hmmmm, regretting I got involved...

>>And your point is????
>
>My point is that I don't mind the U.N. providing humanitarian assistance, but anything other than that and I am pretty skeptical.

So the ultimate use for the U.N. is to manage hand-outs around the world and not much more??

>
>>Let me assume, knowing you'll correct me if I'm wrong, that you're saying that once a failure has been demonstrated then nothing good can ever come again.
>
>Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda. What good does the U.N. actually do?

I thought that the U.N. did considerably more than get into the middle of fights. I thought that the U.N. has acknowledged that it's poor at warring and that, in fact, it had already been agreed that should it authorize war with Iraq, that the U.S. would lead the coalition of MANY nations.

>
>>If that's correct, then what country or organization qualifies for the kind of work mandated to the U.N.?
>
>For military purposes, the U.N. should have no role.

Agreed, other than for authorizing its existence and mission and start of action. The crux here is post war, including security (U.S./U.K. majorly responsible), rebuilding, administering justice, assistance in building bureaucracies for administration, school curriculum/outfitting, hospital organization and lots of other stuff that most importantly includes preparing, educating, running ELECTIONS.