North Korea's attack on South Korea.

[Rocky]

South Korea's president called on his military forces to use "action" and not talk to punish North Korea for deadly artillery attacks on Tuesday, but international diplomats appealed for restraint.

"The provocation this time can be regarded as an invasion of South Korean territory. In particular, indiscriminate attacks on civilians are a grave matter," President Lee Myung-bak said at the headquarters of the Joint Chiefs of Staff here, according to South Korea's Yonhap news agency.

"Enormous retaliation is going to be necessary to make North Korea incapable of provoking us again," Lee said.

South Korean leader calls for 'action' after strike - CNN.com

According to this article, this is the first time that North Korea has launched a direct attack on South Korea since the armistice after the Korean War, over 50 years ago.

Massive retaliation is expected from South Korea. Will the United States step in and decide to police the situation? Will we end up going to war once again? Share your thoughts and concerns.

[nix]

War again?

When did the USA last go to War? Vietnam I think it was

Anyway, bummer about Korea, I was gonna go over and teach English but glad i didn't now

[che]

BBC News - Border clash prompts South Korean missile warning

This is a much better article.

I'm wondering at what point other countries will intervene. South Korea has multiple closeby allies, as well as the US (while also having a large amount of US troops there). North Korea has no allies. It doesn't seem logical to me for North Korea to be doing anything like that.

My most innocent wish is that nothing else will ever happen again between the two countries. Maybe after Kim Jong dies his son will want to lead a better country? Hopeful, at best.

I have friends stationed in S. Korea, too.

[Rocky]

North Korea has no allies. It doesn't seem logical to me for North Korea to be doing anything like that.

I have friends stationed in S. Korea, too.

North Korea is allied with China, and China controls our currency at the moment. It would make me extremely nervous as an American if we were to intervene.

[che]

North Korea is allied with China, and China controls our currency at the moment. It would make me extremely nervous as an American if we were to intervene.

My fault, I read part of that article wrong.

There was more condemnation of North Korea from Russia, EU and the UK, although China - the North's main ally - refused to apportion blame.

I thought I had read that all of the above condemned North Korea for it.

[Aerif]

BBC News - Border clash prompts South Korean missile warning

Yay international usage of the BBC! (paid for by that yearly contribution every TV owner in Britain has to pay -_-)

This now seems like typical behaviour from North Korea, although as the BBC says it's the biggest thing they've done since the 50s.

I'm guessing nothing will come of it, but in case something does happen it could be the precursor to World War 3. If I could tell Obama one thing, it would be to stay out of it.

While it would be interesting to see who would win a war between the US and China, it's not something I ever want to happen. It would effect the world, as it stands it's unlikely that North Korea can do any damage to the West, but they can sure as hell do damage to their neighbours, which is something I don't want to see.

[smurphy]

Speaking of world wars, they have been started for less. I seriously believe that North Korea closely resembles the world and systems of Orwells "1984" and if the hierarchy in the North can no longer maintain the illusion of power over its people, the Kim Jung Il dynasty will be as fragile as a house of cards. Seriously though, the south has no obligation to send aid to the north so shut off the valve (metaphorically speaking) and watch a hungry and impoverished populace overthrow their masters.

[Alpha]

Keep in mind that this is the same area where the South Korean warship, the Cheonan, was sunk earlier this year. That resulted in 46 dying, but no World War III, and no large-scale intervention. I see this event as part of on-going tension, but no game changer. Don't participate in any beat-up of the event.

So apparently the South Koreans were participating in a military drill near the disputed border in the Yellow Sea. To quote the CNN article: "A senior U.S. defense official said South Korea had informed North Korea prior to the training mission, and that "there's no reason North Korea should have been surprised by this firing of artillery.""

However I still question the wisdom of staging such an exercise there, of all places. I'm surprised by the apparent willingness to actually kill, on behalf of the North, but not by the 'retaliation' altogether.

To the South: for your sake, and for everyone else's, do your exercises somewhere else.

