>>So the ultimate use for the U.N. is to manage hand-outs around the world and not much more??
>
>They are also good at passing resolutions.
>
>>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.
>
>What is the U.N. good at?
>
>>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.
>
>What elections has the U.N. been involved in?

Chris;

Actually, the United Nations has been involved with the elections of other nations for many years. As an example the Geneva Accords of 1954 required that Vietnam have elections to determine who should be its leader and the United States vetoed that idea. We would not accept a communist leader as Ho Chi Mien would have won.

Jimmy Carter was awarded the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of his "untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development."

It seems that Jimmy carter has a better track record at assisting with elections in other nations than the United Nations. One person can do more than a bickering group of people who are self-serving and interested in gain, in the areas of political, economic and military relations for their own countries.


Tom