[Cerek]

Originally posted by Stratos: Much of the credability of UN comes from it's, relatively speaking, neutrality regarding international issues. It would lose that credability if it gave resources and material for a military campaign that wasn't sanctioned by the Security Counsil. Image how this could be abused. I also want to note that it wasn't the really UN who voted down USA regarding the latest Iraq war, rather it was the individual countries within the Security Counsil.

That's true. And it was later learned that the three primary "individual countries" opposed U.S. action because it would jeapordize the the profits they were making from illegal trade agreements with Iraq. Of course, they were able to put on the appearance of "taking the high ground" in their objections - at least until the truth of their illegal trade practices were discovered.

So that isn't much of a "feather" in the cap of the Security Council.

One of the biggest complaints against the U.N. is that they did not allow the military to continue into Iraq and finish the job it started in 1991. That was also a major factor that motivated Bush, Jr. to say that - THIS time - we were going in with or WITHOUT the U.N.'s approval.

We played the game by the U.N. rules for 12 years, and Saddam Hussein thumbed his nose at the U.N. and U.S. during the entire fiasco. The U.N. Security Council showed beyond any doubt that they were either powerless or unwilling to actually follow up on any serious threats against Hussein for his non-compliance.

So he sat back and defied the U.N. until the heat got too much...then he would suddenly put on the facade of compliance only as long as necessary for the U.N. to forget about him and his country and move on to the next issue - at which time he could return to torturing and killing any citizens he took a dislike to and could funnel money to his scientists for the development of a weapons stockpile that he had agreed to do away with.