Well prior to the tribunal at Nuremberg, there was an attempt to establish The League of Nations (President Wilson I think) and The Treaty of Versailes was it? Anyway, I thought it was a mistake to invade Iraq as well. I still do. Congress DID NOT DECLARE WAR. This was a foreign policy blunder from the get-go. Hussein was keeping Iran in check. The 911 attackers were from Saudi Arabia. I think they are the ones stabbing us in the back. Also the UN does not dictate foreign policy to the US. We elect the Senate and that's their job. They are the ones who ratify treaties. The world court shouldn't have jurisdiction over our courts just like our courts shouldn't have jurisdiction over European or Middle East courts. The UN doesn't represent me and there is no way I would have any influence on anything they do. The one thing Americans do have is the power of the ballot box over our senators and congressmen.....for the moment. I don't want world government.

"The UN didn't exist until 1948, but the Nuremburg trials influenced the creation of this world court."

Actully, all fo you are wrong. The US had been trying to organize a meeting of the minds with other countries for decades. It had been incarnated in several forms. WW2 actually set the stage for the UN, primarily in an attempt to avoid another World War. The reasoning behind the organization is strong. The fact that it has become a powerless debating society was never the original intention. However those of you who feel the US should not be accountable are a large part of the problem. There is no peace without justice.

I tried to choose my words carefully to reflect that the UN wasn't created yet, but it didn't work well. The point isn't diminished: the US and especially its conservatives are big on accountability, as longs as it doesn't apply to them.

Like I said before, the UN is primarily a tool of the US. When it tries to check US aggression, it always fails. When the US doesn't get what it wants from the UN, it takes what it wants through terrorism.

The UN sanctions on Iraq have been described as genocidal by some of the officials who administered them. And if the UN had it's way, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

Why shouldn't the World Court have jurisdiction over the US when we advocate its jurisdiction over other countries? If we weren't violating the UN Charter we claim to agree with why would it matter?

It's funny that everyone was on board with the UN and the world court when the Nazis were being tried, but as soon as the world court convicted the U.S. of unlawful use of agression (terrorism) in '86, conservatives don't think the UN is useful anymore. Except that, the UN is primarily a tool of the US and conservatives should love it.

I don't think the any reports submitted by the united nations deserve any creditability. Global warming is bunk. Someone please pass the A1 steak sauce.

This could turn into a very long (and interesting) discussion. Yes, it would be a problem if we had too much livestock. All that the livestock would contribute (if people were vegans) would be an appetite – a very expensive appetite. (As an example; My wife and I have 4 pet Pekin Ducks. A 50 lb bag of poultry pellets that cost $8.10 a year and a half ago, now costs $13.70 – and the price goes up every time I get another bag.)

If this, “surplus” livestock is not euthanised we have to wait for them to die of old age. I’m not sure how long a cow and etc lives, but probably on the order of 20+ years – during that time, all of the concerns expressed by Mr. Ellis, except the refrigeration & slaughterhouse, would still exist. Also, to prevent procreation, spaying, neutering and/or physically preventing mixing the sexes, would be necessary (hint; don’t get between a bull and a heifer in estrus, unless you’ve got a pair as big as his, or can do the hundred in 6 flat).

Again, Mr. Ellis didn’t take his idea to its logical conclusion…

Yes, I forgot to type out my major point: the easiest solution is just to stop breeding so much livestock, which means we'll have to consume less of their products. It seems like you were making a point to the type of people would cringe at the thought of euthanizing the animals. I just thought that it left questions looming for any other readers, such as "is there really a problem of too much livestock?" or "what do we do about it?"

I certainly don’t dispute the unhealthy aspects, both for people and the environment, of meat consumption. My remarks to Mr. Ellis were based on the mechanics of (assuming everyone takes his suggestion to go “vegan”) what to do with the animals slated for consumption that exist right now, today, at this moment, as we speak.

There is no practical way of disposing of them, since we’ve all decided not to eat them – that is, those of us who are not starving, and have the luxury of making that decision…

For those millions of people who are starving, it would be an unforgivable waste of food to dispose of these animals, and largely impractical (cost prohibitive, for starters) to ship the animals to those places where starvation is rampant.

Global livestock population has increased 60 percent since 1961, and the number of fowl being raised for human dinner tables has nearly quadrupled in the same time period. This is horrible for the environment.

I'm not a vegetarian (anymore), but we all should reduce our dependence on meat and animal products. I now use an organic butter substitute called smart balance. Unlike margarine, which seems to be less healthy than butter, smart balance has a pretty good ingredients list.

Also, I don't eat beef or pork. They just aren't good for you.

Gee Norman that's very altruistic of you. Actually, I think we could do with some animal products like milk, eggs, and butter and it would require far less of an animal population. There is a growing shortage of food in our world and the massive consumption of meat is a big part of that problem. Through most of our history, meat eating was an occasional thing, not the mainstay of every meal. It is unsustainable and destructive and unhealthy.

Let me ask you this – what’s to be done with the millions of animals (the ones polluting the world with their flatulence – methane and nitrous oxide) that are waiting, oh so patiently, to be eaten? Euthanasia? Or do we just spay / neuter them, and let nature take its course?

Seems like an incredible waste to me, especially in a world where millions of people (mainly children) are starving.

This is what amazes me about you, “Bright Idea” people – you never seem to carry your “ideas” to their logical conclusion…

If I wanted to be a vegaterian I would, I happen to enjoy having steaks,hamburgers and other meat products so I guess I will not take you up on you offer Sorry.