Quote:
Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay+Feb 7 2005, 03:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAllTheWay @ Feb 7 2005, 03:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Feb 6 2005, 08:17 PM
I can't agree with you FATW. The UN and it's predecessor, the League of Nations, were conceived and brought to life in the wake of WWI and WWII. I think their initial purpose was specifically to prevent those sort of massive wars from happening again.
I'd also point out that while the US 'unilaterally' entered Iraq, the world had a problem with Saddam Hussein, not just the US. Why else would the UN issue resolution after resolution in an effort to contain and supress Hussein's maniacal whims?
|
Now you got me second guessing myself. I'm going off something I read awhile ago, a big thing on the UN where one of it's main themes was the fact that the UN was originally designed to only deal with conflicts within a country or between countries, but I can't remember which. So I could very well be wrong (most likely am). Either way though, I still feel the UN needs some sort of an overhaul to make it more of an effective player in international affairs.
Anyways, I have officially added nothing to this thread. Please discount both of my posts as they have probably made you all stupider. I award myself no points, and may god have mercy on my soul
... [/b][/quote]
Yeah, UN was for inter, not intra-country conflicts.
Huge points for your avatar though :P
"Kiff, I've made it with a woman... inform the men."