>Concerning international affairs, we have had an interesting history on this subject during the 20th century. Until 1945 we had our heads in the sand and wanted no part of the world and then we suddenly realized we had power and to retain some semblance of what we consider our right to freedom we had to control the world in one way or another.
>
>Not every nation of the world will agree with what goes on. However if we do not attempt to work within an organization such as the United Nations there is little hope for mankind. Yes, there is much hypocrisy and ineffectiveness within the United Nations but it is a recognized political force, which attempts to keep the world in one piece. It does not accomplish this in a perfect manner but it does make an attempt. Trying to undermine the United Nations will destroy the organization and this is perhaps what President Bush wants.

I doubt that Bush wants to see the end of the U.N. The problem as I see it with the U.N. is that they fail to recognize that resolutions are only effective if they are backed up with force.

>We have to understand compromise, diplomacy and long-term goals and objectives. To destroy in a short time what has taken decades to build is reprehensible. Many of our world’s leaders are immature and egotistical. Others are full of hatred and want to cleanse the world in their own image.

I think there is the perception, and I am not sure where it is coming from, that we are going alone on this. We are not. All you hear about is the fact that France, Germany, and Belgium in Europe oppose us. What about Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Poland, etc.?

>What we will end up with is a world in which it is every dog for himself.

While it is certainly true what Henry Kissinger said, "Nations have interests, not friends", we still have many, many allies.