A continuing refrain of those that oppose the upcoming war against Iraq is that the US is continuing on a cowboy course of unilateral action. Many Americans have bought into the idea that somehow the choice to make war is not wholly our own, that there are some areas in which we are obligated to allow an entity such as the UN decide for us.

I'd take the time to argue against this, but why waste the time? The isssue has become moot. After the UNSC Res. 1441, we obtained full UN permission to take Saddam down, if he did not comply.

Furthermore, much of the world has in fact signed on. The Euro "Gang of Eight" signed a letter of support last week. Turkey has agreed to allow us to use their bases.

Each day brings more nations over to agreement with our mission to remove Saddam. Today, after Powell's presentation to the Security Council, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia all came out in support for the war to remove Saddam. It seems the more recently you've been oppressed by a tyrannical regime, the more sympathy you have for helping other folks depose their autocrats. This could maybe explain Canada's lack of enthusiasm for the project.

The growing consensus has caused the anti-war activists to continually "move the goalposts," as it were, and now demand that we get the support of nearly all nations, as if a group of nations, all with widely diverging interests, could ever agree about anything.

I think this is in part due to our subconscious equation, at least here in America, of the United Nations as some sort impartial jury before which the contestants in an international dispute can present their cases, and expect to get a ruling based on the merits of the issue, as opposed to naked national self-interest. The UN has all the trappings of a democratic process, and we sometimes confuse this veneer with solid substance. The appearances deceive.

Lacking here is the requirement that those sitting in judgement of a dispute, be they judge or jury, have no personal stake in the outcome of the decision. In order to preserve this, the parties to the dispute must have some sort of mechanism by which they can unseat, for cause, any jurists that do.

This key feature of the American judicial system is, of course, totally lacking at the UN.

Trying Saddam, in the court of world opinion that is the UN, is like trying to convict a drug dealer, with his supplier, a few of his steady customers, and his best buddy sitting on the jury. A unanimous verdict will prove to be an impossible goal. Only the most naive would either expect or require it.

Which brings us to the anti-war factions, and their moving goalposts.

It seems that the definition of "multilateral" has morphed to mean that it must include "Old Europe," that is, France and Germany, along with Russia, no matter how many other nations line up with us.

They are not, however, impartial jurists.

Russia will go along before it's all over - they're just extorting back-channel assurances from the US that they'll get the money they're owed for all the arms they've sold Saddam. (On a side note, we hear all this outrage from the anti-war faction that we supported Saddam with arms in the past. This seems hard to reconcile with the fact that his army is equipped with T-72s, BMPs and AKs, as opposed to M1s, Bradleys, and M-16s, but I suppose that's a whole 'nother post. Seems as if there had to be a lot of other folks arming him, too.)

They'll also want to have a free hand with the Chechen rebels.

Chirac, in France, is under severe domestic political pressure, and is afraid of it's substantial Muslim minority population. They've been buying the lion's share of their oil from Iraq, and have benefited substantially from their oil production agreements with Saddam. Can you spell TotalFinaElf? I knew you could. :-) Seems that this was is indeed all about oil, just not in the way most people that mouth that statement mean it.

While we may not like those reasons, they are at least understandable. France is cutting a fat hog, and wants to keep it that way.

Germany, unlike Russia or France, will prove to be acting more from fear than greed. After the war is over, and we finally have unfettered acces to Iraqi government records, we will find out that Germany has been illegally selling contraband equipment to Saddam.

Go read this. Here's the lede:
"Expurgated portions of Iraq's December 7 report to the UN Security Council show that German firms made up the bulk of suppliers for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs."
A quick summary for you lazy linkers - The German intelligence agency knows boodles about Saddam's WMD, and they've been sitting on it. After a secret briefing for senior members of the German government, his Health Minister, one Ulla Schmidt, put in a sizable budget request for stocks of smallpox vaccine. They've been the largest suppliers of both equipment and feedstocks to produce Iraqi chemical weapons, along with the delivery systems for those weapons. But you truly do need to go read the entire article.

It is almost certain that when we attack Saddam, he will launch some Scuds at Israel. This time around, they may have chemical warheads. How ironic would it prove to be if once again, the Germans proved to be culpable in the gassing of the Jews? What would be the repercussions of this?
Sadly, with the rising tide of anti-Semitism in Europe, probably not much.