Quote:
Originally posted by Moiraine:
Timber, you may look at it with a lawyer's point of view, but you completely overlook all that the concept of "nation" represents. I'll say it again, a nation is a group of people sharing a unity of language, history and culture, a unity whose roots plunge deep in a centuries-old common experience of living together.
|
Moiraine, I get your meaning, but I do want to point out that under this definition the USA is not a nation.
As for the "next village = foreign" thing, well sure that's changed in 200 years. But our horizons have expanded exponentially in every other way during that time too.
Wellard: I was merely musing at a fair UN voting structure - one that would be acceptable if the UN ever becomes more "mandatory" like a "true" form of government. It's not "change the voting structure because we're losing" it's "think of how to make it fair." And, yes you're right, China and India would certainly become a HUGE voting block (in the portion of the body that voted that way), with all of the other G77 countries behind them.
As for the US "losing," you might want to check again. Go back and watch Kofi Anan speak and then Bush's following speech turn him on his head - from watchdog of the downtrodden to lazy bureaon in a lazy system that threatens for 12 years and never *does* anything, to the detriment of us all and in violation of its own rules and mandates.
The US has the absolute best lawyers on the planet. Since Reagan, every president has been able to (if he wanted) conceive what he wants and then send an army of lawyers and diplomats to the UN to make it so. The US wants, the US gets. It may take longer to sway the UN, but it will sway. I'm open to taking all bets on this one if you doubt me.
[ 03-03-2003, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]