Hear,Hear Steve. You know, when I was in 8th grade at St. John the Baptist Catholic school in Haycock, Pa. in Bucks County, our class trip was to New York city, and we went to the U.N. I was fascinated by the foreign receptionist,she was so beautiful. Then, our tour guide was a blonde woman in a uniform, and I thought she was just the best thing, I wanted to be like her! Wow, I thought, I want this kind of job, and the U.N. is so neat! Well, unfortunately, maturity and reality sets in. Perhaps it wasn't as bad then as it is now, but, boy, it is soo bad now. I think what bugs me the most is that these guys are living the high life in New York city, but consistently bite the hand that feeds them. How two-faced,and corrupt can you get? We are expected to just continue to cater to this body of U.S. bashers while they represent countries that are light years away from our compassion and freedom? I would LOVE for the U.N. to be moved to one of THEIR countries, instead of their continued, parasitic,draining of America.

Like it or not, Lisa, the UN has more roots in the US than any other country.

Yes, there has been corrupt dealings at the UN, and they are addressing that issue, but before you think about dissolving the UN and kicking them out of the US, thinking of a world without it. The UN has been incredibly succesful in preventing powerful nations from going to war with each other. Instead of nation's just looking after their self-interest, there's an organization that makes them think about how their actions effect the rest of the world. The results may not be tangible as they exist in only hypothetical form, but they are very real.

And lets not forget their much maligned inspectors were pretty much right on the money about Iraq's WMDs program and were repeatedly dismissed by our government. The UN is valuable. They are critical of the US sometimes, but we're a big country, I think we can take it.

Tom, they could put down roots somewhere else, why is that relevant? Addressing those issues are they? Fat chance! Hmmm, a world without it? Well, let's see. No more hideous,human rights violators being on a human rights committee? No more constant obstacles to our rights as a Nation? So, they make other nations think about how their actions affect the world? Right. "Critical of the U.S. sometimes". It is more than "critical". They try to be obstructionist at every turn. They HATE us. You can't see that? Of course, we CAN take it, but why SHOULD we?

Enlighten me Tom. What recent war have they averted? What of anything have they done, that the nations involved wouldn't have collectively done away with or without the presence of a giant useless bureaucracy?

Well, we don't know what wars they would have avoided. By bringing together traditional enemies into a union, it has potentially helped avoid many wars.

It served as a forum for the US to point out that Russia was transporting weapons to russia, and thus setting a diplomatic tone for handling the crisis, however tenuous that may have been.

It was against the the US invasion of Iraq, which they felt was not necessary for the safety of the US and Iraq's neighbors. They were right, we were wrong. Let's not forget that. The US is probably the one state that can afford to act outside of the UN, but it doesn't mean we should.

let's not forget that the first half of the 20th century was one of the more voilent 50 years in recent times. The second half of the century, after the creation of the united nations, while dotted with many smaller wars, did not see the kind of destruction that cursed europe for centuries beforehand.

I meant "russia was transporting weapons to cuba"

Tom, Are you serious? The U.N. felt it was necessary to tell US what our dangers were? Who the Hell asked them! "They were right, we were wrong". What?!? No, you are correct. The world is SOO much safer and beautiful since the creation of the U.N. I agree, I also credit the U.N. with the relative peace that has ensued since it's creation. Must be the reason.

The world is SOO much safer and beautiful since the creation of the U.N. I agree, I also credit the U.N. with the relative peace that has ensued since it's creation. Must be the reason.

I know you were trying to be sarcastic but there hasnt been a World War like WWI OR II Since its inception.

You neo-conservatives are right! Why do we need the UN? We have George MF Bush! We have the mighty U S A to watch over us! You are just the best, the UN is just a corrupt no good organisation where the superiority of Uncle Sam is questioned every now and than, we don't need that. It's a good thing a hero like John Bolton is going to set things straight!!

Now to be serious, I don't know why we ever excepted an asshole like that to take such an important place. I guess we'll (the younger generation of Europeans) just have to wait our turn to lead our continent. The older generation still has to much sympathy for you "good" old Americans. That's going to change though. You can bet on that. Don't take this as a threat, take it as a fact!!

