>>World can't end, that's just a biblical story. However, the way it's taking shape today, I doubt it will be likable.
>
>I couldn't disagree more.

We don't have to wait long to see. Let's talk about it in two years from now.

>>Exactly. I remember resolutions back when they were 3-digit (424 or 242 was it? I'm bad with remembering exact names), which were permanently ignored for decades. Like those where Israel is requested to return the land it occupied in 1967, which it never returned, despite all the pressure, sanctions, weapons and oil embargoes etc that USA imposed on this country because it has weapons of mass destruction and has a record of using them against neighbors.
>
>Ever notice how all these resolutions seem to have disappeared since the collapse of the Soviet Union? The resolutions against Israel were much more about cold-war politics and Arab-3rd world cololitions than Israeli policies. The U.N. created Israel, then tried to take away its right to defend itself. As far as the land Israel occupied... wasn't Israel attacked by all it's neighbors? Repeatedly?

I still fail to see how taking your neighbor's land protects you. I'd rather tend to think that this is exactly a finger into the neighbors' eyes and something that would definitely get them _urinated_ off and give them a reason to say "see what we meant?".

>So basically the U.N. is saying, give back the land of the people who tried to push you into the sea.

And the current resolutions are the result of the single-superpower situation. Does that mean that all the old resolutions are invalid now? Do you revoke laws when the senators who passed them lose power or be forgotten? Or are these still having legal power?

>>Ooops... have I mentioned the wrong guys here? Or are there resolutions and resolutions?
>>
>>Besides, how does the "if the UN won't back us, we'll go it alone" help the strength of the UN?
>
>The U.N. has no strength. It draws up resolution after resolution on Iraq, not really intending to do anything about it. When will people ever learn that dictators understand one and only one form of diplomacy: force. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, he didn't leave because of diplomacy. He left because the world drove him out.

The dictators are best thrown over from within.

I'm spending too much time working and on UT, and I may be a little slack tracking the news, so I probably missed the big event. So fill me in - which country did Saddam occupy this time?