TomB:
I still remember a time, not all that long ago, when the UN was anything but a tool for the US. For many years the UN was the soapbox from which the radicals of the world spoke out against our policies, which is what makes it even more ironic now when we use the same "tool" against them.
To an extent it still very much is that soapbox as it's still pretty much the only safe place for those 'radicals' to voice their opinion and have it heard by leaders of almost every other country in the world. Its like the WWF and a media circus in one little bundle. It can be highly effective when it works, but unfortunatly has been plauged in recent years with accusations of backroom dealings and espionage. Something that has even been kept very quiet in the media.
Ura, like it or not we are the international "good guy" gestapo, and any attempt to shirk that responsibility tends to be met with stern reproach. Actually, either way the US is usually found to be at fault - when we enter conflicts were bad guys for sticking our noses in, and when we try to stay out we're being isolationist in our policies.
I have nothing wrong with the U.S. taking on the responsibility of being the world police, but there is a wrong way and a better way to act on that responsibility, and personally I think that the U.S. government picks the wrong way more often then not when it comes to situations like this. The U.S. certainly shouldn't just ignore things and keep its nose out, but it does need to learn just how much to stick its nose in and how. Try to be more like the Lone Ranger rather then the Gestapo. Its a big ideal I know, but the U.S. of all countries in the world should have the ability to do it.
Train:
As for The U.S. using the U.N., They're only puppets until they cut the strings... What they're afraid of is being a League of Nations... that's why they may seem to be pushed around.
Actually the U.S. knows it needs to stay in the U.N. just as much and the U.N. needs it. For differing reasons though. For the U.S. the U.N. is sometimes the only diplomatic communication and way to keep tabs on places that pretty much hate or at least dislike the U.S. without raising suspicions. It also knows that it needs to stay in to maintain the balance that keep the other major groups in the U.N. from getting an edge over them such as the British Commonwealth countries (well known for sticking together,) or China. The U.N. likewise needs the U.S. to make its policies more enforcable and have a better influence behind them. The problem is that the U.S. is one of the largest rejectors of various U.N. resolutions and rarely decides to play with the team unless its trying get the team to do something it wants.
What we should think about when a nation refuses U.N. resolutions is the fact that the U.N. resolution is already a much weaker position than we(U.S.) would take, so if they won't make the U.N. happy - they must be up to something...
That's when they need to be dealt with - before they can actually do anything
So does this mean the U.S. will "invade" itself and wipe itself off the map only to replace its own government with a puppet government that will report to no one because the original government is gone? Or should I just rip the U.S. section out of my atlas because its going to nuke itself off the planet?
I mean really, with talk like that you're either in denial of that crap the U.S. stirs up, you just think it should apply to everyone but the U.S., or you would also like that policy enforced against your own country whatever the ends.
The U.S. is almost always "up to something" but there is rarely anyone thats going to stop them.
I certainly believe there should be some real active enforcement, but I also think those rules should apply to everyone equally, not just to those we brand a radical dictator, a tyrant, or a terrorist.
"