Great, yet another thread of Eurotwits on high horses extolling the virtues of sitting on one's hands in the face of uncertain options.
Look, I have enough of a jaded view to have read these arguments (or similar ones) when you posted them before. I am just able to view both sides of the coin on this one. Maybe the US liberated Iraq in a VERY imperfect way. I will not, however, ever say it would have been better to do nothing. If your non-UK Euro nations could have offered up an option other than talk it to death, your nations would not have forced the US's hand.
Now, on the argument that the different siphons hooked to the US to suck our economy and money away -- Moiraine mentioned this argued for MORE funding of the UN, not less. I disagree. The more I watch Ford move plants to Mexico, the more I watch environmental regs become lessened in the US to accomodate competition concerns (driven by free trade issues and the need to compete with dirty businesses in other nations), the more I want to see the US close its borders. While I once wholly supported the WTO, I've lately come round to deciding free trade is a death knell to privileged nations until sister international bodies are created to deal with externalities the WTO creates but fails to address -- such as labor and the environment. Until then, screw the UN, the WTO, and other nations. When our unemployment rate over here gets down below 5%, I'll consider otherwise.