Hmm, that bears no resemblance to anything i actually said....

I observed that whilst McCain(and other americans) might like this proposal , there's absolutely no benefit to any of the other democracies in climbing on board.

Indeed given the sneers and insults that other democracies received from the US (including McCain) when they disagreed over iraq why on earth would they sign up to a project which appears to have as its sole purpose to try and make it easier to get the US some form of rubber stamp of international approval for whatever scheme it comes up with next.

So UN has to be liquidated in favor of an organization in which the interests of the united states can be better protected and represented.

The UN has meaning only to small (and usually loud) wannabe countries...and the State Department careerists who get to live well off the taxpayer.
If someone thinks the UN brings value to US security, what is it?
And please, no value of "dialogue".

What happens when the League of Democracies tries to impose its authority on a non-democracy and the latter says it doesn’t recognise the authority of a body it hasn’t been invited to send representatives to and has no voice at?

And what happens when members of this LoD ,say,just as an example France and Germany disagree when the US decides it's time to attack someone?

Do they have to have to sit through more 'axis of weasel' & 'freedom fries" & 'old europe" stuff.

Or will the US just set up another body 'The League of English Speaking Democracies' and so on until it's it's just the US ?

Realistically, why on earth should any other democracy take this seriously ?A body whose sole purpose is to allow the US to do whatever it wants?

Oh they might join but by and large their foreign ministers will go to the UN and their assistants assistants will go to this LoD.

What happens when the League of Democracies tries to impose its authority on a non-democracy and the latter says it doesn’t recognise the authority of a body it hasn’t been invited to send representatives to and has no voice at?

He answered that question in the press conference that I summarized above.

McCain replied that he envisioned something more along the lines of ASEAN or the G-8, a somewhat formal IGO that would have regular meetings but no standing forces. [...] NATO was a military alliance whereas his League of Democracies would focus mostly on non-military solutions such as economic sanctions, trade, diplomacy, and public relations.

It's not about imposing authority but about achieving better working relations, information sharing, and consensus. But, yes, they'd have some ability to influence others short of bombing them.

I suppose we could bomb countries to impose our will but wouldn't the more realistic approach be economic sanctions of one sort or another? We impose unilateral sanctions on countries now and they don't get to send representatives to congress. By keeping the UN alive those excluded from the LoD wouldn't feel voiceless so turning away those mentioned would be much easier.

Heck, the world already hates us so why not?

What happens when the League of Democracies tries to impose its authority on a non-democracy and the latter says it doesn't recognise the authority of a body it hasn't been invited to send representatives to and has no voice at?

We bomb them?

Regards, C

"Don't make me angry ... you wouldn't like me when I'm angry."

I think the fear, and a legitimate one, is that the US would fund this one at the expense of the UN. It isn't the existence of other organizations that would be the death nell of the UN, it is the withdrawal of US funds.