As for your suggestion, Smurphy, that humanitarian aid be stopped... could you really live with that? Keep in mind that the 'citizens' of the North aren't at fault, and that many families exist on both sides of the fence, split by the last remnant of the Cold War. It would be a terrible way to punish innocent people.

EDIT: Wow, I didn't realise how evenly-matched the sides were. Of course, it ignores quality differentials, and ally support. But the shear evenness of the two Koreas, to me, suggests intervention would be likely in any scenario.

[Zargabaath]

I think everybody knows never to get into a land war Asia as well as never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line. I don't expect much in retaliation from South Korea; I don't think anybody is reading or wanting a large[r] scale war - especially Obama. Imagine if he got the U.S into an actual war or a bigger conflict than George Bush, oh the irony that would be.

Some quick notes: the last time the U.S officially went to war was during WWII, since then they are properly called "Conflicts". As for Kim Jong-il's son - Kim Jong-un - the people of North Korea don't like all that much, they view just as bad as his father; they do have great reverence for Kim Il-sung but he's dead which does them no good.

As for why they chose to do their naval exercises in that location is as a reminder to North Korea of the U.S having South Korea's back and that they will defend themselves from attack. For the longest time - I don't know if the U.S still does - the U.S had warships go up and down the Taiwan Strait as a deterrent for China trying to invade Taiwan. By not flexing rogue countries may try to take advantage of a situation.

[Sasquatch]

So apparently the South Koreans were participating in a military drill near the disputed border in the Yellow Sea. To quote the CNN article: "A senior U.S. defense official said South Korea had informed North Korea prior to the training mission, and that "there's no reason North Korea should have been surprised by this firing of artillery.""

However I still question the wisdom of staging such an exercise there, of all places. I'm surprised by the apparent willingness to actually kill, on behalf of the North, but not by the 'retaliation' altogether.

It's their own territory. This situation would be like you deciding to use part of your own backyard to play with your dog, but your neighbor think's that you're in his backyard, so he shoots your dog.

To the South: for your sake, and for everyone else's, do your exercises somewhere else.

Negative. It is internationally recognized as their own territory, they have every right to be there. If they pull out of that area because North Korea doesn't want them there, they're just bowing down to a bully's demands -- and everybody knows that the thing a bully wants most is more. Give a mouse a cookie, he's gonna want a glass of milk, that sort of thing.

As for your suggestion, Smurphy, that humanitarian aid be stopped... could you really live with that? Keep in mind that the 'citizens' of the North aren't at fault, and that many families exist on both sides of the fence, split by the last remnant of the Cold War. It would be a terrible way to punish innocent people.

So is shelling with artillery. True, I would be hard pressed to cut food and medical supply shipments to the innocent civilians of North Korea, but if China decides to jump in and defend them, I would have no problem telling them, "alright China, this is your ally, you share a border that's closer to the disaster site, all humanitarian aid is on you now."

EDIT: Wow, I didn't realise how evenly-matched the sides were. Of course, it ignores quality differentials, and ally support. But the shear evenness of the two Koreas, to me, suggests intervention would be likely in any scenario.

Yes and no -- North Korea technically has a larger military, but South Korea has much, much better equipment. It wouldn't take much for South Korea to prettymuch blockade North Korea to the point where NK would have to be getting supplies from/through China, and if we want to talk third-party logistics, the U.S. can provide South Korea with much more than China can provide North Korea with. The ROK Army is awesome -- I've worked with them a little bit in Iraq, and they're pretty badass. And even without outside help, the ROK military already has plenty of equipment that the United States gave it (that isn't counted in most statistics), and even more that is "leased" to them.

