"As for policing the world, if it is anyone's job it is the entire UN. The rest of the UN wasn't convinced, but we went in anyway. The UN may be the closest thing to the police, but not the US alone."
I agree, we aren't going to solve this world problem right now, which is why it's good that this thread seems to be quieting down....ie, I'm shutting up.
Before I go
... I do however think that there is some flaws with your above argument. First of all, the UN spent 10 years issuing unending resolutions condemning Iraq's continual defiance of their authority. That tells me that, at least on the surface, the UN was against the Iraqi regime and it's actions. The problem that quickly became apparent is that the leading members of the UN (France, Germany, & Russia) are acting in their own interests and not fulfilling their responsibilities to the UN. Yes, the UN should be the world police, but they have to have credibility to do so. So far, they aren't doing so well at that. As I said before, the handling of Iraq was a good opportunity for the administration to call out the UN and force them to act on their own resolutions, regardless of the interests of their individual members. In my eyes, Bush screwed the pooch in not stomping on the UN a little harder to do it's job before we went ahead w/out them.