Dracoro

THIS IS NOT A THREAD TO DISCUSS THE RIGHTS & WRONGS OF IRAQ. There are other threads for that, so no having a go at the French/Bush/Blair etc. - do it elsewhere.

I thought the point of the UN is to prevent nations going to war without their backing. Convince the UN that military action is needed, get backing and go for it. No backing means you can't. If a nation will go to war regardless then that compeltely undermines, and makes irrelevant, the UN. Sure the nations in question would rather backing from a political/selling the idea to the public point of view but that's a bonus.

Carlos The Jackel

You would be aswell asking "Why are we here?"

Holy Ghost

rock on carlos. you should have blown it up before you died mate.

CarpetCleaner

the idea behind the UN was to avoid the mistakes that were made by the League of Nations when it allowed a dictator (Hitler) to gain enough power and momentum to threaten world peace by inaction when they had a chance to do something about it

This is it's first real test and it shows that it's a waste of time....mind you the building will make a great apartment block

StiShrek

on the other footing

indeed what is the point of the UN when they do little or nothing to enforce their decisions.

any wonder the US are going it alone.

waste of time...too many bureaucrats with hidden agendas.

Leslie

The nations that join enter a contract to follow the views of the Security Council. If they defy the resolutions then they are regarded as acting illegally and risking World disapproval. If a country is as powerful both financially and militarily as the USA, it is a bit difficult to stop it from taking advantage of the situation and doing what it wants.

What would you propose to take the UN's place as a deterrent to unjust Wars?

Les