I would suggest a massive military move by the Republic of Korea -- basically, put their troops on the borders and off the shores of North Korea (which is neither democratic nor a republic, nor for the people) as a show of force. If North Korea decides to do something stupid, ROK should take out every piece of military logistics and equipment they can find. If not -- which would probably only be if the United Nations, that useless shitpile of an organization, would step in and dole out some punishment to NK -- ROK brings their ships and troops back in, with one demand: the base that fired the artillery will be destroyed. It can either be dismantled and moved by North Koreans, destroyed in place by the UN, or bombed the shit out of by the ROK, but it will cease to exist, period. And the next time North Korea decides to do something stupid and, say, launch artillery? That arty base goes bye-bye. They want to fire a torpedo? Goodbye submarine group -- not just the sub that fired it, but the entire group. If they want to go with wartime borders and the whole "we will attack you if you cross this line" idea, ROK can keep right up with 'em.

EDIT: China doesn't even care for NK much anymore. During the Cold War and shortly after, of course, North Korea was their only buffer between them and massive American logistics and military bases in South Korea, and they wouldn't have even had to worry about that if they had succeeded in invading South Korea like they tried. During the past few years, China has prettymuch said, "dude, you're on your own with this."

[Jin]

It's their own territory. This situation would be like you deciding to use part of your own backyard to play with your dog, but your neighbor think's that you're in his backyard, so he shoots your dog.

[...]

Negative. It is internationally recognized as their own territory, they have every right to be there. If they pull out of that area because North Korea doesn't want them there, they're just bowing down to a bully's demands -- and everybody knows that the thing a bully wants most is more. Give a mouse a cookie, he's gonna want a glass of milk, that sort of thing.

I think you may be missing the point of Alpha's comment. He's not disputing that South Korea has the "right" to train in that area (as much as a group of world powers can define territorial "rights"), but the wisdom behind doing something you know will cause animosity when you needn't. Using your bully analogy, while it's all well and good to stand up to bullies, its just plain stupid to deliberately do something you know will anger the bully when you don't have to. It's not the "wrong" thing to do, if we're going to reify right and wrong to such simple denominations, but it's hardly the smart thing.

And Alpha, by all means, correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation of what you meant.


As for the situation as a whole, does anyone remember the first Mercenaries game? I'm crossing my fingers for that.

[Alpha]

Jin clarified my point perfectly.

Also, while it is largely an "internationally accepted" border, keep in mind that it is a border created unilaterally by the United Nations at the beginning of the armistice, and that North Korea does not accept the border. It's not as simple as your 'dog shooting' analogy would suggest, even if most of the internationally community, myself included, would side with the South's "right" to perform operations there.

But why at a disputed border? Demonstrations of power on behalf of the South are really not necessary, and are borderline (pun?) silly at a disputed border -- and this is the outcome of doing just that.

[Unknown Entity]

Massive retaliation is expected from South Korea. Will the United States step in and decide to police the situation? Will we end up going to war once again? Share your thoughts and concerns.

Isn't America busy policing a situation in the middle east still? I hate how American politics carries itself by trying to police the world and control everything.

I'll be the optimist and hope to hell North and South Korea work it out. Firing missiles is a highly irrational thing to do for the reason behind it. Talk about shoot now, and ask questions later... >>;

I wouldn't blame South Korea for thinking "**** you, I'm going to fire some missiles back!" but I really hope there isn't a war. It's difficult to work out who cast the first stone, but North Korea didn't need to fire missiles.

[che]

What a gem I found today. I just woke up, doing a little reading before I go eat some turkey, and this:

BBC News - Sarah Palin makes gaffe, saying North Korea is US ally

Former Alaskan governor and potential 2012 presidential contender Sarah Palin has made a gaffe on a radio show by saying North Korea is a US ally.

Answering questions from host Glenn Beck she said, "Obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies."

[Rocky]

What a gem I found today. I just woke up, doing a little reading before I go eat some turkey, and this:

BBC News - Sarah Palin makes gaffe, saying North Korea is US ally

[Pete]

Isn't America busy policing a situation in the middle east still? I hate how American politics carries itself by trying to police the world and control everything.

You mean like the British Empire did?


And why can't this be settled over a nice game of Starcraft?

