>The very fact that Russia and China (or the US for that matter) can veto
>action of any kind is precisely why a "more democratic" UN is needed.
I'm waiting for your definition of democracy in this context.
>Whether some kind of Kosovo intervention could have found a majority is an
>open question, but given the broad support for some kind of action from
>Europe and much of the Islamic world, a more democratic UN likely could have
>found a better solution than solely NATO intervention. Even a number of
>countries opposing NATO intervention would have supported armed intervention
>if done under a UN umbrella, a choice none of them could have given the
>Russian and Chinese vetoes,
Those two countries have a combined population that's what, something like 5 times the population of the NATO countries. It'd be a strange definition of democracy that would overlook their opinion.
>That you hold up Yeltsin's Russia or China as an example of a democratic
>embodiment at the UN makes your definitions of democracy pretty suspect.
So all that talk of deep Russian popular hostility to the US/NATO bombing is just hogwash?
Doug