Has the UN become ineffective in controlling wars?

With reference to U.S action against Iraq,has the U.N become ineffective in controlling wars?

Hi,
I do agree with Mike, however, attention should be paid to fact that UN has always been dependent only a few countries, therefore those few countries can go against the wish of UN or dictate its terms .

"No one can control a war realistically."

Yes, this is true, but the UN is inept because it has failed to prevent wars -- and not to control them. WWII ensued because the League of Nations procrastinated when Mussollini invaded Africa and when Hitler marched into the Rhineland. Member governments of the UN are indecisive when it comes to preventive action because of their publics' aversion to a national defensive stance -- and governments only rule by the will of the people.

the UN never really was effective at controlling war. Infact i can not think of one time in history when it has ever done so. the UN is also not effective in controlling belligerent nations. it could not agree to do anything in yugoslavia back a few years ago or in sudan right now. while they are good at providing food and medicine and other aid to places in need, they do little for keeping peace. this is becuase they do not have an inforcment power. perhaps if they had a navy with 1000 ships and an army of 100000 tanks then nations would tkae it more seriously. as it stands now it depends soley on other nations for enforcment (mostly USA). but whether it should have enforcement power or not is another debate.

As it is lacking an army, a navy, an airforce, and any arms whatsoever, it must rely on on peaceful measures as it's only means to control war. If someone told me not to do something, but they had no force to back that statement, and I had my mind set on doing it, then I would ignore them as well.