[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The UN didn't pass sanctions on the US because:

1. They couldn't because we would veto the sanctions in the Security Council.

2. The reaction in the US would most likely be enough to finally force the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US. The additional part of this reason is that the UN would go bankrupt without the contributions of the US.

3. We did the right thing. It would not look good for the UN to pass sanctions on us after we freed 25 million people.

The first is true, and moots the others. Absent the third, of course, Bush would probably be driven from office by the journalistic Establishment and its self-fulfilling Vietnam scenario. But unfortunately the second is not true; we shoulda done that long ago but it's obvious that we cannot muster a strong majority which will go along with that.

[NYFriend]

"The UN didn't pass sanctions on the US because:

1. They couldn't because we would veto the sanctions in the Security Council.
2. The reaction in the US would most likely be enough to finally force the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US. The additional part of this reason is that the UN would go bankrupt without the contributions of the US. "

Both true. The other issue is that sanctions agaisnt the US would collaps the world economy. So would sanctions on Japan or China. Also, on some level, sanctions don't work like they used to because of Multi National Corporations.

[catch]

Pre-emptive strikes are old news. They're just targeting Bush. Kosovo was a pre-emptive strike (was Slobodan an imminent threat?). Haiti was a pre-emptive strike (ditto Baby Doc). Panama was a pre-emptive strike (ditto Noriega). This should be a key GOP talking-head talking point, but it never has been.