What the f--- is with the French????

Sure, the UN never grew as strong as it could have. But remember that its strength depends on the observance of the rules by member states. Thus I believe that your post fits right into that metaphore, we can only add that the child before it was butchered was a weakling to begin with. Yet it still is a child, for no matter how you look at it, those 50 years are nothing in human history and it has achieved a lot. it is unprecedented (even league of nations cannot compare) and there still is a chance it will grow up into an adult. call me naive, but you have to live with some ideals in your life. this one is worth my time and is not unreasonable, again, considering the history of international relations. it will not take a year or two, not even a decade, but hopefully my children and grandchildren will live to see a safer world, under the united nations auspices.

U.N.
Adversity, or a common enemy, draws people together... and we've seen many countries strongly protesting U.S. actions.

If push comes to shove, do you think the non-American world might join together stronger now, just to fight against Bush Imperialism?

Leading to: If the U.S. withdrew from the U.N., and no longer undermined it, do you think the U.N. could become a major superpower by itself to balance against the U.S. (and restore order to the Force :-) )?

I'm all for diversity but Syria heading the Security Coucil? Libya heading the Human Rights Comission? It gets a little hard to take.

THe Libya in the Human RIghts Commission truly was a faux-pas, I agree. I don't claim UN is sacred or particularly brilliant in what they do. But there is plenty of UN enthusiasts within the UN doing a great job and it is a constant trial and error process for it is the first time in history that states and NGOs cooperate across the boundaries in such a vast multitude of programs/processes/events.
AND, as I said before, we truly do not have any alternative other than going back to it and trying to make it work, I hope the U.S. will realize that and get convinced by the Great Britain to count the UN in in the reconstruction of Iraq and international relations alike.

dagmar, I agree with you; no matter how hopeless the UN seems to be at this stage in it's life, there's not better alternative. We must hope that it reconciles itself in the future to become more influential in the world arena. It will require US participation, simply from the fact that we are the only superpower left in this world. There will be more hope when this president is no longer at the helm to do more harm. c.i.

just my simple thought but would not having Libya on the Human Rights Commission be a means to make them more aware of the issue?

Just for the record here, could someone post a list of the UN successes over the past half century or so? What wars has it averted? What injustices has it redressed? What weapons proliferation has it prevented? What wars in which it has been involved have ended in peace and unity ... in fact, what wars in which the UN has been involved have ended at all, given that a negotiated ceasefire is not the "End" of a war but a pause in a war? I have no quarrel with the ideal embodied by the UN; in fact I applaud it. I see little evidence The UN has performed to its design function. A tool which looks good and sounds nice but fails to effectively accomplish the job for which it was designed isn't a very worthwhile tool.

The UN is a grandiose, self-important, but ineffectual, debating society capable of occasional charitable work. I don't postulate the UN has outlived its usefulness, I submit the UN has never successfuly undertaken the task for which it was created.

Exactly, Dys. The old fashioned trick of putting your almost criminal adolescent kid in charge of something important...

timber,

Your request is not practical. Many wars could have been adverted by the UN and you would not necessarily recognize it.

"Self important, ineffectual debating" has its place. It might take the place of self important ineffectual war every now and then.

Their contribution toward humanitarian projects is incredible.

It's a pity that many define UN usefulness by how willing they are to validate their wars.

I need to clarify the part about not recognizing it:

The UN is part of a different geopolitical climate than the climate that surrounded the league of nations. It's existence may well have prevented a few conflicts even if there was no specific ruling on it.

Interestingly, only strong nations cal it ineffective. Only nations that want to go against world opinion try toundermine it.

This means they see it as an impediment. And if so, that is what it was made for.

An impediment to starting wars without due process.

Craven said:

An interesting concept.

Which start to wars have qualified?

I do not have time for these "please give me a list" requests. If you'd like to discuss anything in particular I can try to help you but the "please give me a list" tactic is lazy. If your intent is to determine if I am anti-all-war then I can say I'm not. There have been many wars that I agree with.

CodeBorg
The US will never leave the UN however, if it did IMO the UN would not survive. As bad as you believe the US may be it is the only one that has ever been willing to supply muscle for the UN.
I should point out that the question of preemptive attack Vs continuation of the inspection process would never have existed if the US had not flexed it's muscles. Where were the rest of the member nations ?
One more thing to remember all is not lost, there is a change of administration in the US {I hope} every four years? Maybe the next one will be kinder and gentler.

I agree with just about all of your propositions, CdK. I nonetheless feel the UN to be a flawed institution, as, of course are all the institutions of Humankind. I sincerely hope France, The UN, and the World Community, including the US, learn and profit from this debacle. I doubt that will be, though.


<sigh>

We had the calm, then we had the storm. Maybe, we can hope there will be some sunshine in the future. * Mr Gardener. c.i.

We have already seen the first war time change - Richard Perle is gone, one the the most vocal and nefarious chickenhawks. I believe this is not the last!

Ahem Au - a LOT of countries have supplied soldiers for the UN! Do you mean their armies were not as big as those of the USA?

You are right, I think, Au, the UN would NOT survive if the USA left - because it would be irrelevant without the biggest world-power - sadly, the USA is also the country currently doing its most spectacular best to render it even more impotent than usual - but its impotence is not necessarily, I think, because of its flaws, but more both are due to the nature of its task of attempting to get nation-states with all the magnified faults and virtues of humanity to behave like civilised adults would WISH to behave.

Herding cats, indeed - some of them lions, some polecats, some tigers - some, like my own country, little pussy-cats - ever tried to make even a pussy-cat do as it ought?

That's why I like cat's so much dlowan.

It doesn't help that Bush has been known to want to dismantle the UN for many, many years. They are far worse threats in this world than Iraq - without the UN they will be unleashed.

BillW
Richard Perle's departure had nothing to do with his policies hi became a political liability because of his financial dealings. The Chief warmonger and his loose tongue still remain. Good old Rummy.

I do believe that Perle was a scapegoat to some of the less warmongering right wingers - I wonder though what his slander suit in England amounts to right now?

If my premiss isn't correct - wouldn't one think that he is a very important asset to the US (now, give me a chance - don't laugh) and would want to sacrifice and keep his government job?

Sacrifice during war is an age old Patriotic duty of all Americans - that's the reason there are so many of the American rich raising their voices to protest this newest Tax get richer scheme and sending their sons and daughters off to war.