[elSicomoro]

I agree with Slang...it's hard to get a true picture of Iraq, given their media watchdogs. From what I know about Iraq, I think they would warily accept a US invasion, given that US occupancy can't be any worse than the current state of affairs.

Sheppsie, the Guardian? I must say I'm surprised. Not that I dislike the Guardian, but that you used it.

Originally posted by Undertoad
The SOTU speech was weird that way. It was full of vim and vigor and promise that we'd do it without the UN if we had to and it was critical to the security of the US and etc. etc. and then finished with "... so we'll go back to the UN..." which was totally anti-climactic to any unilateralist's ears.

Has anyone noticed that the French and American positions seem a bit similar?

France: "We don't like war. We'll do it if we absolutely have to, but we'd like the UN to figure this out first."

The US: "We're all for war. We'll do it if we absolutely have to, but we'd like the UN to give us a green light."

Ah... why not just go ahead, and not spend time going through the diplomatic channels as far as possible? Why spend political capital in China that you might need for N Korea, when you could just say "OK we really need to do this so we're just going to, just like you all would have done and often have done anyways"?

I just think the US should assume a more sarcastic personality at the UN. We always sound a bit overbearing, IMO...we should use a little more wit and sarcasm.

France: "You should not bomb innocent Iraqi civilians!"

The US: "You're right. I mean, that's a whole different ballgame than pillaging places like Côte d'Ivoire, Chad, or Algeria."

or...

France: "War must be avoided at all costs."

The US: "Look, it's not like we're building the Maginot Line here."

As to whether we need to do this...that's assuming that it necessarily NEEDS to be done. I dunno, man...I wouldn't mind Saddam being out of power, but at what cost to us, the United States (and the UK for that matter)?

Does the administration really believe in and want the world's approval, even though the US+UK make up about 25 times the military force that France could muster (not including nukes)?

[analysis]I believe so, for the US had gotten an increasingly bad reputation in world affairs over the years.

The US is indeed a great nation, and provides a plethora of opportunities for citizens and non-citizens alike. We are indeed the last great superpower. And who really cares about what others think of us? We do what the fuck we please, and help the world enough to justify any of our indiscretions.

But...has that attitude cost us? Was 9/11 the price paid for our moments of arrogance?

So, perhaps because of 9/11, the US wants to look more like a good guy. Perhaps the Bush administration is thinking, "If we go into Iraq on our own, we could be setting ourselves up for more frequent and more intense attacks from abroad." As I see it, a UN approval gives the US real justification...like the world is saying, "OK US, you win this one. Go for it." And if Iraq and other nations have issues with it, we can point to the fact that the action was supported by a majority of the nations on the security council, including the 3 big dogs that are currently on the fence.

And maybe this won't change anything, in terms of being a target of terrorists...or improving our world reputation. But in an ever-changing world, I'd rather have the majority of it on my side in a situation such as this.

In addition, there is another ugly aspect that could play itself out if the US and UK do this without the UN: The possibility of US and UK forces being tried for war crimes. Sure, this could happen regardless of UN approval. But let's say the US and UK go off on their own...you don't think a country like Russia or France would rub their hands in glee at such a possibility? And while the US may thumb its nose at such a thing, I don't think it's something to take lightly.

An aside: I sense that the US will ignore a World Court ruling from last week that orders the stay of execution for 3 Mexican citizens on death row in Texas and Oklahoma. The US has done such things in the past, claiming the right of national sovereignty.[/analysis]

Or... do they think it will underline the uselessness of the UN?

The UN is not perfect by any means, but I do think it has served its purpose on many fronts...and still does. I think it's still a very relevant forum, especially in today's world.

Japan's in favor of the war. (Probable reason: Oil! They don't have any!) Biggest trade partner not in favor of the war: Mexico. (Probable reason: Oil! They have some!)

Which brings up my whole US as OPEC controller question again.

Canada does not appear to support us, and I don't recall them having significant (if any) oil. As far as Japan, if we don't get the Korean thing straightened out, then we could be in deep shit with them as well.

In the end, I'm not sure if the benefits outweigh the cost or consequences that could result from a unilateral invasion. I only hope the Bush administration is giving incredibly heavy thought to all this.