response 1 of 44:

Jul 29 20:16 UTC 2003

The US should join the world court and participate in and be subject to
international justice. If the authority is abused, suitable actions can
be taken then. 

response 3 of 44:

Jul 29 21:20 UTC 2003

Lets stay out of any worled organization that can punish us for our good
deeds, or at least our attempts to make things better.

The only world government I want is the one with the U.S. of A. in charge.
we are a minority in this world, adn could easily be outvoted by many other
countries.

response 5 of 44:

Jul 29 21:33 UTC 2003

A World Government with the US of A in charge, potentially means with 
the President of the USA in charge. Dubya in charge of the world. He's 
already proved himself too short-sighted when it comes to his own 
country, how would that work out with the rest of the world?

I don't think having oe country in charge of a world govt is going to 
help. It's hard for any one country to comprehend how other countries 
work. And I think the USA is one of the least equipped countries to 
form a "World Government"

response 7 of 44:

Jul 29 22:38 UTC 2003

By staying out of the International Court we lose international support
for furthering accusations we have against other nations. This is a much
greater loss than any improbable finding against the USA.

response 9 of 44:

Jul 30 03:07 UTC 2003

I have mixed feelings about this.  I don't like to see the US thumbing its
nose at the world, but US courts do provide significantly more protections
than courts in various other places.  I don't think I can make a blanket "a
world court would be good" or "a world court would be bad" statement without
some careful analysis of how the court would operate.

response 11 of 44:

Jul 30 03:30 UTC 2003

A world govt with USA in charge with a a few leaders like Bush and the whole
world can go back to the stone age.

response 13 of 44:

Jul 30 05:31 UTC 2003

With its current hegemony, the US can chose to do whatever it feels 
like. Well, almost. It can arm-twist the UN into sanctioning its 
actions and if that fails it can still go ahead. Who's going to oppose 
them on the ground? No one!!

They can quote UN resolutions when it suits them and reject the UN's 
authority when the UN does not approve their actions. 

As a developed nation and the world's largest economy, they have 
sufficient power to arm-twist smaller/thired-world nations. And there 
isn't much the smaller nations can do about it.

With its troops almost all over the globe, the US can send them in to 
almost any part to *liberate* nations and do *peacekeeping*. Who's to 
stand up against them? No one.

The only question is, how long does this hegemony over world affairs 
lasts? 

response 15 of 44:

Jul 30 14:16 UTC 2003

At which point it would be nice to have developed some precident for power
sharing among world governments.

response 17 of 44:

Jul 30 16:23 UTC 2003

North Korea? Never heard of it!!!

response 19 of 44:

Jul 30 16:40 UTC 2003

I doubt if we would ever invade any country that we thought capable of
seriously defending itself. Thus NK is out. 

response 21 of 44:

Jul 30 17:53 UTC 2003

That was this, this is now. If we were interested in disarming a country that
really had the means to do us severe damage, why hit on Iraq and not China
or North Korea? 

response 23 of 44:

Jul 30 18:24 UTC 2003

Good point.