League of Democracies idea gains steam

posted at 8:00 am on May 30, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

John McCain has proposed that the US should sponsor the creation of a new multilateral organization that includes the world’s legitimate democracies. This League of Democracies would act in the interest of freedom and liberty and would act when the UN gets bogged down in its impotence, especially on Iran and Darfur. Initially rejected, the idea has lately begun to appeal to other democracies, as the AP reports:

Gaining ground this political season is a proposed League of Democracies designed to strengthen support for the next president’s overseas agenda and ensure a global leadership role for the United States.

John McCain, the virtually certain Republican presidential nominee, has endorsed the concept of a new global compact of more than 100 democratic countries to advance shared views and has discussed the idea with French and British leaders.

“It could act where the U.N. fails to act,” he said last month, and pressure tyrants “with or without Moscow’s and Beijing’s approval.”

McCain said the League might impose sanctions on Iran, relieve suffering in the Darfur region of Sudan and deal with environmental problems.

Mostly this has received more favorable attention as a concept rather than a plan. McCain hasn’t laid out a detailed proposal for membership, rules, funding, or location, nor would he until he became President and could open negotiations with a founding group of nations. The creation of any multilateral organization requires the cooperation of its founding member-states, but the initial acceptance of the concepts is critical.

Critics say that the world doesn’t want to give the US a mechanism for bypassing the UN. However, the Western world has clearly been frustrated by Moscow and Beijing over the last several years in addressing critical situations like Iran and Darfur. The two Asian giants have blocked all attempts to stop a non-rational Islamist regime and terror financier from getting nuclear weapons, only agreeing to the mildest of sanctions and refusing to stop assisting in their nuclear efforts. In Sudan, the UN has stood by as a genocide unfolds, rendered impotent by repeated vetoes from China, which gets oil from the genocidal regime.

It’s not just the US that wants a mechanism that ignores Russia and China. And after the Oil-for-Food corruption and the sexual abuse scandals involving UN peacekeeper troops from non-democracies, these nations may not see the UN as an effective mechanism at all any longer, and may welcome an alternative.

If nothing else, the threat of the creation of a League of Democracies will have a salutary effect on Russia and China. Such a development will seriously weaken their prestige and their influence. They may react badly at first, but eventually they will have to forestall the League by acting less intransigently in the UN Security Council — and to start cracking down on the Iranians and the Sudanese. The threat may prove even more effective than the League would, at least in the short run.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

As Zell Miller so eloquently stated, UN stands for Useless Nuisance. I don’t know if it originated with him, but he’s the one I heard it from.

I’m shocked that McCain has actually come up with a good idea. He’s weak on so many things other than national defense (and yes, I know that even that excludes the part about securing our borders). This whole thing points up one of the biggest problems with the UN–the bad boys of the world can stand in the way of good.

Sounds good to me. I’ll back him on it.

backwoods conservative on May 30, 2008 at 8:20 AM

The League of Nations was created in the wake of World War One (aka” The Great War” at the time), to ensure that there would never be another such war in Europe.

The United Nations was created in the closing days of World War Two because of the manifest failure of the League of Nations in its announced mission. The League, by the way, was finally dissolved a year after the UN went into business.

The UN has failed in its mission of preventing war and promoting democracy, mainly due to the fact that it is a majority-rule organization which includes a large number of countries that are not democracies and have no interest in ever becoming democracies. Some of them are little more than groups of illiterate thugs with large amounts of weaponry and a hefty number of defenseless peasants to oppress with same. The idea that any such organization ever could produce any sort of acceptable outcome is a contradiction in terms.

The UN will not last forever. (Fortunately.) The time to begin planning for its successor is now, rather than later.

That’s just the way history works- when people are paying attention, that is. Read Arnold Toynbee.

cheers

eon

eon on May 30, 2008 at 8:22 AM

Sounds great, but let’s get out of the UN and have the UN moved to Lagos.

drjohn on May 30, 2008 at 8:25 AM

“It could act where the U.N. fails to act,”

Geez, it’ll be busy non-stop.

drjohn on May 30, 2008 at 8:26 AM

Sounds great, but let’s get out of the UN and have the UN moved to Lagos.

drjohn on May 30, 2008 at 8:25 AM

Then we could have the LoD in the old UN complex.

However, doesn’t the acronym LoD already stand for the Legion of Doom?

James on May 30, 2008 at 8:28 AM

The United States needs to leave the U.N. and publicly repudiate it in it’s entirety and no longer allow it to influence our decision making, period. After we do that we can talk about a Socialist League of Justice…I mean League of Democracies.

NotCoach on May 30, 2008 at 8:30 AM

There’s something so absurd about sitting down at a table with alleged “leaders” of countries whose citizens have never agreed to be led by them. I’ve come up with the theory lately that all governments that are run in a non-democratic manner are essentially unwelcome occupiers, dictating their will to the people as opposed to the people dictating their will to the government. If the people of a country such as China have no say, then how can the Chinese government truly say that it is Chinese instead of some unwelcome element that insists on ruling the Chinese.

I rather like this idea of a league of Democracies. WWII created democracies from Germany to Japan and we cannot pretend that the whole world will not eventually follow suit, and that some of these unwelcome governments will not go quietly, there will be more wars in the quest to free the people of the world. Whether this is the job of the current democracies to do the freeing, I am not sure, but I know that it bothers me to sit idly by. If we’re going to be a member of a multinational organization, at least be a member of one that actually stands FOR something, rather than standing to the side.

jimmy the notable on May 30, 2008 at 8:34 AM

…I’ve come up with the theory lately…

That’s not to say I’m taking credit for the theory where it may have already existed, but I am not aware of it existing already, and I came to it independently. That is to say, I’m not trying to steal anyone else’s ideas if they already are out there.

jimmy the notable on May 30, 2008 at 8:36 AM

It’s a good idea and may happen some day as it becomes apparent to more and more people that the UN is rotten.

The UN can’t help be be rotten either because of the nature of its membership. There’s no fixing it.

forest on May 30, 2008 at 8:37 AM

The idea is sexy, but I want to see the business plan. A sure fire way to kick start it is to pick a target and tackle the problem – with resolve. Even if it is just ourselves and one other nation to start with. It doesn’t have to be a decades long mission, something simple, something to demonstrate that the vision produces a better product.

Look out Iceland, your days are numbered.(just kidding, OK?)

Limerick on May 30, 2008 at 8:51 AM

Good. Form the League of Democracies to replace the UN, then in time ditch the League of Democracies and let the U.S. be the U.S.

Since all that wont happen, I’ll settle for the first step of the League of Democracies replacing the UN.

Grafted on May 30, 2008 at 8:55 AM

John McCain, the virtually certain Republican presidential nominee

How does this reporter refer to Sen. Barak H. Obama? Is he the “virtual certain Democatic presidential nominee? Did not McCain wrap this up months ago?

dentalque on May 30, 2008 at 9:06 AM

The U.N. is such a waste. Their incompetence is staggering and deadly, as we’ve seen numerous times. Their “peacekeepers” watched the massacre unfold in front of them in Darfur, Srebrenica, Bosnia, Rwanda, etc..
They are a waste of money, time, energy and run by criminals.
Oil for food anyone?
17 violated Iraq resolutions.
How about having children raped by “peacekeepers”?
Missing money, flagrant violations of their delegates in NYC under the protection of diplomatic immunity.
Anyone who would make Lybya, Iran the leaders if the U.N. Human Rights Commission loses all credibility.
Hell, beating up on the U.N. is so easy it bores me.

Geronimo on May 30, 2008 at 9:08 AM

How does this reporter refer to Sen. Barak H. Obama? Is he the “virtual certain Democatic presidential nominee? Did not McCain wrap this up months ago?

dentalque on May 30, 2008 at 9:06 AM

Perhaps the reporter is technically right since McCain is not the official Republican nominee until the delegates vote at the convention. But since he gets to hand pick all of the delegates he won it is ultimately a moot point.

NotCoach on May 30, 2008 at 9:13 AM

The United States needs to leave the U.N. and publicly repudiate it in it’s entirety and no longer allow it to influence our decision making, period. After we do that we can talk about a Socialist League of Justice…I mean League of Democracies.

NotCoach on May 30, 2008 at 8:30 AM

Agreed. We need freedom and liberty in the United States before we can pretend to spread it to other nations.

bigbeas on May 30, 2008 at 9:14 AM

The UN is not going anywhere. Adding another level of international nannies is not something the sovereign United States needs right now. John McCain is not something the sovereign United States needs right now.

Valiant on May 30, 2008 at 9:14 AM

Excuse me. These United States.

bigbeas on May 30, 2008 at 9:15 AM

If we do the League of Democracies, we should withdraw from and cripple the UN. As for the League, what about renaming NATO and transforming it into a new org?

CP on May 30, 2008 at 9:27 AM

How does this reporter refer to Sen. Barak H. Obama? Is he the “virtual certain Democatic presidential nominee? Did not McCain wrap this up months ago?

dentalque on May 30, 2008 at 9:06 AM

NotCoach on May 30, 2008 at 9:13 AM

in my Jesse Jackson voice..

doesn’t matter, the point is moot..

DaveC on May 30, 2008 at 9:33 AM

How about the “non-binding loose association of democracies”?

How much would the membership vary from that of NATO? I mean the question seriously. I’m ready anyday to grab pitchfork and torch and storm the UN, but I’m cool to the idea of forming new “leagues”, esp. if they’re mostly redundant to NATO.

TexasDan on May 30, 2008 at 9:35 AM

One of the best ways to apply pressure on the UN to act more responsibly is to provide what financial markets have done for ages. Competion. No longer having a monopoly on actions taken internationaly, the UN can genuinely reform,become irrelavent, or be run “out of business”.

captivated_dem on May 30, 2008 at 9:36 AM

“My plan to replace that corrupt bureaucracy, is with another buraeucracy which, most assuredly, will become corrupt. But that won’t happen for a few years so I don’t have to worry about it!”

RMC1618 on May 30, 2008 at 9:36 AM

I guess the name League of Extraordinary Nations was taken.
(LXN for short)

DaveC on May 30, 2008 at 9:40 AM

Great idea, but I want to see a Bill of Rights to keep the power of the new organization limited.
Perhaps set it up with executive, legislative, & judicial branches.

jgapinoy on May 30, 2008 at 9:52 AM

Critics say that the world doesn’t want to give the US a mechanism for bypassing the UN.

Why, in Gods name, not?!!

1) The two Asian giants have blocked all attempts to stop a non-rational Islamist regime and terror financier from getting nuclear weapons, only agreeing to the mildest of sanctions and refusing to stop assisting in their nuclear efforts.

2) In Sudan, the UN has stood by as a genocide
unfolds

3) sexual abuse scandals involving UN peacekeeper troops from non-democracies,

4) refusing to stop assisting in their nuclear efforts

And that is just from the above article!!! I say it’s about time we pull out of the U.N.(usless nations) and for a league of our own and take our money with us! (by the way, guess who puts out more money than any of the nations in the u.n.?) Leave those idiots there to fight over whats left. And while were at it, lets kick their asses out of N.Y. city!

kcd on May 30, 2008 at 9:54 AM

Great idea, but I want to see a Bill of Rights to keep the power of the new organization limited.
Perhaps set it up with executive, legislative, & judicial branches.

jgapinoy on May 30, 2008 at 9:52 AM

No judiical branch unless it is limited to only internal matters. We see what happens in todays world once a judicial branch abandons their reason for being and decides to adopt a legislative aim as well.

NotCoach on May 30, 2008 at 9:58 AM

Ironic that as Democracy ruins this country (the ability of the populace to vote into office those who will give them money or services from the public purse)… that we want to spread it to places that may very well not be ready for it.

Romeo13 on May 30, 2008 at 9:59 AM

The UN is not going anywhere. Adding another level of international nannies is not something the sovereign United States needs right now. John McCain is not something the sovereign United States needs right now.

Valiant on May 30, 2008 at 9:14 AM

Agreed. I don’t understand why people ‘like’ this. When the UN was created, it was created with the same rhetoric as they are using now for the ‘League of Democracies’. Why would we need an elected federal government if our foreign affairs are going to be determined by an unelected body of foreign nations? Do we not want to be a sovereign nation any more?

I don’t understand why people think this is a good idea. We have NATO that we use when we don’t like what the UN does. But like the ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ will happen without secure borders, I’d prefer we stand up against the UN, kick them out of the US, remove our US representatives from the UN. . . and then start over. But our ‘maverick’ wouldn’t dare stand up to the UN and kick them out of the country and remove our delegation.

If we just start a new government entity to run along side of the old FAILED government entity (that undercuts our sovereignty) we haven’t learned anything from our ‘leaders’ (mccain) and his vast ‘experience’. If you don’t learn anything from experience, what good is experience?

This is such an awful idea I don’t understand why people are even considering it. I guess people just don’t recognize the environment from which the UN was created. . . all about the ‘greater good’ and the forfeiture of our sovereignty.

