That is correct. The only solution, I believe, would be for member nations to subvert some of their autonomy and authority to a collective body such as the UN.

To that I am adamantly opposed. It would be a loss of soverignity (sp?). That is the reason that I opposed to the logic of the Supreme Court on the cuba detainees (one of the reasons). It based part of the decision on international law.

The Supreme Court is not charged with interpreting international law - just the US Constitution.

What does everyone here think should replace the UN, if anything at all??

If not dismantled, the UN should go through a massive reform process. I find it disgusting that some of the member nations to human rights groups within the UN are actually some of the worst criminals of human rights there are. There needs to be a massive investigation over the oil for food programme. It seems to me that it goes all the way to top of the world body.

In every conflict, the UN is always quick to condemn the US and Israel for every problem. They never seem to hold equal charges for people who attack the two countries, and it is outrageous. I have yet to hear a condemnation of the beheading of US soldiers at the hand of the Iraqi insurgency. I have yet to hear the condemnation of Hezbollah due to hide behind civillians.

When the UN building was bombed in the current conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, Kofi Annan was so quick to condemn Israel, calling their attack intentional. He tried to back out of it, but the damage was done.

Speaking for the peacekeeping force that was stationed there,

What the bloooody hell were they doing?!?!?!?!?!?!? Weren't they meant to KEEP the bloody peace? If they were able to enforce resolution 1559, there wouldn't have been a bloody conflict >.<

Yes the UN needs to go through some sort of make over, to make it more able to do the job that it should be doing. But who is going to force that to happen when the Dems in this country oppose Mr. Bolton?