On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 14:58:08 -0500, Brice Yokem <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Rather, what it shrieks to those who choose to hear is that the
>reason the UN remains ineffective is that it possesses no
>independent means of enforcing the laws which the states of the
>world have formulated and agreed to abide by, but whose rulers
>refrain from upholding when inconvenient for themselves.  This is
>an ancient conflict of interest which is, if not intractable, is at
>the very best only amenable to slow and incremental resolution.
>
>-----------------------
>
>What makes you think that if the UN had the enforcement power you
>suggest, that anthing would be better?  What would prevent any country
>with enough influence from seeing the laws selectively enforced?

Isn't that, what this administrations is currently doing?



>I certianly do not want to see an organization as corrupt as the UN
>has been shown to be having any enforcement authority at all.  I do not
>want representatives from dictatorships or communist countries having
>any say over what happens in this country, or by inferance, having any
>say about what happens in any country where there is consent of the
>governed.

Isn't exactly that what GWB is doing?
Trying to say what happens in Iraq?
He puts crooks like Chalabi into the goverment or Allawi gets appointed 
with less than 10% in the vote.
Chalabi was one of the main information-suppliers of GWB.
He wasn't in the country for decades prior to the war.
He's a liar and story-teller and wanted in Jordan for fraud.
Of course GWB, how goes so much by the law, doesn't send him there.

So, who is a prime example of corruptness?

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *