Replies

I disagree. While I do NOT think we need anyone's "approval" to do anything, it did not hurt to go to the UN---it a) bought us time, that we needed anyway, to get our troops in place. Now, instead of just waiting, it "looks" like the inspectors are "doing a job." All baloney, as you and I know; b) it gives the pretense (probably genuine in the case of the Bush admin.) of wanting to build a "coalition" and have the UN involved. In reality, this gave the UN one last chance to APPEAR to be relevant, and they are blowing it.

IMO, your comments are correct.

A major problem with going to the UN is that the UN seems to be serving as a rallying point for all of the countries trying to stop us. We are in great peril of being condemed as the aggressor by much of the world and, to the extent we care, a majority of the security council will publicly oppose any military action we take without a further UN resolution.

Going to the UN has allowed our enemies to organize. Now if we attack without a further UN resolution the UN will give aid and comfort to those who will portray Saddam as the victim and the US as the threat to world peace We would have been far better served by attacking and ending it quickly, just as we would have been better served by quicker and more decisive action against the Taliban. Swift, sure and fearsome victory are the best deterents against further terrorism.