Why I don't like the look of this coming conflict.

OK Bob,I'd much rather be looking at how a new UN would operate than argue about how this one fails.

Cuba,I think,is a perfect example of why your view will never be exceptable to the rest of the world.Your Government is imposing ruthless sanctions on a third world country because of a 40 year feud.One big question for the near future is;Is Guantamino bay(sic)the USA's Hong Kong?And will it change hands peacefully?

But more importantly,How do you see a future workable structure of the UN?No Vetoes?One European Veto?15 members of a security council?One?Or none?
It can not be flexible.It needs rules.

For starters, JB, I would propose any member of the UN that has sanctions imposed against them should clear that up before chairing important committees such as disarmament and human rights.

Cuba? Castro not too long ago was in Iran discussing how Iran and Cuba could bring America to its knees. And I thought Americans were ill informed about Castro and Cuba. Let the revolution die. Ruthless is Castro - not the sanctions.

Your first point Bob includes Israel?

Guantanimo Bay?When does that lease agreement expire?Will the USA act in the same honourable way the UK did with Hong Kong?

The only reason the USSR,USA,UK,France,China have no sanctions against them is because we can veto them.Does this give us moral authority in this new world order?

As I said before the UN can not be just a tool of US Foreign Policy,like the IMF,WTO,or NATO.The USA must except that or we really are in big trouble.

"Gazrok - Do you think the UN has actually done it's job in this case?"

No, absolutely not. This whole issue over Iraqi non-compliance should have been addressed about 10 years ago... Instead, everyone (including the US) seemed to gloss over such indescretions... 9/11 taught us to wake up and recognize the threats before they happened, not after...

If instead, if you're asking if the UN has done it's job to prevent war, then I'd have to answer "yes" it has. However, to oppose a "needed" war is irresponsible, and Saddam only understands force, sadly...

Gazrok - Ahh, I guess that's where we fundamentally disagree then. In my opinion war is not *currently* justified, and the majority of the people in the world think the same. Therefore if the UN votes for war, it will have voted against the will of the people (and only because the US has bought up the votes of smaller countries) and hence will have failed even more thoroughly.

Bob - Remember that the US were only voted off the human rights board because of their treatment of prisoners of war post-Afghanistan, and their indefinite locking up of Muslims across the US. I think they're back on though this year.

And overall, remember that of the 5 permanent members of the security council 4 are democracies. Syria has no veto, so the world is *not* relying on their vote. It would be unlikely that you would ever get as many as 7 non-democratic countries on the security council, so dictatorships will never be able to veto resolutions that everyone else agrees on (except China, who haven't shown a willingness to do that).