Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xaccers
Anyway, from the looks of things, Bliar decided to go to war long before it was made public, and just because he attempted to get a second resolution does not mean he hadn't already decided, despite what labour are claiming.
|
indeed, blatant Arse covering exercise, he went to the UN knowing full well he wouldn't get another Resolution, but because he attempted to get it made it look like he was pulling out all the stops.
He was going to go war anyway resolution or not, so it's non-issue.
Quote:
|
A lot of people criticise the US for being the "World Policeman" role, and that's fair enough. They don't always do good, or even, what's right. I have this really horrible feeling, that in about 10 years time, when China is the dominant super power, and the US, like the rest of the world, has to answer to them, then I think a lot of people, (well, me at least) will wish to go back to having the US as the lead.
|
That's a might powerful crystal ball you have there. If the US and China ever square up to each other. Assume the position.
Quote:
|
This is it, I believe we need a world policeman to keep dictators in check, but the problem with having one country in that role is that they'll do what's best for them rather than what's best for the world, that's why having an international organisation like the UN behind it would be better
|
Personally, I don't see what is wrong with dictatorship. Sometimes it works. Evil dictators fair enough. But we shouldn't be so bold as to think every state in the world should adopt democracy. Especially ours or the USAs version of democracy - which are probably the most undemocratic systems in the world.
The role of international peace keeping should and must stay with the UN. We cannot afford to have other countries "policing" other sovereign states