🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug14.054736.29033@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>  Are you ever going to get your own account? 
>
>f > "Frank" (Robin Collins)
>
>f > [I]f the UN is to be a "civilized body", then perhaps it should first be
>f > democratic, in terms of national representation (if not population
>f > representation). How can one state on the Security Council over-rule the
>f > views of 150+ in the General Assembly and the SC still be civilized?
>
>  Oh, I don't know, perhaps the same principle that allows one individual to
>  overrule the desires of a lynch mob. It's called individual rights. Now,
>  it doesn't generally apply to whole nations, but I have no problem at all
>  with one state having the power to override the wishes of many others.

                           

Please explain how are "individual rights" defended by  one country 
(the US) or a handful of countries (the security council) dictating
what the rest of the world can do?  It is not surprising that you "have no
problem" with the dictate of one country, but the question is how you can
claim that this dictate is in any sense democratic.




>f > I do insist on democracy at the UN and have seen very little of it. Do
>f > you fear abolishing the veto? 
>
>  No, I'd rather the UN go away entirely. Proto-governments are almost as
>  bad as governments.


I'm sure you would rather have an international forum disappear than
have the rule of one country or an elite group of them get away with
anything they want without criticism.

But the question really is whether you claimed the massacre in the Gulf
was an international action because the "UN" authorized it or whether
you agreed that the General Assembly never had any input into the military
slaughter than followed the over-riding of sanctions. 
Do you remember where you stood that far back?

Frank.