The US has an incredible gall asking the UN to bail them out now.

But this is a tricky situation because the UN would indeed be the right organization to attempt some sort of nation building: they've done this sort of thing before and are relatively good at it. The US, on the other hand, as clearly demonstrated in Iraq and elsewhere, hasn't got a clue.

The snag is, however, that the security situation in Iraq is so bad that the UN couldn't operate. They had a presence there at the start of the war but had to withdraw after UN workers kept getting killed.

So it's back to the US to provide the muscle to try to straighten out security before the UN could go in.

But, the sheer presence of the US in Iraq seems to be causing much of the trouble.

So we need somebody like the UN in there. But the UN can't because...

So what do we do now?

is exactly right. Time for some tough love.

Fix your screen resolution. I only had to use my mouse wheel once.

The UN is no better at so called nation building than anyone else is. That's not their job nor do they have the political will, inclination, organization or agenda to do so. The UN would be seen as just another occupier and they would last about as long as they did when their offices were bombed and they left.

In fact no one knows how to do this and even the idea that it's entirely possible is a waste of time. Some folks like to imagine that every problem is fixable. They're not.

Didn't we allow (cause?) the last UN representatives who were in Iraq to get killed? I think volunteering for martyrdom is a jihadist thing.

The "liberal free press"

Liberal Blogs (yes you too Salon...)The Liberals

Cindy Sheehan

The Moderates

The Iraqis

Failed US Military generals

The "cut and run" democrats

Hillary Clinton

The U.N.

Iran

Syria

Palestinians (at least Hamas)

Taliban

al Qaida

Pakastan

Soon: Defecting GOP traitors.

Wow. I bet these guys won't be on the White House Christmas mailing list this winter. too bad too. That would be one hell of a party eh' Cheney?

went to the UN and got the resolution that allowed for the Iraq war, so there is no reason why he couldn't go to them now.

You don't have to like the people you work with.

and yes, the UN was doing it's job in dealing with Iraq. The UN reported to the United States that there were no WMD's and that Iraq did not pose a threat to the U.S. Considering we have not found any WNDs, I am not sure exactly what the UN did wrong. The UN did not want us to invade Iraq, and warned us of the consequences if we did. Those warnings were ignored, and have subsequently turned out to be correct.

From my point of view, the only reason the UN appears to be inefectual is because it was powerless to prevent our invasion of a country that did nothing to us and posed no threat to us. It was our actions that made the UN obsolete. America broke international law when it invaded Iraq. Just like the Legislative and Judicial branches of our government, when the UN opposed Bush's agenda, Bush deemed it irrelevant.

I would love for the UN to take over the Iraq problem, but it can't do anything as long as we remain in there controlling everything. We need to get the hell out, and let others who actually CARE about the Iraqi people deal with this mess.

Ok nonaligned bloc dominated by the Arab states, you can officially sit on your fat asses and do nothing for the next 40 years as a salve to your bruised egos.

and

The nonaligned nations are dominated by 68 largely or predominately Muslim states. They generally vote as a bloc. 68 on its own is about a third. Add to that peripheral countries that lean in their direction, politically, yeah you get domination. I'm sorry your innumeracy tripped you up.

Come see the amazing moving goalposts! Arab = Muslim countries = countries who lean politically towards Muslim countries! Why, half the world must be Arabs! I'm not, though -- I like Japanese culture, which makes me Japanese instead.