>>You're not really advocating that the UN put itself in the position of possibly having to do something for real, are you? The UN had a wonderful opportunity to do just that in Rwanda. No; the UN is a sabre rattling organisation. They might be talked into standing on the border of Iraq and shaking their collective fist, but I wouldn't really expect more than that.
>
>It is a big a dangerous step to go from peace keeping to peace making. Rwanda looks like it could have been case of where peace making could have worked.

Absolutely. In fact I don't see how anything else would have worked. Somebody with guns would have had to step in and stop the slaughter. Romeo Dallaire begged for it, but nobody listened. The fact that he disobeyed orders is all that saved thousands of lives.

The U.N. has to get it's ducks in a row and it's priorities in order. Sometimes you can talk and hope to get things done, but sometimes, you have to make the hard decision and move. The U.N. is not noted for making real and useful decisions in that way. Until they get rid of the idea that the security council has members with veto power, nothing will ever change.