Does the U.S. need to make a new global organization with like minded nations?

[GePap]

No, no delays. That was a very good new years day in Panama, lots of fireworks. My mom went to the very immotional cerimony. Carter was there as well, though sadly the Clintonites caved in to forces in the US and sent nothing more than some low level State Dep. Stooge to be the US representative.

[Kramerman]

didnt that suez thing in '56 end disastrously for the French and English? i do not remember... just curious

[DuncanK]

Well they were winning the war, but they had to give up their territory gains. But then everyone was able to use the canal.

[KrazyHorse]

Not disastrously, IIRC. They were getting a bit bogged down, though. And Israel advanced to the east side of the canal, IIRC.

[Shi Huangdi]

1956 and 2003 are two different time periods. In 1956 the UN held a lot more resepect, it was alot closer to the time of it's original formation, when the ideals of strong international law and the UN being sole authorizer of force were stronger. It was also just after the UN played a useful role in authorizing the Korean War. Since then the UN hasn't been as useful and there have been plenty non-UN authorized attacks, resulting in a decrease in the UNs legitimacy.

[KrazyHorse]

No, what was different was that the US of 1956 was having its behaviour watched by the USSR. Now that that's been removed, it feels like it can and should use military force whenever the opportunity presents itself.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Since then the UN hasn't been as useful and there have been plenty non-UN authorized attacks, resulting in a decrease in the UNs legitimacy.

Could the US be the major cause of this?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Could the US be the major cause of this?

I blame Russia.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
1956 and 2003 are two different time periods. In 1956 the UN held a lot more resepect, it was alot closer to the time of it's original formation, when the ideals of strong international law and the UN being sole authorizer of force were stronger. It was also just after the UN played a useful role in authorizing the Korean War. Since then the UN hasn't been as useful and there have been plenty non-UN authorized attacks, resulting in a decrease in the UNs legitimacy.

Wow. Put another way, the UN is losing legitimacy because of unilateral actions by member states. Therefore, we must ignore the UN and act unilaterally.

How do some people not see the problem with this logic?

[DuncanK]

In respect to the action of the US in 1956 with the Suez Canal Crisis and this crisis of NATO, the canal crisis was a Cold War crisis. That is plenty of justification for the US to intervene since not doing so would seriously strain relations with the USSR. The same situation does not exist today. The best that I can see is that France is afraid of terrorism so they are getting as far away from the US as possible.

[KrazyHorse]

In other words:

No, what was different was that the US of 1956 was having its behaviour watched by the USSR. Now that that's been removed, it feels like it can and should use military force whenever the opportunity presents itself.

[DuncanK]

I don't disagree with that, but that's not really what I meant.