Quote:
|
Originally Posted by grandpaw7 It's not a question of whether there should be increased international control of what goes on internally in the U.S., or any other nation. That is happening and will increase. The only question is how fairly and equitably will that control be exercised and who will exercise it? There are a multitude of international bodies which exert great influence internally, and that influence will continue to increase. It isn't a question of whether the U.N., but rather, if not the U.N., then who? The world will continue to get smaller and flatter a la Thomas Friedman, and we will continue to become increasingly more dependent on what happens “over there”. The real issue is: How can we keep the gangsters from calling the shots? It makes sense to debate whether or how to reform or replace the U.N., but it is whistling in the dark to debate whether there should be an international organization such as the U.N. There are already a number of them and they ain’t going anywhere but up. You might as well debate whether or not we should remain a federation or go back to individual, sovereign states. |
Personally I think we should stay in individual ,sovereign states. And, look at each other
in telescopes and wonder what goes on in the other lands. We could live in fear of each
other instead of a one-world-order kind of thing.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/greel...t-greel16.html