John Bolton doesn't mean shit. He said the happiest day in his live was the day the US decided not to take part in the International Justice Court. He's a sick man with no interest in international cooperation at all. He was assigned to that post to destroy the UN.

Bolton should be under arrest for treason and stupidity. He, like every single neo-con nazi out there, has been WRONG WRONG WRONG on every single statement he has made since 2000.

This is not just the most conservative admin ever, it is also the flat-out most incompetent. This is the new face of conservatism - stupid and proud of it, aggressively so.

Shortly after Bagdad fell the US took control of the oil for food program in Iraq. In a short 18 months we managed to lose $8.9 billion. In ten years of UN managementing the program its estimated that a little over $2 billion was diverted. Both instances show corruption and incompetence.

Bravo POed Lib!! What you have said are the plain and simple facts. Bush is incompetent!! US debts are growing with an enormous speed because of this fool and the world never hated America more because of him and his compadres. He's just a curse to mankind in general.

Bashing the UN is so moronic. The US is part of the UN. You might as well sit there punching yourself in the face. Or have one state badmouth the entire US. Its just stupid.

The right hates the UN because if there was a larger global rule of law the crooks and liars that profit from human misery would have to answer to some form of justice and accountability. And, hay, that could hurt the bottom line.

Bolton is an ass.

Timmy Timmy, first and foremost, I resent being called a "neo-con". Do you even understand what that means? Seems like you paint any conservative with that brush. Other than that, your first paragraph was true,except for the middle initials of George Bush, and the assumption that our superiority is only questioned every now and then by the U.N.

Ya know tim, why do you think the "older generation" has "so much" sympathy for "you good old Americans"? Perhaps because they can recall a time when we "good old Americans" saved your collective butts? Go ahead, wait your turn to lead your continent. You will get nowhere. Because you and your ilk are total wimps. You are going to LEAD your continent? Whoa, poor Europe is worse off than I thought. You have no future on your own.

Ugh. I'm not even going to comment, save to say that anyone who beleives the UN has the power to advert war is a bloody fool. Nations will make what war they can make, all the UN can do is threaten warmongers with MORE WAR, and the UN is an empty and hallow body, it can only prevent what wars it's members choose to prevent. The choice still lays in the hands of each nation, as so it should be.

The UN has adverted nothing. If you're going to sit here and tell me (TOM) that "We don't know what wars might have happened if the UN didn't exist but probably some", then fine, say that, but say along with it "We don't know how many people Saddam might have nuked or gassed in the future if not deposed, but probably some".

The idea that the US is the only country that can act outside of the UN??? Get off your ego! France does it ALL THE TIME! All sorts of countries make war without UN approval and nobody peeps!

As far as whether or not we should follow them blindly, you'd be a fool to. They have thier own interests to serve, on top of the interests all it's members are seeking to serve within it. That's life. And Iraq? We were wrong about IRaq?!?

Oh yeah, Tom! We should TOTALLY follow the world body that gleefully permits the oppression and slaughter of millions so long as the oil flows freely! What a wonderful concept. NO ONE should ever act outside of THAT system!

If your post had started with Ugh, Ugh, Ugh, I would have suspected that you had Lisa or Steve write it for you.

I agree with Boltons comments. "The US will only use the UN when it's in the best interest of the US."

That's what the Bush administration has done, and two examples is Iraq and Sudan. The US has blamed the UN for no action in Iraq, because we invaded without just cause. The US has blamed the UN in regard to Sudan because we haven't been willing to make a stand.

Oh no, on Sudan I stand corrected, today we are sending a delegation (A DELEGATION!!)after how many months and how many thousands have died? Why, because things are moving to slow.

"two examples are"....better correct my grammar.

""Oh yeah, Tom! We should TOTALLY follow the world body that gleefully permits the oppression and slaughter of millions so long as the oil flows freely! What a wonderful concept. NO ONE should ever act outside of THAT system!""

OK, so what's your take on Sudan?

We should TOTALLY follow the world body that gleefully permits the oppression and slaughter of millions so long as the oil flows freely!

Er Rummy and assorted Republicans circa 1982?

Point 1 - Iraq invaded Kuwait and the UN did NOTHING. They defended NOTHING. They negotiated NOTHING. They aided NOBODY but themselves and corrupt bureaucrats, politicians, and middlemen; and did their best to hide the evidence.