[Sasquatch]

Isn't America busy policing a situation in the middle east still? I hate how American politics carries itself by trying to police the world and control everything.

If only there was a competent organization of nations that had the sole purpose of policing the world and securing peace and human rights. You know, kinda like the UN -- but competent.

America doesn't want to police the world. We've got out own shit to take care of. It makes people mad and it costs us money. The problem comes when we don't have an organization that can take care of it by itself, so the United States, being the strongest second choice, has to do it. It's like the big brother stepping up to break up the fight when mommy and daddy aren't around.

[Unknown Entity]

If only there was a competent organization of nations that had the sole purpose of policing the world and securing peace and human rights. You know, kinda like the UN -- but competent.

America doesn't want to police the world. We've got out own shit to take care of. It makes people mad and it costs us money. The problem comes when we don't have an organization that can take care of it by itself, so the United States, being the strongest second choice, has to do it. It's like the big brother stepping up to break up the fight when mommy and daddy aren't around.

I totally agree with your first statement.

America also has a huge influence on the world, but I don't see America trying to stop a war from happening in the first place. Yeah, war costs money, but don't you make a little money on the side during wars?

A big brother stepping down to stop a fight wouldn't take one siblings side. He'd listen to both of them, reason with them, and hope that they find the errors of their ways. Then, everyone learns their lesson and moves on.

Also... the big brother could just ignore it and move on. I find I have a better day when I don't bother breaking up an argument I'm not involved in.

[Sasquatch]

America also has a huge influence on the world, but I don't see America trying to stop a war from happening in the first place. Yeah, war costs money, but don't you make a little money on the side during wars?

You know better than this, c'mon. The whole "war for oil" bullshit went out as soon as it started and hasn't had a shred of credibility since -- especially a five-year-old editorial from "The Independent", which is not at all. C'mon, if you're going to buy into bullshit conspiracy theories, at least get some recent info. The United States hasn't gotten one drop of oil from Iraq that wasn't bought on the free market like the rest of it.

A big brother stepping down to stop a fight wouldn't take one siblings side. He'd listen to both of them, reason with them, and hope that they find the errors of their ways.

Not when one of those involved is some little shit who constantly picks a fight -- and in this specific situation, sucker-punched somebody else because they were walking too close to their yard.

Also... the big brother could just ignore it and move on. I find I have a better day when I don't bother breaking up an argument I'm not involved in.

He could. Or he could look out for the little guy that he likes and just stand there, telling the other little bastart, "you don't want to do that". Or he could stand there and let those two duke it out, just waiting for another big kid to jump in to defend the little bastard.

[Jin]

Because when your country has done something morally questionable in the past, you're unable to dislike when a different country does it in the present.

[Pete]

All I'm saying is that it's the pot calling the kettle black.

If it were up to me, I'd let the Koreans duke it out themselves, and only intervene if any actual US properties, citizens or troops were destroyed or killed. I really wish we could be isolationist, and say "**** you, deal with your own shit."

South Korea wasn't doing anything wrong, regardless of where they were on their side of the border. Just because I moon you from my side of the fence, it doesn't give you the right to shoot me in the ass.

This shit's gonna be Nam all over again.

[Unknown Entity]

All I'm saying is that it's the pot calling the kettle black.

Who said I even liked my own country? If it was my country which was most likely to get involved (because, ya know, we like getting directly involved in every ones disputes), I'd say exactly the same thing.

My point was that America doesn't need to get involved. It's not your war, regardless on what Sarah Palin regards as allies. It's certainly not helping matters, is it?

Hopefully they'll realise how stupid it is before it falls over the brink of war.

[Alpha]

Or, Sasquatch, the US prefers acting unilaterally, in defiance of the UN, and that is the reason the UN is "incompetent".

Perhaps if it paid its financial dues to the UN, didn't act as a separate entity to the Security Council (although that very facet of the UN is abhorrent), and generally worked with the UN, then there would be a greater deal of cooperation with the USA, rather than antagonism towards it.

