Quote Originally Posted by Hoosier View Post
A glorious triumph need not be slaughtering your enemies. It's far better to find an amicable agreement. I don't care if you call it "pussyfoot", I prefer to think of it as treating others as I would like to be treated.

Of course I'm familiar with the League of Nations, it's the precursor to the U.N. Formed after WWI with the goal of preventing war, it failed to prevent the rise of Hitler and WWII. It did that because it had no no bite. The U.N. at least has some capability to enforce trade sanctions, and call upon member states to enact war. Indeed, the invasion of Iraq was done under U.N. auspices, otherwise it would have been illegal.

Now, I'm not saying the UN should have rights over a sovereign nation. I don't think anyone really is suggesting that. Even the tightest of working groups (e.g. Euro Zone) maintain the absolute right of sovereignity for each nation state. There is, however, an obvious roll for a body like the U.N. to try and facilitate peace between sovereign nations. And to imply that there's no use for the UN is to suggest there's no point to diplomacy.

My two cents. I never knew how much of a libtard I was until I came here, apparently.

H.
That sounds all fine and dandy except that most of the world's dictators throughout history have only used 'amicable agreements' and 'diplomacy' to further their own ends. Much like how Iran and other tinpot dictatorships currently use the UN as a tool to spread their messages.

Its ironic that the areas where the UN has been most effective have always involved using force against sovereign nations (Serbia, Iraq). While the areas where it has been least effective have seen extreme limitations placed on the use force (peacekeeping in general, particularly in Africa...).