Who needs a commander in chief if we give up our sovereignty? It is a ridiculously bad idea. . . and I can’t believe that smart (conservative) people think a ‘new UN’ is a good idea.

ThackerAgency on May 30, 2008 at 9:59 AM

And by the way, the things I stated above, we are as much a part of as they are, as long as we are still in th U.N. It’s like being in a gang and one of the gang members kills someone. You know he did it, you don’t apporve, but you don’t quit the gang. Get it?

kcd on May 30, 2008 at 10:02 AM

When the UN was created, it was created with the same rhetoric as they are using now for the ‘League of Democracies’

To me, there is a BIG difference in a League of Democracies, and the U.N. Key word here: “Democracies”.

kcd on May 30, 2008 at 10:04 AM

Again the argument becomes, what if the UN takes one side in Darfur and sends UN (our) troops to a particular side. We don’t like it so we have the ‘league of democracies’ take the other side and send LD – how appropriate an acronym – troops to the other side. The effect would be the USA would be fighting a war against the USA on behalf of Darfur in Darfur.

It’s so stupid, I don’t understand why this is the second post on a ‘conservative’ site saying it is a ‘good idea’.

ThackerAgency on May 30, 2008 at 10:04 AM

Again the argument becomes, what if the UN takes one side in Darfur and sends UN (our) troops to a particular side. We don’t like it so we have the ‘league of democracies’ take the other side and send LD – how appropriate an acronym – troops to the other side. The effect would be the USA would be fighting a war against the USA on behalf of Darfur in Darfur.

It’s so stupid, I don’t understand why this is the second post on a ‘conservative’ site saying it is a ‘good idea’.

ThackerAgency on May 30, 2008 at 10:04 AM

Whaaat? If we pulled out of the UN we would not have any troops in the UN. Our troops would be in the LD.

kcd on May 30, 2008 at 10:07 AM

It’s so stupid, I don’t understand why this is the second post on a ‘conservative’ site saying it is a ‘good idea’.

ThackerAgency on May 30, 2008 at 10:04 AM

Perhaps the lessor of two evils argument is trying to break new ground.

captivated_dem on May 30, 2008 at 10:10 AM

To me, there is a BIG difference in a League of Democracies, and the U.N. Key word here: “Democracies”.

Hamas was elected democratically. Chavez was elected democratically. Putin was elected democratically. Ahmadinejad was elected democratically. Why do you think ‘democratic’ means they’ll do what we want?

ThackerAgency on May 30, 2008 at 10:13 AM

NotCoach

That’s what I meant when I insisted on there being a strong Bill of Rights to protect the sovereignty of member nations.

jgapinoy on May 30, 2008 at 10:13 AM

If we pulled out of the UN we would not have any troops in the UN. Our troops would be in the LD.

kcd on May 30, 2008 at 10:07 AM

If we pull out of the UN, that would be great. . . but that isn’t what our fearless ‘maverick’ leader is proposing. He’s proposing we stay in the UN, allow the UN to stay in America, but creating a NEW LD in case the UN does something we don’t like. Again, LD is the appropriate acronym. I love poetic justice.

ThackerAgency on May 30, 2008 at 10:15 AM

Am I the only one on this site to believe that McCain’s prime objective with this new venture is the environment?

After all, it would, in the main, be democracies that would be open to ever increasing environmental regulations – all for the ‘greater good’.

OldEnglish on May 30, 2008 at 10:24 AM

Hamas was elected democratically. Chavez was elected democratically. Putin was elected democratically. Ahmadinejad was elected democratically. Why do you think ‘democratic’ means they’ll do what we want?

ThackerAgency on May 30, 2008 at 10:13 AM

Good point, but, I think everyone knows what we mean by Democratic. Free elections, the freedom of people, etc. We are not so stupid that we don’t know which countries are legitmate democracies. And, after all, we would pilot the program so we make the rules. Who gets in, why or why not.

kcd on May 30, 2008 at 10:27 AM

Howsabout Christendom acting in its own best interests?

Akzed on May 30, 2008 at 10:33 AM

A League of Democracies might be a good idea, if its powers are clearly defined and limited. The United Nations has become far too corrupt, when countries like Cuba and Sudan run Human Rights committees, and the veto power of China and Russia prevents anything useful from getting done.

