If you haven't caught on already, I'm alluding to something like what the UN should be able to do. However, most here agree that the UN cannot accomplish this goal in its current incarnation.
Maybe your phoenix event c0ldst33ltrs4u refers to should happen to the UN, not the US?
@ Murdoch:
The UN could use such a revival, but this is where the shit hits the proverbial fan: what if by burning it down you cause much more trouble than it is worth it?
And even if you could rebuild it without causing additional problems, like disrupting aid programs and peace keeping actions, there is one more problem:
MONEY
It all comes down to the almighty buck, and where you get it from. Money do have a lasting scent, and if an organization is funded by a certain person/organization/country then everyone will think that that organization will serve the interest of whomever gave it the money. The question here would be: what neutral source of money could be used to fund the new UN? Where would you get the scent-free money? Because without it nothing would be solved, even if the "new UN" would do what it is supposed to do and for once be the scalpel that everyone needs.
@Executioner:
Just chuck the rules and swing the damn stick already!
That got the USA in this in the first place, plus sticks do well at breaking things, not fixing them. I know that you were joking, but many people really think that way, and even sadder, they act that way. That has got to stop!
@Welsh:
In contrast, the success of the Gulf War 1 sent out a signal around much of the world, that the US had the military power to easily crush most any second rate power in a few days.
True, true. Perhaps then Saddam should have been dealt with, because by letting him live he was made to belive that he had won. I might be wrong but fields need to be weeded early or they will be overrun. But there is one drawback of this small demonstration of strength: perhaps the US began to think of the army as the universal crisis solver, and perhaps long for more military victories...
As for the tortured prisoners... if the US points to Iraq and screams evil, the turns around and does the same thing that Iraq did is it not logical for their credibility to turn to shit? Who would belive a two faced no good hypocrite?
Damn... what I am about to say may earn me a lot of resentments but here goes:
There was 9/11, there were casualties in the war, but because the US poses as the righteous one here they should suck it in, they should not be vengeful, but merciful and tolerant. Let us not forget that those "tactical bombings" did plenty of collateral damage, so these people have also been hurt a lot, they are grieving, they are outraged and lust for vengeance. They no longer see the US as liberators (I wonder if they ever really did), but as tyrants, and worst of all tyrants that are bent on changing most of the rules and standards they have used their whole lives. So I belive it is only normal for these people to be bitter in the least, or aggressive whenever they get a chance. If Bush is such a devout Christian why does he not turn the other cheek?
