Well, we know what side your on.

Iran was on the agenda long before Iraq was with the Bush brigade. It is the next phase and it will be dealt with. They need to build up the reasoning and support now.

That is why the propoganda has begun, and it will continue until their is enough support to commence phase II of the middle east restructure.

What i cant believe, is that the Author perhaps does not see this. I put it to you that North Korea is much more dangerous than Iran, yet the US (or UN the same people pull the strings) does not want a fight that will involve full effort and mass murder.

They are like schoolyard bullies, and i hope you dont continue to be taken hook, line and sinker.

Remember how bad Iraq was? it was found not to be so bad afterall. If they talk about liberating, why dont they 'liberate' one of 10 other nations like Zimbabwe then, for instance?

Their is plenty of coin in war and there is plenty of coin in oil. dont be fooled by what you hear and see. The plan is in place already, dont get on the bandwagon or worry about Iran, the US are locked on to them.

WHY THE UN WILL ALWAYS FAIL.

Its really simple.
1/ Theologically "All have and (continue to) sinned"
2/ National Interest is always, but ALways at the forefront of nations thinking, unless overall survival at stake and even THEN they hum and hah.
3/ Linguistically. The UN is not the reconstruction of the human race in reverse to Babel. Language and culture and prestige for those things is always in the minds of the member nations.
4/ Corruption. Due to the above, nations attempt to:
a) Buy (with aid)
b) Bully (with threats)
c) Manipulate (using economic power)
d) Persuade. (almost legitimate)
voting nations in terms of their own national interest. (Whaling)
It goes further, reaching into issues of 'discrimination' which are beneficial to certain cultural agendas but deleterious to others.

Ultimately, the security council has veto powers over actions.

Such veto's are due to national/cultural/economic interest. The nations on the security council are those with real power to gain or lose.

To all those who think there is some idealism at work in the UN, I will pay for your first session of therapy :)

Coyote “The United Nations does have the potential to be a force for world peace.”
Much as it would be nice to agree with you, not withstanding the power loss, which you correctly observe. It has always been the way of mankind and is nothing particular to any national sub-group.

Unfortunately what David_Boaz has written “WHY THE UN WILL ALWAYS FAIL” is not only true but more likely “unduly optimistic”.

The UN is a talk fest. I suppose it enshrines the greatest problem of human kind, that we remain a series of national entities.

The UN was a product of the peace with followed WWII and replaced the League of Nations. It was a compromise which allowed the Soviet Union to claim the Eastern half of Europe and much of the intervening time has been consumed in ensuring that corrupt system did not consume more.

With the passing of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet block, the world has changed. In recent years greater emphasis has been placed on trade, free trade in particular.

The future for a successful replacement to the UN might be found in something based on trade.
Trade produces inter-dependency. Inter-dependency breaks down nationalist interests and the xenophobia of nation-states. Ultimately, enhanced trade will do more to ensure world peace than the UN talk fest will ever achieve.
In the very simplest of terms, when every nation holds real estate and production capacity in every other nation, the people of the world will have more to lose from warring because it would lead to destroying their own productive investment.

Quiet frankly, getting fed up with the blatant Iran bashing being escalated to the extent it has this new year.
Appears every dog and his/her master/mistress are jumping on the band wagon and trying to get their two bob's worth in while the going's good.

Problem is, it's all lies and self serving rubbish.
For many years, the U.S. has ASSISTED and SOLD Iran the where withall to build nuk reactors and during that time, NEVER ONCE insisted they could not enrich anything.
Course the FACT is, Iran IS ENTITLED to do just that, IT IS NOT, and HAS NEVER BEEN ILLEGAL.
Nor is it ILLEGAL, should they ever choose, to build a nuk or two, their neighbours have done just that, and the U.S. as well as Britian has embarked upon further manufacturing of nuk devices contrary to the NPT, is that LEGAL ?
Guess one could say, this whole issue smacks of the POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK.

Besides, I'd love someone to expalin to me when something is ILLEGAL AND WHEN IT'S NOT.
After all, the INVASION of Iraq was ILLEGAL, yet no one country or institution, counting the U.N. as well, has taken ACTION against the country breaching these International laws.
IMHO, the acts of the U.S. and Britain are far more serious then Iran striving to build nuclear power LEGALLY.
So WHY are there not SANCTIONS being moved against BRITAIN, U.S. and Australia as well as the remaining countries who've SUPPORTED this ILLEGAL act ?

Iran KNOWS very well, it does not sit very well with the current U.S. govt that their country sits atop a sea of oil that the U.S. has no hope of ever laying it's fingers upon under current circumstances, resulting prevention of the monopoly the U.S. desires regarding production/control of fossil fuels for the immediate future.
Make no mistake about it, THAT'S THE REAL ISSUE HERE, CONTROL OF DIMINISHING FOSSIL FUELS, nukes is just the way to get in the door.
Wake up people.

The UN has no independent armed forces other than its Nation States, so relies on the peace keeping roles of armed forces from those States. With the sofistication of the present war machine of advanced nations they are not going to share their technical edge with lesser members and unskilled forces. That is why the coalition of the willing act independent of UN decisions, as the dallying of the UN leaves them at risk.

Though the general population of Iran may be looking for a peacful life the fanatical Old Guard wish the fulfilment of their domination of the Middle East. Perhaps the UN should send in a sniper team to take out these fanatics before they do damage. It would be better to have a peoples revolt as happened before in Iran that allow these power hungry twits to survive.

Interesting posts - in particlar Col Rouge is very apt - theory of "if there was a McDonalds in every nation" - NOT that I am advocating that scenario per se - I am not in favour of the power exerted by multinationals. However, the point of trade breaking down barriers is probably our best chance to establish some form of peace.

Iran quite rightly bristles against the hypocrisy of the leading nations' dominance of nuclear power. No doubt Iran wants nuclear for both energy and weaponry - so, perhaps, this is where we should be establishing trade agreements rather than the corrosive effects of sanctions. Also, finding alternatives to oil would mean less dependence on the Middle East. After all, surely the western nations would prefer to hold the upper hand in trade.