Interesting Idea
2007-06-13 07:41:14
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Out of 241 armed confilicts sinse the inception of the UN, they have authorized the use of force twice! Once during the Korean conflict and the other when Iraq invaded Kuwait. That's a "take action" percentage of 0.0083% of the time. So if you're asking if the UN could be more than 0.0083% effective with Putin as secretary general, I'd say even a one percent improvement would be DOUBLE what it is today!
2007-06-08 04:25:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 3
·
4⤊
1⤋
Putin is stepping down in March 2008. Presidential elections would be held in Russia, with Dimitri Medvedev the main possibly victor (the recent election have been parliamentary no longer presidential).
2016-10-07 02:51:06
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The New World Order (NWO)
An Overview
http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/
2007-06-13 20:29:06
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Effective? Yes.
Constructive? No.
2007-06-08 04:23:50
·
answer #5
·
answered by skip742 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
The US renderd the UN ineffective, but if they take part in the process again in 08 the UN will regain its effectivness.
2007-06-14 17:00:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by Regina 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well he'd fall in line with the rest of the crazies at the UN. In my opinion it would be business as usual.
2007-06-08 04:37:48
·
answer #7
·
answered by tigrompy 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Effective, he11 yes he would be effective, and he would be the best guy for the job, he would kick their @$$e$ into gear so fast they wouldn't know what hit them, however can he be trusted? that remains to be seen, so far however he is acting like a dictator acts, so we need to keep a keen eye on this guy, that's for sure.
2007-06-08 04:29:07
·
answer #8
·
answered by ~Celtic~Saltire~ 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Th UN is the start of a world government, do you want it ran by a communist?
2007-06-16 03:12:53
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Don't be making fun of George W. Bush's friend, "Vlad"! Is that like saying "In order to form a more perfect union"? It's either perfect or not....we can't be "more perfect".....helloooooo!
2007-06-15 12:12:07
·
answer #10
·
answered by little timmie 3
·
0⤊
0⤋