Ah heykate, the neo-con propaganda has got you convinced, hasn't it? The UN is not perfect by any means, but since it was a creation of the US (and America lobbied hard for it to be put on American soil...so they could keep tabs on it), and of other countries like Britain and France, it seems a bit strange to say you don't like it just because the rest of the world wouldn't play patsy with the US administration's false agenda. I agree entirely that the UN shouldn't be located in America...it needs to be relocated to a free, neutral country. It also needs to be reworked from the roots up. It needs to be fairer, giving everyone a voice in comparison to the populations and economies of each country it represents; it needs to be made stronger so that every country feels their voice is heard. And if the rest of the world disagrees with a country on an issue, that country should abide by the rules and accept it. If the US feels it does not want to participate in a world organisation to help the planet (for that is what a global body should be for...and let's not forget the UN is only supposed to be a PEACE keeping body, not a war-mongering one) it has every right to leave...but it will still have to abide by the decisions the rest of the world makes. People worldwide no longer wish to tolerate one country trying to lord it over the rest, whichever country that happens to be. Now, here is the enigma. Only by working together can we get rid of the despots that do the lording, but the US argument has been that the UN has never acted quickly enough to do precisely that, so it has had to act accordingly. This has scaled new heights with pre-emptive attacks, (for which a peace-keeping body was asked to condone.) Therefore, when (not if) we create a new world body, the exact rules and reasons for that body must be made absolutely clear and remain fundamentally unchallenged. Do we want a body to bring a uniting voice to all the peoples of the world, or one which has to accept the rulings of just five countries through the Security Council? We would also need to address how voting can be speeded up to make decisions. It could be that there are local forces who can react very quickly to trouble in their representative areas, under the UN umbrella; or we might decide another way would be more suitable. One thing is for certain, withdrawing altogether from the table actually does nothing to change things, unless whichever country is only sulking for more attention (which certainly does happen). Yet thinking one can turn one's back on global issues is a fallacy, as much as one might like to. UPDATE: Believe me, it is not with nationalistic pride I have written what I have. Britain is equally to blame and we have to take the consequences. Instead of the tired old line of going on the defensive, it would be better to realise we have made a mistake and set about rectifying it. I also agree with Mr P that dealing with despots is distateful, but how else are you going to get that country's viewpoint if they are not present at the table? Besides, it hasn't stopped Bush's government dealing with their so-called new friends, the Pakistanis and the Saudi Arabians, has it? Also, I can't see where I called anyone any names!