Whoa there
I said it was unfair of me to be asking the question of you.
And too, I think there's a qualitive difference between honestly asking the open-ended question of what might work better, versus insisting that one have a better answer before one dares criticize the existing approach. Not having a better answer in one's back pocket doesn't delegitimize criticism or the quest for a better answer. You're using that comeback as a putdown, to foreclose further discussion.
When all is said and done, your retort
Clinging to the fetish of "internationalism" isn't going to do it. I doubt that the jihadists are any more impressed by the U.N. than anyone else.
actually does support my supposition that perhaps the conservative ideology does foreclose consideration of other alternatives that might work, and perhaps might work better. Remember where I wrote:
They...point to the present toothless UN and claim that it's not up to the job; and of course it isn't, not without strengthening it
You're having a little trouble coming to grips with the basic concept of an international initiative that might work. The UN isn't the only option, and maybe a new sort of international body could better coordinate a unified international effort.
Just as the UN superseded the League of Nations to better deal with a new world order after WWII, maybe the new realities of the 21st Century require an organization to supersede the UN. The UN may not work well, but it works better than the League of Nations; why is it impossible to conceive of a new organization that could work better than the UN?
I submit that you and Bush have a blind spot on the entire subject of international cooperation that makes it impossible for you to consider all our options. That could prove a deadly weakness when confronting an international danger.