No, no, no, Bobert, and McGrath. If U. N. Resolutions are not enforced, why adopt them in the first place? The U. N. does not have a standing Army, so if they are going to enforce Resolutions adopted, who is to do it? A coalition of forces, right? If it is impossible to build a coalition, then the strongest nation militarily has to do it, right? Or perhaps you are of the opinion that the U. N. should establish Resolutions that they know will not be enforced. If so, no point in reading further. Also, no point to having a United Nations.

Bobert, my friend, your ten points are opinions. No point in replying to them. In most instances just figure a 180 and let it go at that.

McGrath, you are an intelligent man. You know (whether you agree or not with the decision) that governments make alliances with governments from time that suit the national interest. Not just the U. S., but all nations, including yours. I think anyone with any "bright" at all would be willing to concede that the U. S. backed Iraq in the war between that country and Iran. So? That was then, this is now! It's easy to look back on history and nit pick mistakes (if it was a mistake)but the world has changed a bunch since the Iraq/Iran conflict. Nothing can be done to change what happened then, and it is irrelivant anyway. We are not faced with the same challenges we were faced with then (speaking not just of the U. S. but of the free world), so why is it so difficult to accept the fact that nations must adjust to the times? Today's friend, may be tomorrow's enemy, or today's enemy may be tomorrow's friend.

Many liberals accuse conservatives of having tunnel vision. Yet when an issue suits the liberal, they embrace tunnel vision with a vengence. It's a puzzelment.

DougR