Personally, I wouldn't trust anybody with absolute power.

If I understand it correctly, the UN isn't about ABSOLUTE power, it's about SHARED power. Every member nation has input. In theory, this should negate absolute power; there would have to be thorough negotiations to make sure everyone's being treated fairly. In reality, there's that unfortunate mess known as the Security Council, which is dominated by one nation which shall here go nameless, and which has been not exactly subtle about its own desire to seek absolute power. If I could, I would abolish THAT first, and THEN give the UN unlimited powers to do its intended thing.

'Bina.

I take this to mean "absolute power to accomplish their mission." Given the U.N. mission, there could be no better hope for human rights and human welfare than to give the U.N. unlimited power to accomplish its mission.

no way, no how, is the UN gonna get absolute power-

hell, not unless you think our feds have absolute power (and they don't, though they are really, really, trying with bush)...

if you mean would it bother me for the UN to head up the paranoid one-world government that the wingers are so shitless about-

NOPE. can't imagine they'd do worse than what we've got now-

the ONLY problem i forsee is that the rest of the world is POOR, and we are RICH- can't see us sharing power with them without losing a bit of $$$$$$.

and i like my kids living in a wealthy country-

BUT. but the time the wingers and bush get through with us, the $$$$ won't be worth a damn dime.

-t-