Point 2 - The UN did NOTHING about the slaughter in Rwanda except evacuate some foreigners.

Point 3 - The UN did NOTHING except call meetings and accuse the US of being stingy when Tsunami relief was needed.

Point 4 - The UN STILL REFUSES to acknowledge there is genocide occurring in the Sudan.

Point 5 - The UN still REFUSES to condemn Palestinian terrorism, and instead, places blame on the Israelis.

Point 6 - The UN cannot even perform comprehensive inspections of Iran's nuclear program, and have continually backed down from them.

And Democrats are afraid that Bolton might say something that would offend the UN? What morons!

Points 1 thru 6. What a twisted view.

The US has a voice/vote in the UN and it's (or can be) a big voice.

If the US can be heard making an argument to invade Iraq, then why are they not heard making an argument for dealing with situations such as Sudan, Rawanda, Tsunami relief.....??

I know why, do you? It's a NIMBY attitude, MORON!

Lisa are you telling me I don't know what neo-conservative means? What did you study? Did you even finish highschool? You moronic right-wing witch!

I am fed up with all those right wing assholes who believe international cooperation is wrong. Sure the MJ's and Lisa's on this planet want to cooperate, but only under their terms. It doesn't work that way! And MJ you looser, you were and ARE wrong about Iraq. The reason is very simple. You didn't do it for the people. Only in the first weeks that became very clear when you guarded the ministery of oil from being plundered but left museums unguarded. The insurgency forced you to try and win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi's, but you didn't plan for all this. Now you suddenly want European help. It's like you cook, make a fucking mess in the kitchen and tell us to do the dishes. We won't do it, clean up your own mess you arrogant right-wing republican fuckface.

BTW, how old are you Lisa? If you're young enough you will live to see things will change over here. Things are already changing, but the older generation is not speeding things up. You need us and we should use that to our advantage a lot more than we do now. We, the younger generation have a different view of Americans. We are equals and it's about time you start treating us that way, otherwise we'll grow apart more and more each year.

The favorite pastime of some UN aid workers in Africa is child rape.

I don't think it is fair to place blame on the United Nations, as a whole, for the actions of a few miscreants. I took the same stance with the Abu Ghraib prison "violence." You cannot blame the U.S. military for the actions of certain rogue soldiers. In every organization, there will always be those "bad apples" who make the organization look bad. I would only fault the organization if action were not taken to correct the problem and punish those responsible.

I also don't believe it is fair to blame Kofi Annan for his son's corruption. Junior Annan is a big boy and he makes his own choices. Any intent to say Kofi Annan was aware of his son's financial dealings is pure speculation and given that the investigation, whitewashed or not, found no evidence to support that accusation, the speculation is also unfounded.

Those are my two gripes about Steve's article. In support of Steve, I also believe the U.N. is in dire need of reform. I don't know all that much about John Bolton, but I would say this. If Mr. Bolton isn't going going into this position with a mind for positive change, but rather with an agenda for dismantling the U.N., then I don't believe he is the right person for the job. I don't believe the U.N. is without it's purposes, but I do believe that it is ineffective in some instances. I look to the invasion of Kuwait and wonder why the U.N. didn't take any action whatsoever in stopping that invasion. In fact, if the U.N. thought the U.S. invasion of Iraq was so wrong, then why didn't they try to stop the U.S.?

It is hardly a 'twisted view' when the evidence of the UN's non-actions are in full view.

The UN had no part in the Gulf War, and became responsible for the massive fraud which was the Oil for Food program.

The U.S. should have been vocal about Rwanda. However, since it was during the Clinton Administration, all thoughts about doing something went by the wayside in order to 'work with the UN'.

The U.S. and its friends responded first with Tsunami aid. UN bureaucrats worked to ensure that their comfort was obtained first while they held meetings and conferences. In the meantime, while the UN ensured that room service was prompt, the US was criticized for being 'stingy'. If they would've looked outside from their 4 star hotels, they would've seen a US aircraft carrier delivering more aid than all the Arab Oil sheiks combined had pledged.

If the UN still has not admitted there is genocide, even though the U.S. has stated that it uncategorically is happening, that isn't a twisted view of the UN. That's denial in order to prop up murderers.