[Sasquatch]

Or, Sasquatch, the US prefers acting unilaterally, in defiance of the UN, and that is the reason the UN is "incompetent".

I see it as reversed cause and effect. The UN is incompetent, thus the U.S. has to do their job. It's not that the U.S. prefers to police the world, but somebody has to, and the UN has been useless for decades

Perhaps if it paid its financial dues to the UN, didn't act as a separate entity to the Security Council (although that very facet of the UN is abhorrent), and generally worked with the UN, then there would be a greater deal of cooperation with the USA, rather than antagonism towards it.

You're talking about the UN here -- an organization that once put Libya in charge of the Human Rights Council. The U.S. stopped paying their dues and providing troops (something Clinton did that I actually respected and admired) for a very good reason -- about two-thirds of the UN's deployable troops and three-quarters of the UN's funding were coming from the United States. There was no reason to provide money and troops to an organization, especially being the organization's primary source of money and troops, that was incompetent in their decisions on what to do with it. Clinton asked to have that discrepancy corrected, and when that request was refused, he withdrew all funding and troop support. Of course, we have since resumed troop and financial support, but not to the same extent that we were providing. Which is fair.

Anyway, back on topic. What has the UN -- whose responsibility it would be to settle this conflict peacefully and with no more bloodshed -- done in response to North Korea's attacks on South Korean civilians?

[Unknown Entity]

You know better than this, c'mon. The whole "war for oil" bullshit went out as soon as it started and hasn't had a shred of credibility since -- especially a five-year-old editorial from "The Independent", which is not at all. C'mon, if you're going to buy into bullshit conspiracy theories, at least get some recent info. The United States hasn't gotten one drop of oil from Iraq that wasn't bought on the free market like the rest of it.

My link was intended as an example, not necessarily an accusation. I have another link from today, if you're interested - it's still being talked about. It's a feasible "conspiracy", which makes a lot of sense.

Not when one of those involved is some little shit who constantly picks a fight -- and in this specific situation, sucker-punched somebody else because they were walking too close to their yard.

I suppose.

He could. Or he could look out for the little guy that he likes and just stand there, telling the other little bastart, "you don't want to do that". Or he could stand there and let those two duke it out, just waiting for another big kid to jump in to defend the little bastard.

Yeah, but what happens when the big brother starts biting off more than he can chew, and starts fighting everyone's battles? Big bruises? Big depression? Not to mention the enemies he'll make.

[Sasquatch]

My link was intended as an example, not necessarily an accusation. I have another link from today, if you're interested - it's still being talked about. It's a feasible "conspiracy", which makes a lot of sense.

From today? Are you sure that the collection of blog entries you posted that happens to have today's date on it is actually from today? Or

Considering the fact that the most recent source listed is from March of 2003, no, it's not still being talked about. Everybody with a brain in their head has given up the bullshit "blood for oil" line, because they know that any inclination that they believe it will be met with their idiocy being brought to full view. You've given, so far, two blatantly anti-American sources, both with no factual basis for their biased opinions, neither any more recent than five years ago. If you really want to get into that debate, we can make another topic about it, but somehow I doubt that.

To use the example of the moronic accusations of America profitting from Iraq's oil to reflect benefitting from war in relation to the current topic ... I don't know of anything in North Korea that the United States could claim, especially because China would prettymuch have first dibs on it. We're defending South Korea now not because the Cold War is going on and we need a base close to China, but because North Korean leadership still sees South Korea as "rightfully" part of their country and can't be trusted.

Yeah, but what happens when the big brother starts biting off more than he can chew, and starts fighting everyone's battles? Big bruises? Big depression? Not to mention the enemies he'll make.

Being the most powerful always means that you'll have enemies, that's just a fact of life. As for bruises, etc., it sucks, but the responsibility has to fall on somebody. With great power comes great responsibility and all that jazz -- if the United States doesn't step in and defend places that the UN should, whose shoulders would that fall on next? Or, more importantly, would it get done at all?

That's a very odd choice of wording, coming from you.

