I am unaware of any meaningfull contributions that the UN has made. Other than a place for the world countries to meet, the UN serves no real pourpose. When you sent soilders to a country for peacekeeping (ultimate oxymoron BTW) you need to go into the hills and kick some @$$. Instead we have white choppers/cars and blue hats. In 50 years one would think that a person could think of grand UN victories, But I can't think of one. Anyone else???

Korea War, Gulf War 1. Both were officially done by UN armed forces. US Army was the greatest contributor but offically under UN command in both wars.

Officially, but in reality those were US fights with a couple of allied divisions.

By necessity one must have the major force. Other than this 2 wars, UN forces took duty in every part of the worls as peacekeepimng soldiers. Afganistan, Bosnia, Macedonia, Ethiopia, Pacific, Africa. UN is very useful. USA is the primary benefector from UN. So, why object.

Where has the UN solved a real crisis without the US? East Timor springs to mind. -The UN only solves problems once it has been on the news for months. Wonder how long it will take before they do something about Darfur, in Sudan (which happens to be the UN appointed leader for Human Rights).

And if you dont know your history of the last 50 years, dont ask silly questions. In peacekeeping terms: If the UN gets involved, its to stop escalation or to force a rollback. its not a preemtive strike force. I'm not sure where you're from, but you sound like you know sweet F.A about peacekeeping. "guns and kicking A$$". my hairy A$$! How about eliminating Smallpox? does that count as a unconditional victory? Lebanon, Cambodia, Liberia, Sierra Leone? sound familiar? How about clean water, river blindness, schools, roads? How about ensuring that every external conflict has a forum to be debated? That in itself is a victory! Get a grip and get a passport.

Sierra Leone and Liberia count as victories (at least so far). Lebanon--if the UN did such a great job, then how come there was 20 years of bloody civil war? The Lebanese sorted that one out for themselves, "kindly" assisted by Syrians occupying half their country. Cambodian elections in the 1990s was a UN affair. Stopping Pol Pot was not--that is one we can thank the Vietnamese for, when they invaded in 1979. And well they should, since they helped get the lunatic into power in the first place. Don't get me wrong, Bombard--the UN has its place and has done some good things. Right now, however, it's turned from being a legitimate forum to air grievances to a never ending litany of how bad the US and Israel is. And the funny part is that most of the representatives probably go home and sleep on evil US soil and watch evil US TV.

Ilpars and bombard have summed it up nicely. Look, you never agree with everyone you meet, especially on important issues, and that translates right up to the geopolitical level. The UN has had a lot of successes despite its diversity and difference, and of course, a lot of failures. But can anyone name a human political international endeavour that has not met with failures both big and small? Problems are at least discussed across a civil setting, and that is a victory in itself. The UN should not be condemned because it does not conform to one particular view. I'm not perfect. You are not perfect. The chick I like at my favorite cafe is (for now), but that's beside the point. Considering what the UN was set up for and attempts to do, it does pretty well for what it is at the moment. Pucka

The problem is that there are active camps of activists in both Europe and American who want to keep changing the definition of what the U.N. is and what its responsibilities are. It was conceived as a universal geopolitical forum for discussing and deliberating world politics, not a nascent global government with intrinsic authority beyond that delegated to it by its members, including to legislate international law of its own accord. It's impossible to prove a negative, but I believe that the U.N. has saved the world from nuclear catastrophe at least once in the past lifetime, and should not be discarded just because terrorism is the threat du jour and the U.N. seems less capable of handling this kind of environment. Saying that superpower rivalries are a thing of the past is at best a half-truth, and the U.N. will definitely have a purpose again once the Islamist plague isn't the only thing on the chattering classes' geopolitical radar.

The only thing I can think of right now is the Korean War.