This might not be redundant with NATO, because there are true democracies that are not members of NATO, who could be very helpful in a League of Democracies, such as Australia, Japan, India, the Philippines, South Korea, and perhaps some Latin American countries. A League of Democracies may be able to work together to apply economic sanctions against rogue nations, or foreign aid to nations in difficulty, independent of the United Nations where such proposals might get vetoed by Russia and China.

There would probably have to be a lot of negotiations with potential members over its purpose, rules, by-laws, powers, criteria for membership, and decision-making process. The rules should avoid the mistakes of the United Nations, such as veto power for certain countries, and the one-country one-vote, which gives disproportionate power to small countries–a vote proportional to population or GDP might work better.

There are lots of details to be worked out, but it’s worth trying. It may be doomed to failure like its predecessors, the League of Nations and the United Nations, but if it’s composed only of like-minded nations committed to freedom and democracy, with strict criteria for membership and well-thought-out rules, it may succeed where previous attempts have failed.

Steve Z on May 30, 2008 at 10:33 AM

After all, it would, in the main, be democracies that would be open to ever increasing environmental regulations – all for the ‘greater good’.

Old English on May 30, 2008 at 10:24 AM

Not necessarily.Think about this. If certain large developing countries would adhere to just basic environmental precautions, it might ease the regulations in the US? After all, WE are being blamed for all the pollution while a blind eye has been turned to those who do nothing. We are left to clean up the world.

kcd on May 30, 2008 at 10:34 AM

Steve Z on May 30, 2008 at 10:33 AM

Excellent analysis. Wouldn’t that be great?!

kcd on May 30, 2008 at 10:38 AM

Steve Z on May 30, 2008 at 10:33 AM

Seriously good post.

captivated_dem on May 30, 2008 at 10:44 AM

What would be even better is when the US diverts the money it wastes at the UN into this new body.

Iblis on May 30, 2008 at 10:47 AM

In recent decades, the UN has morphed from “Useless Nuisance” into an active adversary to the USA and Western democracies generally. Further, it’s become a tool of the radical left for bringing the American economy to its knees, and undermining our sovereignty and Constitutional liberties. Yet we continue to feed the beast.

Better to fund a League of Democracies instead.

petefrt on May 30, 2008 at 11:01 AM

If certain large developing countries would adhere to just basic environmental precautions, it might ease the regulations in the US?

kcd on May 30, 2008 at 10:34 AM

What on earth would encourage them to do that? The current situation suits them nicely. We get blamed for pollution, we allow ourselves to suffer greater sacrifices, all so that they can continue as normal. McCain and his ilk are fully aware of that, and are prepared to use it to further their own agenda of justifying their own existence.

OldEnglish on May 30, 2008 at 11:06 AM

I’m sorry this is a terrible idea all the way around. We have a bill of rights and and a government of “limited” powers now that is virtually unlimited.

The government is not restrained by the bill of rights. No I’m not a pinko commie talking about warrantless wiretaps. I’m talking about the 2nd Amendment, 5th Amendment (takings clause), 9th Amendment, and 10th Amendment.

This “League of Democracies” idea sucks and is reason #247 I’m voting for Bob Barr.

bigbeas on May 30, 2008 at 11:14 AM

However, doesn’t the acronym LoD already stand for the Legion of Doom?

James

Cool. We could start the Legion of Doom.

I’m in.

Kristopher on May 30, 2008 at 11:38 AM

McCain hasn’t laid out a detailed proposal for membership, rules, funding, or location, nor would he until he became President and could open negotiations with a founding group of nations.

In other words: McCain has done NOTHING. What good does it do to say you will only deal with “free” countries, when you can’t even define what that means.

And why get rid of the UN anyway? All you need to do is change the groundrule; get rid of the idiotic “one country, one vote” craziness.

Just leave the UN membership as it is, but let each country vote according to its people’s representation. Kim Jung Il would still gets his 1 vote, same as before; Each member of China’s Polit Bureau should have his fair say in world affairs – exactly the same same as you or me; Luxembourg represents about hundred thousand registered voters; and America somewhere has around a hundred million.

logis on May 30, 2008 at 11:40 AM

This “League of Democracies” idea sucks and is reason #247 I’m voting for Bob Barr.

bigbeas

And this is why no one took the Ronulans seriously … we all knew they would jump ship for Libertarian Land once Ron had sunk.

Kristopher on May 30, 2008 at 11:48 AM

BTW … foreign treaty power abuse is an error by our own courts, and not caused by the existence of treaties.

Article V of the Constitution makes it clear that amendments supersede other articles, including the treaty provisions.

