Is the United Nations anything more than an over glorified debating society huffing, puffing, and doing nothing? I doubt it.

Remember, Israel was created in 1947 when the United Nations General Assmebly recognized its existence. (This by the way, precipitaed the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948). Israel was a Zionist state then. It is still a Zionist state now. What changed the past fifty-six years?

The United Natiions grew from its original 56 members to over 180 members today. Those new members who joined the United Nations the past half-century reconstituted the United Nations membership considerably.

Many of those new United Nations members were from newy recognized Arab governments of southwest Asia. Most however, were from Africa and southern Asia. "Democracy," or more correcttly, democratic forms of government never really took root in southwest Asian or Africa.

Arabs have never ruled themselves. Strongman rule has been the plight of Arabs since Versailles. Many of the largest nations of Africa, Nigeria, Egypt, the Congo, Liberia, or Zimbawbe at one time or another were governed (ruled) by manifestly corrupt, or racist governments themselves. Look at what happened to white Rhodesians (Zimbabweans) if you do not believe me.

Somehow or another the United Nations never declared Zimbabwe a "racist" nation, whatever that means. However, the United Nations "racism" conference held in South Africa one week before 9/11 found time to declare the United States and the very nation it recognnized, Israel, racist countries. But after Arabs attacked the United States on 9/11, the United Nations did not say boo. Why is that?

Perhaps those corrupt governments sharing a seat in the United Nations general assembly impacted the character of the United Nations itself. I doubt it was for the better, either.

I cannot take the United Nations seriously when it demonstrates inconsistency such as this. The United Nations is certainly a forum to debate ideas; but I do not see it resolving any problems, either. Can anybody remmeber one successful United Nations peace keeping mission? I cannot. So what does the United Nations REALLY do to keep the "peace?"

The United Nations does not define "peace" in any relevant or realistic way just as it does not define "racism" in any meaningful, correct way. It will probably do so only in politically correct terms. I further doubt if my Webster's or Random House dictionary will agree with the UN's usage, either. Listening to the United Nations general assembly sounds increasingly to me more like listening to Lewis Carroll's Jabberwocky, who used words in any way he wanted since he could define them any way he saw fit.

If the United Nations cannot menaingfully define what it pursues or seeks to change, what good is it? In that vein, I personally believe it only becomes a forum for majoritian rule i.e. pure democracy. That, by the way, is what our founding father feared the most.

You just have to look at UN composition:

-Saudi Arabia: the country who produced bin Laden and who pushes back schoolgirls into a flaming building: one vote.

-Libya: the guys who put bombs in planes: one vote.

-Sudan: the country who is in genocidal war against the Blacks of its South (funny Mandela has never uttered a word about this): one vote.

-Syria: sponsor of Hizbollah and illegal occupier of Lebanon: two votes (its own and the one of its Lebanese puppet)

-Iran: co-sponsor of Hizbollah: one vote

-Yemen: about like Saudi Arabia but in addition practicing female genital mutilation: one vote.

-Zimbabwe: a thuggish state who starves its own population

-Iraq: a Hitlerian ideology seeking to get nukes and who uses its own population as human shields: one vote.

And we are supposed to care for what the UN says?
We are supposed to consider the UN as source of international law?

In fact I would say that when a nation or cause it is blamed>/b> by the UN it is probably worth supporting it. In fact I would say that if you systematically go against what the UN supports you will rarely go wrong.