Third world Arab nations want the UN to use it to sponsor bills against Israel.

Third world dictators want the UN to keep from getting disposed from other nations.

Third world bankrupt nations which deliberately will not balance their budgets want cash for free for participating in what other nations want.

I think that sums up the entirety of third world nations participation.

"And USA wants the UN to allow them to do whatever they want without any questions asked smile"

first of all, since when has the USA had a mind of its own. and what county's leadership doesnt want to be able to do whatever they want without any questions asked?

> Justinian I wrote:

>...The US at least does it the old fashion way. We don't like you, we use political means to accomplish our objectives.<

Invasion is classed as a political measure now? Cool... I wonder if I could convince Mr Brown to take political measures against France?
__________

Can we close this please? What little of the thread that is on topic, the apparently thought out arguments, points, and counterpoints, are nothing more than bashing.
The rest is just an attempt to turn this into yet another place to call Obama naughty names and insist that them dirty godless towelheads are the source of all evil in the world, ever.
Again.

the UN is a propaganda tool.

"Yes Carter and Obama should have trials and be declared of lacking a brain. But hey it's the UN, since when have they completed a trial in less than 10 years of hearings?"

I'm sorry that proper justice in complex matters takes a tad longer than a Judge Judy episode or a standard movie length..

Also - and this must be noted - we're hopelessly throwing different organisations into this discussion and generalising them. The international court, the safety council and the UN itself are different bodies and shouldn't be confused.

+1

The UN fails most of it's peacekeeping duties if Europeans are involved.

However I would note that UN peace keeping forces composed entirely of Africans seem to work really well. However Africa is more headed towards their African Peacekeeping forces than working under the UN... which can make some stupid policy requirements.

How bad does the UN mess up? They kicked a battalion (A battalion is made up of 4 to 5 companies, each company averaging about 120 to 160 soldiers) of mercenaries out of a nation. This battalion had held the peace in this nation stopping the rebellion outright and stabilizing the nation. The UN was forced to put a division (A division is made up of 4-5 front line brigades, 2-3 support brigades, each Brigade being made up of 5 battalions) in place to try to keep the peace. However their shoot only if shot at policy allowed the rebels to do as they pleased, when they pleased. UN soldiers had their arms cut off, hundreds of thousands of people died, it was a serious mess... an embarrassment to the UN which the UN will try to hide forever. This is not a solitary embarrassment either.

This battalion had one motto. Paraphrased: We will kill anyone who tries to break the peace, no rules in stopping us, we will find you, we will kill you. They kept to that motto and the rebels knew they had no chance there. Europe, aka the UN however does not like Mercs, and made the nation give them up.

As I said, one of MANY failures under the UN.

"The UN fails most of it's peacekeeping duties if Europeans are involved."

[Whoops - I'm sorry]

I don't think that's a valid arguement. Kosovo has turned out fine, and Germany (after WWII)..

>>it's not the trial's fault milosevic died just before the verdict came.<<

Whose fault is it?

If the UN was really *that* powerfull, then why is the US not facing charges concerning violation of the human rights & war crimes ?
*cough*guantanamo bay*cough*

Ever since Europe was in total disarray after WOII there has been little to no threat to US domination of the world's resources.
Please refrain from mentioning the cold war, Russia never was and never will be a match for the gigantic war economy that drives the US.
Now, after 50 years, the effects of the world wars has worn off. Europe has been rebuilt in both economical and political terms. Our military is quite non-existant because we learned that there are other ways to resolve problems, ie diplomacy. Off course these methods will also fail from time to time, but the effects are seldom as disastrous as the American way of diplomacy (ie cooperate and hand it over or get bombed).
Given these skills, is it so very unthinkable that Europe starts to become more active in the world policy ?

The US is behaving like a spoiled child that starts to get a few little bothers and sisters: suddenly there is some cooperation and sharing involved.
Instead of actively working towards some compromise, it throws fits and abuses its age and wisdom (read: military) to try dominate the others.

What are you lot going to do when China starts to flex their ever evolving global muscles and want a say in world economics and politics ?

Then its time for us to withdraw from the WTO, the UN, and NATO.

"Our military is quite non-existant because we learned that there are other ways to resolve problems, ie diplomacy."

Not true and an insult to all the European soldiers that have shed blood and lost their lives in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, there really are European soldier who do more than hand out chocolate bars.