Guess what the UN is good for... Options

[*CrackedRearView*]

If you said 'nothing', you were pretty damn close. It now looks like we get to see the UN and Europe for what they really are. Saddam Hussein payed $25,000 to families of suicide bombers that attacked innocent Israelis. How did Saddam get the income to do this? Kickbacks from the UN's Oil-For-Food program. He starved his own people, funded terrorism, and took the help of many European governments and companies to do it. And this is the UN that we're supposed to let run our national security?

And to top it all off, the UN refuses to comply with our investigation of the scandal. They don't want to damage the public perception of themselves. How is that a reasonable excuse for noncompliance? That's like Martha Stewart saying she decided not to go to jail because she didn't want people to think badly of her.

Sounds legitimate to me.

This is why, when the interest of the President is in conflict with the UN, we go with the President.

[*CrackedRearView*]

That's the point. The Greeks saw debate as a tool to avoid war, which is exactly what they did for thousands of years.

It's natural for human beings to argue -- politics is a progressive, productive way to argue with the enemy.

But, back to the topic at hand:

Why should we trust the UN with keeping peace in the world?

Especially with such failures as UNOSOM II in Somalia, the 1994 Rwandan genocide where UN blue-helmets were told to back down, and the rampant corruption in high office and in the field (peacekeeping officers turning women into prostitutes)...

Comments?