Reply #3: You don't seem to understand what the UN actually is...

[Devils Advocate NZ]

The UN can not do anything. All it can do is mandate that its member nations do something, but in the case of military action, this must come from the Security Council. When the allies set up the UN at the end of WWII they made sure that only if they agreed could something happen. Thus the permanent members have veto power.

In other words, the UN can only force the US to do something if the US agrees, and that is not exactly forcing it is it?

Don't blame the UN for it following the rules it was created under. To ignore those rules would be the same as the US ignoring them and thus be no more legitimate.

If the US wants to continue the lie that the UN is irrelevant, perhaps it should campaign for the UN rules to be changed to allow it to be more democratic and thus not suceptible to the whims of the 5 permanent members of the SC (The US, Russia, France, UK and China).

Remember, what drove Bush wild was the knowledge that both France and Russia said they would veto a UN resolution calling for war against Iraq. At that stage he had the numbers to win a straight vote of the SC members, but the veto would have shot down his resolution. This may have in fact been the first time a veto was used AGAINST US interests, but it certainly wouldn't have been the first time it had been used.

The US liked the UN just fine as long as it was being used by the US to force other nations to do things, but the moment it was used to stop the US from doing something, it suddenly became irrelevant. Go figure...

Anyway, the point is that the UN itself can't do anything. Any actual action has to come from its member nations, and it can only happen with the approval of the 5 permanent members of the SC. Thus the UN can never FORCE the US to do or NOT DO anything as the US has to agree to that action.

Besides, what did you want the UN to do? Declare war on the US?