Certainly not the U.N. that was created
"...precisely to do nothing. Its primary goal insofar as possible is to lock national boundaries and regimes in place and thereby "preserve the peace." Not only is the UN dedicated to preserving the principle of noninterference in the "internal affair of nations" it exists precisely to maintain it. Because the mission of the UN from its inception was to promote stasis -- not a bad thing during the Cold War when the supreme value was the maintenance of peace -- it is unsuited to action which perforce dismantles genocidal states and redraws boundaries. Committed to inaction, the UN becomes the graveyard of action.
"Wretchard" at the Belmont Club reviews by Assoc. press writer Barry Schweid, by Mark Steyn, Victor Davis Hanson in an interview with Hugh Hewitt, Austin Bay, John Hari, and others.
Should the UN be replace, de-certified, or revamped as it not effective? If the UN is de-certified, what would be put in its place?
Read it allwith his analysis.