That was a well composed article Paul. I agree heavily with about half of it. I do feel that at some point debate and discussions do come to an end and action must take place. However I agree whole heartedly that international institutions require an overhaul. I am of the opinion that the UN security council is judge, jury and executioner, atleast in the current state. It is legislation, judicial, and enforcement all pooled into a single entity and I think this system is inherintly flawed. It just seems to me that the UN security council is focused on legislation to the exclusion of the other two necessary departments. When the same people making the laws are judging the cases and enforcing the verdict it will inevitably lead to bad politics and corruption. It seem to me it is a horrible conflict of interest. If we had a real system of international law Saddam would never have been allowed to play the game as effectively as he has. With concrete laws and a real system of justice Saddam would have realised he only had two choices, comply, or face real and serious consequences. It seems to me now the UN will be more attractive for small countries who seek to contain the United States, and this could be incredibly dangerous. If this turns out to be the case (and it already apears that way) the UN might have already lost the sway it carried with the United States. The United States will turn less and less to an organisation whos entire purpose has turned into the containment of the US.