Hahahahahah, I didn't even make that connection. I didn't mean it like that, I suppose, but I see where you're coming from. All I meant was that the planet is supposed to have a "protector" of sorts, that being the UN, and when that "protector" has proven their incompetence time and time again, the responsibility falls on the next-most-powerful entity, which would be the United States.

[Jin]

It's like the big brother stepping up to break up the fight when mommy and daddy aren't around.

That's a very odd choice of wording, coming from you.

[Hyzenthlay]

If it were up to me, I'd let the Koreans duke it out themselves, and only intervene if any actual US properties, citizens or troops were destroyed or killed. I really wish we could be isolationist, and say "**** you, deal with your own shit."

ARE YOU SERIOUS!? You're saying 'let them kill eachother'? So what happens in the event that North nukes South? If millions die? Morality sets in at some point, surely. What if one of those stray missiles lands on Japan? Like it or not this will have an effect on more than just the Koreas. The one good thing about the UN (not just the US) 'policing the world' is that the world does have somebody doing it. I don't care who does and doesn't agree with me; the only way to stop innocent people dying is by pre-emptive strikes. It's all quiet on the Eastern front right now... How long until the whistles of missiles strike again? 160 strikes an hour could hit South Koreas capital. That's too big to ignore. I know I'd be looking to the UN if England was attacked. I wouldn't expect people to say "**** you, deal with your own shit."

I can't understand why people are taking pot-shots at the UN either. You don't see anybody else doing what the do, or try to do. It's the closest thing the word has to a peace force. I'm pretty sure that when the UN drops off supplies to war torn countries they don't complain.

What everyone is overlooking, too, is that if the US supports South then it'll give cause for everybody who hates the US to join hands. A unity between North Korea and the Arab states we are at war with would bring on a new world war. Like somebody else has said, Aerif I think, I hope they work it out with words. Any other solution could devastate the world. It could be much worse than WWII or any other.

UN FTW!

Hyz.

[Sasquatch]

ARE YOU SERIOUS!? You're saying 'let them kill eachother'?

How would we stop them from killing each other? Kill them first?

So what happens in the event that North nukes South? If millions die? Morality sets in at some point, surely.

If nuclear weapons are brought into the picture, there would be much more support from the international community to stop them, including (finally) the UN.

What if one of those stray missiles lands on Japan?

... then Japan jumps in and whups their ass, too.

Like it or not this will have an effect on more than just the Koreas. The one good thing about the UN (not just the US) 'policing the world' is that the world does have somebody doing it.

What has the UN done WITHOUT the U.S. in the last, oh, let's go with two decades?

I don't care who does and doesn't agree with me; the only way to stop innocent people dying is by pre-emptive strikes.

When has the UN launched preemptive strikes? How many strikes have they launched against North Korea?

It's all quiet on the Eastern front right now... How long until the whistles of missiles strike again? 160 strikes an hour could hit South Koreas capital. That's too big to ignore. I know I'd be looking to the UN if England was attacked. I wouldn't expect people to say "**** you, deal with your own shit."

You might as well expect people to say "where is America to fight with/for us?" Yes, South Korea's capital would be prettymuch obliterated -- this would happen during any war, regardless of if the UN was involved or not.

I can't understand why people are taking pot-shots at the UN either. You don't see anybody else doing what the do, or try to do. It's the closest thing the word has to a peace force.

The UN does nothing. The U.S. does what the UN is meant to do. You can clearly see that the UN is doing nothing, but instead of bitching that the UN is incompetent, you're bitching that the U.S. is doing the UN's job.

I'm pretty sure that when the UN drops off supplies to war torn countries they don't complain.

Actually they do, because instead of ending the war in those countries, they just drop supplies and say "good luck".

What everyone is overlooking, too, is that if the US supports South then it'll give cause for everybody who hates the US to join hands.

Only if South Korea has more than North Korea for enemies, or if their enemy (North Korea) has multiple allies. Neither of which really applies.

