would that include getting rid of the veto?
Forget the UN… its useless.
So long as so many UN member nations are ruled by dictators, attempts at or pretending to be a democracy within/among the UN member nations is meaningless.
There is talk of a new UN where members would be INVITED and it would require being a democracy, rule of law, and minimum level of human rights. No Arab members would belong nor would China and perhaps not even Russia, and anyone want to begin to dream up how the new voting system would work?
Would the US retain a veto? Would that be fair? etc.
could this be a possibility for a whole new - even constructive!- thread?
BB:
It could be but I guarantee you that some asswipe poster is bound to try to shanghai it for his own base ends to I don’t know, unfairly criticize the present UN, the French, the Germans, the Belgians, Liberals and the double standards that plague the West’s relations with the Arab and Muslim world.
We can only try fred! Just a thought, but do you know of any links to artilces where this topic is given some serious consideration? Would be interesting to see what ideas were around at the moment.
In point of fact, the original UN was a WW2-era alliance which was never intended to encompass every nation in the world.
The thought of the US being in the UN, NATO, or any other organization that binds us to anything outside our borders makes me physically ill.
Forget the UN… its useless.
So long as so many UN member nations are ruled by dictators, attempts at or pretending to be a democracy within/among the UN member nations is meaningless.[/quote]
Exactly right. The motivation for a UN is noble, but ultimately it’s impractical. China with a veto on the security council! Good grief! 
Some of you folks have posted a photo of Rumsfeld with Saddam from back in the 1980s and asserted that such meeting of Saddam and Rumsfeld proves that Saddam was “the US’s man”.
How about this photo:
Does this photo of Saddam and Kofi likewise prove that Saddam was the UN’s man for corrupt oil for palaces, oil for influence, oil for… ???
There’s no end of historical precedents for the notion of superpowers and their ‘security pacts’ with sycophantic client states: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/intdip/soviet/warsaw.htm