[q=War Angel]and who cares about the UN, or what they say?[/q]Well, if you count that the UN represents every world state except Southwest Africa and the Vatican, and that they've been responsible for most major treaties of the last half-century, and that the US wants their approval for all their wars... it kinda matters. The UN is the forum in which the global community makes its collective calls.
Only problem is that it functions on the principles of international law and non-violent intervention, except where necessary, so it's anathema to the US government's desire to commit, without challenge, acts of aggression while denying the sovereignty of other states.
(Incidentally, the state of Israel only exists because of the UN.) [q=Doomgaze]Hopefully - Sudan
[/q]What the Sudan needs is peacekeeping forces and humanitarian aid. Bombing the place to hell will just lead to an even bigger humanitarian crisis. The world's already taking an active role there, and the UN's pushing for peacekeepers and aid agencies to be deployed. :rolleyes2 Stupid UN, wanting to keep people alive instead of bombing power infrastructureand replacing their government.[q=War Angel]Suffering is a by-product of justice - and that's all I'll say.[/q]So... if an infant is killed when its home is mistakenly bombed, that's "justice"? Ah well, I guess that if the child was an Arab then it must've been evil by default, thus deserving whatever "justice" it gets... [q=War Angel]It's not like that, and you know it. The USA is currently the strongest nation in the world, and as such, acts as its guardian. That means taking out threats to peace, such North Korea.
[/q]And what makes them a "threat to peace"? Their disagreement with the US. Basically, anyone who doesn't submit to the US's demands is a threat to peace.

With Afghanistan, and then Iraq, not to mention the several of the other interventions in recent history, we have been showing that the US's justifications for going to war have become progressively more flimsy, less substantial. It won't be too long before any excuse will do, or none at all - "we invaded because they have an anti-American system of government" or something similar. That is what the world is afraid of, and that is why it is for the good of the world that the US's rogue militaristic antics be stopped. International law binds the US as much as it does anyone else; fortunately, the rest of the world is strong enough to resist the US's demands to aid in criminal acts. The EU, PRC and other major world powers can - and are less reluctant than ever to be critical of illegal campaigns, and to refuse to take a hand in them. It won't be too long before the US's list of allies is so short that they are forced to either comply with the laws and treaties their rulers claim to hold dear, or to continue acting alone as the world's biggest "rogue state".[q=War Angel]Neither one does it now. And no, terrorism is not a subjective term, it's a very defined and objective term, used in reference a very specific kind of action.[/q]"Terrorism" varies in its definition. It doesn't even have a clear definintion at international law. Is it the act of a politicised group, a government-recognised organisation, rogue individuals? Destruction of property, murder of innocents, threats to do those things? At home or abroad? There's still no clear definition, even at international law. I'm sure the CIA never calls the Nicaraguan paramilitary activities "terrorism", even after two decades. I doubt the Frech government would claim responsibiltity for the "terrorist" bombing of the Rainbow Warrior, either. A "Terrorist" becomes a "freedom fighter" as soon as they start working for a cause that someone agrees with; thos who support their cause call them freedom fighters, while others consider them terrorists. While the latter is probably true in all cases, the "world powers" will never call their allies or pet causes "terrorists".