Ironic.

[cornermouse]

Caller on c-span worried about NATO due to complaints he has heard about THEIR lack of equipment?

And by the way, what's with this we don't have enough soldiers to "span the globe?" Looks like Bush sort of "forgot" to tell us that in his SOTU.

[ComerPerro]

1. Same as all those conservatives who were so concerned with

the possible corruption in the UN, but didn't seem to give a damn about the rampant corruption and conflicts of interest in the Bush Administration.

[No Exit]

3. I think that's a holdover from the "get us out of the U.N.!" crap

we used to hear so much of.

"It's a threat to American sovereignty!" Blah blah blah.

To be honest, back when I fancied myself a "conservative", I assumed that the U.N. was bad (oh, that bad, bad U.N.!) because it cut into our "sovereignty" as a nation.

Well, we know that's all horseshit. In the last few years I have often been extremely thankful that there IS a U.N. This would happen whenever the U.N. sought to stop or limit some barbaric practice or proposition by * and his cronies. I would say to myself, "Thank GOD there's SOMEONE who has the power to question this bastard!" And of course * himself is one of the greatest threats to American sovereignty that I've ever seen.

The U.N. needs to be stronger, however.

In the olden days, in Europe, I guess the Pope served a similar purpose. It's hard to believe (after seeing how the Protestant revolution went) that the Pope and the Church ever actually served a really good purpose, but I think maybe they did sometimes serve as a check on various European tyrants. (But that was probably before that bit of trouble about the Inquisition.)

[ComerPerro]

4. Yeah. The right seems very keen on keeping the UN weak,

so that they can work to destroy it entirely.

It stands in the way of our empire.

But I agree with you. I would like to see a strong UN, because I think that with the proper assets and the proper guidance, it could really do a lot for a lot of people...

[No Exit]

5. I guess the trick is to spread the power around.

That's also why "states' rights" isn't necessarily a bad thing--the trick is to spread the power around.

The states can have their rights, but when they go too far, the federal government can step in. That's actually supposed to be one of the federal government's functions anyway. OTOH, we currently live in a regime in which it's the federal government which has too much power. So now I cheer on those states which refuse to accept certain assertions of power by the republican-tainted federal government.

The U.N., as we have seen, can put pressure on a dictator. They put pressure on Saddam Hussein. Only trouble is, it turned out that Saddam was smalltime on the tyrant scale compared to a certain other dictator.

[Chimichurri]

2. Rumsfeld wants Nato allies to spend more on defense!

this guy says more mercenaries are in the plan. Astounding!