The following list of United Nations bungled campaigns and failures to act, compiled by a friend, demonstrates irrefutably the ineptness of that organization as a global security body.

Dutch Government resigns as a result of U.N. "peace-keeping".

U.N. fails to condemn slavery in Sudan.

The U.N. is even a joke in Sierra Leone.

Where was the U.N. during the massacre in Rwanda in 1994?

Where were they when Mugabe expunged all white farmers from Zimbabwe, and caused a famine that threatens to kill 8 million? Now they are talking with Mugabe about how to avert the disaster. What a joke!

They impeded action in Iraq, claiming diplomacy and inspections were the only answer. At the same time, they refused to discuss the North Korea's brazen moves to further their nuclear weapons programs.

U.N. ignores more human rights abuses. This time in Iran.

U.N. takes over in East Timor, and then drops the ball leading to further violence and anarchy.

Remember those Buddist statues in Afghanistan that the Taliban destroyed? Well, you guessed it. The U.N. failed to save them.

The U.N. fails to protect those displaced by a civil war in Angola.

That's right. The U.N. failed in Kashmir, too.

Its sad when you really think about it. Half of the world depends on them yet they cant even keep employees in line, let alone keep rebels or refugees in check

Or stopping the US from doing the right thing

example please? no one pushes the US around. not even the rest of the world.

What you gentlemen need to ask yourselves is:

Why SHOULD the US listen to the UN? Why is it considered "naughty" to not do so? The UN tells lots of nations to do lots of things. Some of those things make sense. Some of them make NO sense. Why should the US be compelled to do the things which make NO sense?

Really, the US is hardly alone in ignoring the UN. Pretty much EVERY nation outside of Europe has at some point ignored or defied the UN. The UN is a defunct organization that ceased to exist long ago, at least in any meaningful way.

If the US shouldn't bother worrying about what the UN thinks, then why did they even try and solicate the approval of the UN to go to war in the first place? The fact is the US is acting like a rouge state, deciding to attack and invade other nations at will. The last nation to go around and behave this way was Nazi Germany.

The United Nations is just as insane a concept as its predecessor, the Leage of Nations. Why people 'cling' to such an absurd institution is beyond me - irregardless of their goals they have been proved ineffectual time and time again.

The question is, what should there be as an alternative? Is an alternative even necessary? Without the UN, who is there to effectively 'govern' the world, to prevent the spread of mindless nationalism? Is it even worth fighting nationalism? Is internationalism in fact, worse?

Certainly plenty to ponder on. B)

I do not know. I don't think it should be.

That's like saying that "The US is like Nazi Germany because they have eagles as their symbols." That's a comparison by non-essentials.

Nazi Germany wasn't bad because it ignored the opinions of other nations. They were bad because they murdered people.

Name one nation that the US has attacked that did not first attack the US. (In the last 5 years)

Iraq? :lol:

Cheap shot, I know. It's still true though - there is yet any evidence to prove that the baathists were in any way involved in aggression toward the US. There is more evidence to suggest Iranian complicity than that of Iraqi.

No, it's not true at all. They fired on our planes repeatedly during the so-called "cease fire."

So try again.

You mean the years between the two Gulf conflicts? So invasion was purely coincidentally aligned with the 9/11 tragedy?

My apologies, but I would appreciate some clarification of this.

Yes. I'm not saying we didn't have other reasons. Just that we DID have that reason. That lone reason was all we needed, frankly.

I'm not justifying the wierd behavior of our politicians. I'm just saying that Iraq HAD attacked the US in the last 5 years and so your counter-example does not answer my challenge.

First off all, nazi germany invaded other nations, without provication, which is exactly waht the US is doing. According to our logic for justifying the firsr Gulf War, it is against international law to invade other sovereign nations, hmmm...

As far as naming a nation that the US has attacked in the last five years that didn't attack the US first, that's an easy one, you obviously don't know your recent history. Let's see: there was Grenada, Nicaraugua, Serbia and Montenegro and most recently Iraq.

Would it have been wrong to have attacked Nazi Germany before it attacked anyone else ? This is considering the fact that it was violating the rights of its citizens long before the war started.

I submit that we DID have provocation. You have yet to prove otherwise.

Oh, quite right. The Bush administration is quite caught in their contradictions. That doesn't mean that real, valid reasons don't exist OUTSIDE of what the Bushies have cited.

What are you, thick? I'm not talking about Clinton (note the bold)! And I already stated a valid cassus belli for Iraq. I'll notice you failed to read that...