In September 1931, when the Japanese Imperial Army marched into Manchuria, the Nationalist Government of China, a signatory to the League of Nations charter, called on the international community for help. <br><br>The League arrogantly pronounced that the aggression would stop because it had taken the matter "under consideration." Tokyo’s response to this vacillation was to seize Shanghai. The Chinese again appealed to the League of Nations. While the diplomats dithered, Tokyo renamed Manchuria, set up a puppet regime in its capital and declared that Japanese troops were staying. The League of Nations responded by censuring Tokyo and demanding the withdrawal of Japanese troops. The Japanese promptly withdrew from the League, declaring its deliberations to be "irrelevant." World War II had begun – though it took the Europeans another seven years to understand.<br><br>This sad, but accurate historical lesson in arrogance and irrelevance is pertinent to what transpired at the League’s successor — the United Nations – this week. On Tuesday, September 21, the president of the United States stood before the U.N. General Assembly and challenged the world body to try – once again – to be relevant in a world threatened by an evil even more dangerous than fascism: fanatical terrorism.<br><br>Irrelevant Arrogance<br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust

Pssst, i think we were the ones invading this time. <br><br>And if you want the UN to be an effective power, and more to the point expect them to listen to us in the future, we should probably go though the UN instead of ignoring them and doing what we want. Now whether or not going in by ourselves was the right decision is pointless to this particular argument. The point is that UN's thinks "you got into this by yourself, now get out of it by yourself". Did you really expect them to do any different? <br><br><br>On a side note... Ack; Foxnews. Now i remember why i don't watch them. <br><br>2nd side note: I actually like the short history lesson on china-japan in 31, i didn't know that. <br><br>

This probably would have fit better with Gulf War I...<br><br>[color:red]C'mon...you know me.</font color=red>

Yes, now that would have made sense. <br><br>

On Tuesday, September 21, the president of the United States stood before the U.N. General Assembly and challenged the world body to try – once again – to be relevant in a world threatened by an evil even more dangerous than fascism: fanatical terrorism.<br><br>The president stood before the UN, the world for that matter, and chastised them for not participating in or backing America's play in the Middle East, in his usual condecending manner. He didn't ask, he was directing. He was insulting and his behavior was embarassing to say the least.<br><br>Bush dissed the UN before the war and now that he's mucked it all up by overextending our resources, he comes back to them telling them they have a duty and responsibility to help their neighbor in it's time of need. I'm sure they got a good chuckle out of that one. Nice try bushhole.<br><br>

Is that a flip flop, G4D, or just a flop? <br><br>

More like a "Thud."<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey<br>