pres. Bush virtually spelled everything out.
...Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.
...If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.
The UN can choose: to "serve the purpose of its founding," or to become "irrelevant." Implicit here is that the U.N. will wither away if it becomes irrelevant, and why would we waste time, energy, money, or political capital on a counterproductive empty shell?
Pres. Bush calls this a "test." A test is something which one passes or fails. And failure is failure, with consequences.
The final paragraph I quoted connects the purpose of the U.N. with the great traditions of liberty and learning, concluding with the very interesting statement that "the
promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time." Notice that he does not say that the U.N. will fulfill this promise itself, only that the promise of the U.N. can be fulfilled. This is very carefully worded to be consistent with it not being the U.N., but a newly organized group, who will fulfill that promise.
Since you like to believe Bush spells out everything precisely,
I'd like you to explain this statement:
"The game is over"
What game? When did it end? What was the score?
I must have been watching the wrong game on the wrong channel.