[AFPhys]

I strongly agree that the US is likely to get the nine we need somehow. We'll find out in just a few days.

[goldstategop]

Assuming the French don't veto it. But let them. We would have moral vindiction a majority of the Security Council would have backed us but for France's desire to obstruct American power and save Saddam's bacon.

[laz17]

I strongly agree that the US is likely to get the nine we need somehow.

The worst possible outcome now is that the resolution will pass. Whether it passes or not, we're going in. But if it passes, it'll legitimize the UN because it makes it look as if we're going in because the UN finally gave us permission.

Last week, before Bush's press conference, there were three things that could have happened:

1) We pull the resolution and don't put it up for a vote;
2) We put it up for a vote, and it passes;
3) We put it up for a vote, and it fails.

The first situation was the worst of the three. If we pulled the resolution before a vote and then went to war, it would send the message that we feared the UN would stop us, and that rather than risk failure of passage, we went ahead without a vote. That would imply the UN tells us what to do. Thankfully, this situation was avoided when Bush said he'd force the vote and get everyone to take a stand.

The second situation is also bad because it implies that we're going in because the UN didn't say no, and that had the UN said no, we might not have gone in.

The third situation, however, would show the world that even though the UN said no, we're going in anyway because the UN can't stop us from doing what we have to do.

If the resolution gets vetoed, the UN self-destructs. If it passes, the UN survives and can claim authority even if that authority exists only in its own mind... and in the minds of its enabling proponents.