A unity between North Korea and the Arab states we are at war with would bring on a new world war. Like somebody else has said, Aerif I think, I hope they work it out with words. Any other solution could devastate the world. It could be much worse than WWII or any other.

Nah. The Arab states could never launch a large-scale invasion of much territory, or sustain any invasion for long, or state any overseas invasion. Their primary enemies are in Western Europe or the United States, save Israel, of course. And they've already tried wiping Israel off the map -- that didn't go so well for them.

The UN have issued loads of sanctions in the last 50 years.

Hahahahahah, and how many were actually enforced? And the ones that were enforced -- who enforced them?

As for actually taking action with things; most of the UN were involved in the iraq war.

First: Not "most", not by a long shot. Second: Some of the countries themselves were involved, yes, but not the United Nations itself. Third: Many of the countries that did assist did so by lending logistical or territorial support, not by sending troops, and even those that did that only sent a very small number (save UK and U.S., of course). Fourth: Quite a few of the countries you copy-pasted did not have any direct involvement until after the main conflict was over, meaning they went to help rebuild from war and Saddam, not to help oust Saddam.

It all started on the back of what UN inspectors said.

It started on what they said a decade before, and what the United States already knew. The UN didn't do a damn thing about Iraq -- the U.S. said, "we're going in, y'all can help if you want to," and some countries offered assistance.

The U.S. had to do it themselves because the UN is incompetent and refused. Now thirty million people have better lives.

The world doesn't rely on America as much as you seem to want to believe. As I've already said I expect the whole of the UN to be involved in this if it all does flair and spiral out of control.

Why aren't they involved in it already, so that it doesn't spiral out of control? Isn't that what the UN is supposed to be there for?

And the UN does deal with terrorism;

The quote you posted didn't say anything about "dealing with terrorism" -- it prettymuch backed up the line from Team America. What do they do? They say that they're upset. "Strong and unequivocal condemnation" does not mean action.

What is doesn't do is blame the country which they reside in, which is right. If you take Afghanistan, for instance, there are millions of people there that aren't terrorists. They are just people getting on with life. It isn't their fault that Bin Laden was trained by the US, educated by the UK and then unleashed upon the world.

Wrong and wrong. Just like the baseless accusations of Iraq getting biological weapons from the United States. Osama bin Laden was at no time trained, financed, or equipped by the United States. The fighters that were trained by the United States to fight against the Russians were all Afghans -- that was a big deal to them, they did not allow foreigners. bin Laden is not an Afghan. Thus, Osama bin Laden was not trained, financed, or equipped by the United States. This is a simple fact that has been proven countless times.

What really makes that story sad is that he went AWOL because he wanted to help stop the war between Israel and Palestine.

Osama bin Laden did not "want to help stop the war between Israel and Palestine". Whoever told you that is full of shit. What he did want to do is wipe Israel off the map and claim that land for Islam so that Palestine could actually exist -- because Palestine is the name of the land, not the name of any group, country, or organization. Much like "the midwest" is in America. Jewish Palestine exists as the nation of Israel, while Arab Palestine exists as the nation of Jordan.

Wow.

[Alpha]

The UN does nothing. The U.S. does what the UN is meant to do.

The USA does what it has the power to, and what is in "its interests" to do.

The UN attempts to find areas of common ground and mutual/universal support. Would "the UN" (comprised as it is of members of the UN) have invaded Iraq if everyone, bar Iraq and perhaps a few minor states, supported it? Probably. Because there was no such mutual support, the US and UK acted (relatively) unilaterally. I'm not making a judgement on that, but it isn't something the UN was "meant to do", because it does not and should not act without a mandate to.

As long as the USA is the de facto UN, there will be further agitation, as the actions of the USA suit the USA -- it does not need to consider other interests, while the UN must.

So in that sense, do we actually have a common ground in support for a stronger United Nations? (Holds breath.)

Of course, the UN faces the most fundamental problem of international relations: balancing sovereignty. The USA doesn't really have to care.