does it work?
no one seems to think so.
why not?
a lot of people seem to think it is unworkable. the impossibility of its scheme is a common complaint among american commentators. im a student of a lot of things but history is not one of them and when i hear this i wonder, has the U.S. been committed fully of late to the U.N.?
[the U.S. debt to the U.N. is said to be quite substantial, is this a fair proxy for american commitment to the process? or is it an indication in america's lack of faith in the process?]
if not, would their being so spur a different result?
if it truly is an unworkable model with the U.S. and other tier powers onboard, then how is the world to be led?
long term, is an american led coalition of variable partners acting unilaterally or multilaterally to deal with imminent, medium and long term threats appropriate?
what a loaded post.
no one seems to think so.
why not?
a lot of people seem to think it is unworkable. the impossibility of its scheme is a common complaint among american commentators. im a student of a lot of things but history is not one of them and when i hear this i wonder, has the U.S. been committed fully of late to the U.N.?
[the U.S. debt to the U.N. is said to be quite substantial, is this a fair proxy for american commitment to the process? or is it an indication in america's lack of faith in the process?]
if not, would their being so spur a different result?
if it truly is an unworkable model with the U.S. and other tier powers onboard, then how is the world to be led?
long term, is an american led coalition of variable partners acting unilaterally or multilaterally to deal with imminent, medium and long term threats appropriate?
what a loaded post.