Kristopher on May 30, 2008 at 11:53 AM

A League of Democracies sounds beyond fantastic to me. I would love to see it brought into existence but I wonder how likely that is especially given the number of nations that would want a say in how it is formed/bylaws/membership criteria etc.

davenp35 on May 30, 2008 at 11:55 AM

And this is why no one took the Ronulans seriously … we all knew they would jump ship for Libertarian Land once Ron had sunk.

Kristopher on May 30, 2008 at 11:48 AM

I was a Fred-head. Thanks.

bigbeas on May 30, 2008 at 12:48 PM

Great idea. HQ should be in Eastern Europe.

RobCon on May 30, 2008 at 12:48 PM

davenp35: Here is a notion. We create the organization out of whole cloth, with only the provisions we in the US want.

Then we invite others to join.

Kristopher on May 30, 2008 at 12:51 PM

I was a Fred-head. Thanks.

bigbeas

Strange. Barr was a social conservative when he was in congress … and a luke warm fiscal conservative.

Not very much different from Huckaclown … certainly no Fred.

You might want to look at his congressional voting record, and not his LP nomination speeches.

Kristopher on May 30, 2008 at 12:56 PM

In fact, his nomination by the LP says a lot about how useless the LP has become … I pretty much went from there and joined the Republican Party to avoid this kind of insanity.

Libertarians spend years slicing each other up over ideology, and then roll over and support the first big name politician that comes along and claims to support ZAP.

Pitiful.

Kristopher on May 30, 2008 at 12:59 PM

Just what we need. Another international organization to erode our sovereignty and commit us to wars, taxes, laws and treaties that are not in our best interest.

Mark Jaquith on May 30, 2008 at 1:17 PM

What on earth would encourage them to do that?
OldEnglish on May 30, 2008 at 11:06 AM

Well, perhaps we say: “no more imports from you, until you clean up the factories, etc., that produce those products”. Hit them in the pocketbook. It never fails. : )

kcd on May 30, 2008 at 1:44 PM

I think everybody here has missed the most important question of all regarding this new League of Democracies.

Will there be Decoder Rings?

Because, if there are Decoder Rings, I’m in!

trigon on May 30, 2008 at 2:18 PM

The UN proves its failure with its treatment of Israel. Set up by the UN after a legitimate Holocaust, now the UN can’t even catch its breath between anti-Israel resolutions. And the fact that the UN set up a sinecure for Palestinean ‘refugees’ with UNWRA is also a disgrace. Who else in the world still has refugee status 60 years after the event which made them regufees, and voluntarily in the Palestineans’ case, to boot?

As for a League of Democracies, that’s something I’ve been saying we should create for years now, and I’m glad to hear McCain bring it up. How many true democracies are out there, and how long will they last anyway with the way things are going (Canada, France, Great Britain, etc.)?

RickZ on May 30, 2008 at 2:52 PM

eon, I really enjoy your comments here.

baldilocks on May 30, 2008 at 3:55 PM

The UN is illegitimate as a result of it’s empowering of monsters and it’s embracing corruption, but it’s on the verge of gaining control of two-thirds of the Earth’s surface with the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), and thereby a taxing regime that will make it better funded than most Western governments. I’m all for LoD, especially as a precurser to the destruction of the UN, but I want to know where McCain is on LOST. If he allows LOST to happen, LoD is moot, and doomed.

Think the UN is dangerous now? Wait until they don’t have to beg for money and they can coerce every sea-going military and dictate to every sea-faring economy. Cap’n, I would very much like to see you ping McCain on LOST the next chance you get.

Maquis on May 30, 2008 at 3:58 PM

It’s long overdue. Time to remove the criminal organization that is the UN.

oakpack on May 30, 2008 at 4:06 PM

Yeah because what we need is more global government and Wilsonian progressivism!

libertytexan on May 30, 2008 at 4:09 PM

Another international organization to pour money into?

No thanks.

thegreatbeast on May 30, 2008 at 5:10 PM

Anything that breaks us away from the U.N is a good start, however the name sounds like the Justice Leagues B-Squad.

Tazz 55 on May 30, 2008 at 5:28 PM

“This League of Democracies would act in the interest of freedom and liberty and would act when the UN gets bogged down in its impotence..”

This sounds like the definition of the U.S. of A. in particular, and the definition of NATO in general.

And isn’t the UN defined by impotence?

locomotivebreath1901 on May 31, 2008 at 9:29 AM