>>I'm with MGOH on the resolution - the wording of which should read something to the effect that if total, unconditional and pro-active co-operation is not reported to the UN Security Council by the heads of the UN Weapons Inspectors by such and such a date, the UN Security Council will authorise the use of military force to disarm Iraq.<<

Ha! MGOH: Do you adopt that position as your own?

Thanks for the food for thought terribus. I wish I had time to lay this out properly, but I think MG's complaint about using vague UN resolutions as justification for flat out war, and LH's complaints about preemptive war, show a problem of miscommunication on a global scale, which the Bush administration should have lessened, even if it could not eliminate the problem.

In short, it seems the UN can only authorize disarmament enforcement, then turn a blind eye to the consequences of enforcement, i.e. regime change. That may be a part of the miscommunication that is simply unavoidable.

Second, after all this time, I am still confused, and I suspect a good percentage of the world's population is, on whether the goals should be expressed in terms of enforcement of UN resolutions, or in terms of "preemptive war." It seems, at least on the surface, that allowing that latter concept to be expressed is what has so badly damaged the hopes for alliance and legitimacy.

I don't agree that preemptive war could "never" be justified, but the bar necessarily requires a very, very high showing of justification. The Bush people should have let that subject alone, it seems. Or delivered the message with a lot more skill.