Do you even understand why the pathetic performance of the United Nations in Iran, Sudan, Somalia, North Korea, pre-Gulf-War Iraq, and all the rest is critically relevant to the Iraq War discussion?

Almost everyone who opposes the war in Iraq has described alternatives involving the United Nations somehow preventing any WMD work and somehow "containing" Saddam and his sons for the next thirty years. I wish someone would sit Al Gore down sometime and ask him what he would have done. How many people doubt he would play this same "U.N. card?"

I'm sorry, given the U.N's performance record, I just don't see it.

If you want my opinion, the Iran nuclear program will be solved only by military action. It's entirely possible that only military action will solve the genocide in Sudan. But it will have to be real military action, something that creates actual change. Who will end up doing this?