The UN hold a real debate? It is not going to happen. The US has used its veto power a number of times to protect Israel from international criticism over its human rights record in situations where there really was not much moral debate on the subject. Then there is the current debate over Iraq and the ethical implications, right? Russia and France stand to lose billions of dollars if we invade Iraq. If the French economy gets hosed, the UK is one of the most powerful economic forces in the EU. Russia needs cash, they are not going to see anytime soon from Iraq, but might from us. China plays coy, but they are our new best friends. We are ignoring their human rights atrocities because they make a good trading partner. They would also love to expand into North Korea as a humanitarian gesture to stabilize the region. When the Bush administration is asked about it, watch them continue to say it is a regional problem that should be dealt with by South Korea's neighbors. (Unlike Iraq) Al-Queda and Bin Laden's network is falling to pieces even as I write, but isn't the whole Iraq deal part of the war on terror? We started invasion plans a single week after 9/11. The button has been pushed, is it really possible for us to give a stand down order to our invasion force at Iraq's borders at this point? Special forces are on the ground and everyone is just waiting for the official word to launch. The UN has set a precedent threating and of giving in to Saddam for a decade. Is it right to suddenly not give in? Would you treat a pet cat that way? What kind of democratic goverment is going to emerge after an invasion? Isn't the height of arrogance to assume it will be at all pro-western in it's policies? Tell me I am wrong. Please.