"Chirac stated that France would veto any resolution that would call for, or result in, military action against Iraq"
No, Teribus, he didn't. He said he would veto any resolution that would automatically result in war. Bit of a difference in interpretation there... Chirac was 'undiplomatic' perhaps to have come out with such an utterance; he should have known that that was just what Bush wanted to hear. And indeed it was

And while we're all offering conjecture, here, I don't think that Tony Blair would have made the first move to push for war with Iraq, probably for the same reason Clinton didn't invade Afghanistan when Richard Clarke was pushing for it... it just wouldn't have washed with the general public.

Through all the faults of the UN, I still would prefer to see it there, and in the absence of any other overseeing body, it is all we've got. The US cannot be allowed to unilaterally make decisions that affect my future, or my childrens', without scrutiny.

It seems to me that less than 50% of whatever percentage of the American public that excercise their right to vote, return not just a President of The United States, but a President of the World.
And he will make decisions that will have Worldwide implications, long after he leaves office.

I think we should pick our fights with a little more regard to the consequences for us, if that has to be the case, because I see we are back to the old 'Agricultural Fertiliser' days again. You may say that this is Al Qaeda related, and I might be inclined to agree. But do we have to alienate every Muslim on the planet by engaging in a Foreign Policy that they believe is designed to beat them all into submission?

My habit of understating has obviously got your attention, Teribus; I don't like using too many emotive statements, when the general drift will suffice. I never liked Saddam..., even when we were his friends.

Jim