The US went to the UN time and time again; trying to get the UN to enforce its own resolutions and the cease fire agreement. They refused, and we now know its because Kojo and other UN-connected individuals had their fingers in the till or were covering it up.

My point is pretty straight forward.

If the US is willing to ignore the UN in regard to Iraq and invade this country against the vote and will of the UN, then why doesn't the US ignore the UN and go to Sudan and deal with a problem that is stated (and I believe is) as genocide???

It's still NIMBY!

WJC and the UN has apologized for lack of action in Rawanda. That doesn't make it right. An apology is something "W" doesn't know anything about.

The US was up to our backsides in the Oil for Food scam. It was known before "W" was elected. Why point the finger at the UN? It's easier, that's why. No accountability on the part of the US. It seems reasonable that we, the US, would be called stingy. It's best to let the organization that's best equipped to handle a situation do their job. If the US made payments to the UN as agreed then they may be more prepared to respond.

Tom...the UN doesn't avert wars in any manner. Individual countries avert wars. Sure, it may be a place for representatives of a country to TALK about it....but what's actually ever been DONE by the UN to avert any of the wars that have happened since it was founded? Sure...UY might want to point out that there's been no WWIII....but what does the UN have to do with that...as in ....where's the causality? Did the League of Nations stop WWII, as it was supposed to be founded to do (stop another WW)? If you recall the Cuban missile crisis correctly, war was avoided because those Ruskies backed down and did not cross our embargo-line...it had nothing to do with the UN or the presentations to the UN, but with the stance that the United States took. Kennedy drew a line in the water and said "Do not cross this line".....and they wisely chose not to. Now, what did the mighty UN have to do with this?

The Gulf War has already been covered....in which the UN did nothing.

What the UN IS good for is sitting in teh General Council and making lame resolutions AGAINST ISRAEL....last I saw, the number was 95 resolutions against those damned Jews.

As for your charge Russ....can you please point me to where there's information on ANY U.S. involvement in the Oil for Food scandal? If we were "up to our backsides" in it...it shouldn't be difficult. I tried to find something through google, but came up empty. The only thing I found is that the US didn't say anything while the program was being scammed by Saddam and Jordan and Turkey...not to mention France and Russia. That's not exactly "up to our backsides" in the scandal, now is it? As for "Why point the finger at the UN?".....because it was the UN Oil for Food program that allowed Saddam to enrichen HIS life and the lives of those in countries that WERE involved (Russia and France anyone?), while allowing his people to suffer and die (5000,000 children by UNICEF numbers).

Yay...timmy is continuing his anti-American screed. How can I get through my day without hearing his anti-Americanism? Bring it on, timmy. That's right timmy....we, the United States, "needs" the Netherlands....our college students need SOMEWHERE to smoke dope legally. Glad you're still speaking for the rest of the world.

Yeah and a fine Ma. democrat he was.. :) told NK to take his scrap metal home.

Sarge, Ankle deep or up to your ass. The US knew about it and to me it's the same as participating in the scam. The spotlight has only been directed at an issue that's at least eight years old.

It's a diversion from the admin. to take the pressure off "Ws" screw-ups. There's been plenty of time to cover the US involvement and they knew that Saddam was kicking up the price then recieving the overcharge back to his accounts.

I'll try to find something? It is old news. Really old. Half of PME was in elementary school. :-)

Only half?

I know of the medical and food stuff being overcharged for the mutual benefit of Iraq and whoever they were dealing with....but there's also the "oil voucher" aspect of the scandal that I need to refresh my mind on.

So timmy, what DOES neo-con mean? Why shouldn't we want to cooperate "under our terms"? See, it DOES work that way when you are bigger and stronger. Really, I think you should have a nice cup of tea, and calm down. By the way, we have had European help from the beginning. As to my age, well, come on timmy, that is not polite to ask no matter what my age is! Yes, I have noticed that Europe has been changing, unfortunately not for the better.

yo timmy! What DOES neo-con mean to you?

So timmy, what DOES neo-con mean?

You honestly dont know? Shouldnt be suprised there are many many words most Bush voters dont understand.

Oh please UmYeah, I know, I am asking HIM what HE thinks it means since he called me one. There is a word for you that I totally understand, but, being a lady, I cannot say it.