as an action body
Just what is the rest of the world in comparison to the USA that they should determine the outcome of world events? They are primarily spectators and sideline directors. The relationship of the rest of the world's countries to the United States is that of sport's franchise owner to team. They just get in the way in the long term. Why should we submit to the offense of being "directed" by anyone while we pay the bills?
UN-effectual ... UN-determined ... UN-natural
The United Nations is like a 12-headed Hydra with each head trying to direct the body in a different direction. By its very nature, it is impotent to accomplish its own mandate ... which is (the defacto) state of world peace. It is fundamentally incapable of even identifying a regime which should be removed in the interests of serving that goal ... let alone actually doing something about it.
What has the UN accomplished in its first century of existence? ... just about nothing. If any list of accomplishments is made they all begin and end with the participation of the United States as the motivator, initiator and activator. Well, just what the hell do we need it for? Do you like being a lap dog to someone else's philosophy (a philosophy which is by definition the son of a thousand fathers)?
The true "value" of the UN
The United Nations excels only as a talk forum ... something like a Jerry Springer show where this or that grievance is aired and the participants attack one another with vicious verbs ... restrained only by a few beefy bouncers. It is firstly a forum where one may freely attack the United States without getting "the bug one" shoved up the ass.
In the United Nations, militarily washed up countries like France and Russia and Germany can talk the talk whilst avoiding the actual walk. It is far easier to puff out your chest and act brave in defense of dictators than to put your money (and your ass) where your mouth is. Hence, these types of countries do nothing and are nothing in the determination of current world events.
The fact is that a country like France couldn't/wouldn't take military action even to defend its own territory. Such a country could be easily overridden by the "Army of Islam" which consists of 1000 guys on camels armed with sticks with rusty nails on the end.
I support the President in this matter ...
just because ... he is in "the big chair", charged with the responsibility of ACTION in a world full of limp-wristed, hand-wringing, effeminate do-gooders who are willing to roll over and play dead (or worse, present their behinds in mute, anal compliance) for any cheesy, 2-bit, psychopathic, big face guy. (A big face guy is a ruler who has his mug pasted all over his country in 20 foot tall portraits. You know the type.)
This is the failing of "old Europe". They have no power and no balls anymore and so are impotent to direct the course of events. The only option open to them is to try to make everyone do nothing as well thereby making inaction appear to be a virtue. Inaction, when you have been attacked on your home turf (WTC) is below cowardice. To do nothing to these miserable little primitive slavers is unconscionable.
You're supposed to "mix it up" with your enemies
For me this is a case of "My country, right or wrong".
By this I mean that since I am not personally privy to all the info necessary to make an informed decision, I trust the president to do what is required, i.e. to do the "manly" thing. I support him un-reservedly in all things of slight and moderate importance. I reserve the right to withdraw such support in cases of great import or when new, contrary information comes to light.
The Iraq issue is not a matter of great importance. It is a matter of moderate importance. President Bush is confronting the avowed enemies of his country head on and defying them. And ... the best defense here is a good offense. They really should be knocked back on their heels.
Take it to 'em