>To be clear, nobody, including the UN itself, denied there was a failure, so you don't need to prove there was one.

So why should I have any confidence in U.N. involvement now?

>The article you post mentions that Dutch peacekeepers were overrun. Yes, 110 Dutch peacekeepers were overrun. Presumably the US is going to keep only 110 troops in Baghdad until order is restored? If not, you have to ask why there were only 110 Dutch troops. Could it be because there were only 7400 troops for the whole peacekeeping effort? Do you think the US will keep only 7400 troops in Iraq until order is established? If not, why were there so few troops in the Balkans?

And why should any have been there at all, under U.N. control:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/675945.stm

The Serb forces did not withdraw, but at 0900 Colonel Karremans received word from Sarajevo that his request for close air support had been submitted on the wrong form.

>I'm asking where you think the UN failure lay. It sounds as if you are placing the failure at the door of the Security Council?

I am placing blame on the entire U.N., not just the Security Council. An organization like the U.N. cannot use force when it needs to. This has been shown over and over again.

>Any comment on my last point re the UN's need to get Security Council extensions for peacekeeping efforts, and how this was threatened by disagreements over the International Criminal Court?

I don't know anything about it. But I am sure the U.N. is to blame :-).