Actually katlaughing, as I understand the UN resolution (and I haven't read, only heard some news reports), it wasn't what Bush wanted, but the media is spinning it as if "he won" in the UN. Our American journalists apparently are having some difficulty shifting from the subject of the American election to the UN vote. Someone should tell them they aren't the same thing. ;-)

Anyway, the unilateral approach is no longer considered very likely. What is not clear is just which "other countries" Bush was referring to yesterday when he made his statement on it, that "America" (wouldn't it be helpful if our president learned to use the proper name of our nation?) will work with to disarm Iraq.

While the matter of regime change still seems to be fuzzy, the resolution does not give the power to the US to decide whether Iraq is in compliance, but reserves that power for the UN weapons inspectors. That was a big sticking point for the international community.

BTW, if Powell hadn't known for certain that the Security Council vote was unanimous, he wouldn't have had them vote. That is just the way it works. Usually. Occassionally there is a veto of the US' interests in the Security Council, but it is very rare.

Thing is, I suspect the UN vote won't stop the Bush administration from invading Iraq. The administration has been lying about it's true motives and intentions regarding Iraq all along. It isn't about weapons, it is about the coup. I believe they may do it by assassination rather than invasion, but I do believe they are going to be done with Hussein one way or the other. I think the reason for that is Hussein must have a lot of goods on the Republican presidents who put him in power--Reagan and Bush the first. Information that could be extremely damaging to the US, not to mention to the Bush administration because of their ties to the former Republican presidents.