If you look at what our British, Spanish and other allies in Iraq are saying about this it is really overstretch to be talking about any military action against Syria.

I think it would be us and maybe the Bulgarians (for another few hundred bucks).

Ever notice when peole say that something should be addressed by the security councel, what they're really saying is "We want this idea to curl up and die." I think the security councel needs to be reorganized before anyone says anything should be addressed by the UN security councel.

"We demand one of the least effective beuroracricies ever to exist be allowed to, at it's leasure, decide on this issue."

it's not perfect, but it's all we got.

That's true, but just because it's all we've got doesn't mean that it's worth keeping. It's kinda like trying to go fishing using only a hammer. When something isn't the right tool- it isn't the right tool.

Imagine the security needed for powell in damascus? Didnt i read the top Iraqi assassin is wandering the streets?

Dave,
The security council may have problems.But in case you haven't noticed practically every WMD treaty in the world relies on recourse and enforcement through the U.N. Iraq and Korea are failures among a much much larger large number of successes in those treaties.

Those agreements are of interest to the US more than any other nation. WMD is the "poor man's weapon", i.e. it is most useful for countries not able to field large and technologically advanced militaries such as we have. A aircraft carrier group would cost a nation like South Africa much more than a few nuclear missles with more of a reach (say right to Chicago).

The treaties offer punishment and reward for the signers (vitually everyone) but the only recourse is through the UN. Without any consiquence the treaties are useless and we are not going to invade every country in the world. There are a lot of threshould states not like Iraq, who will be contained by the UN and the treaties, and will not be absent them.

"Calm fears?" We should be sending in Rumsfeld to STOKE fears.

Quin,
Your right of course, But I still wish the Jean Cretien would just shup up and take early retirement.
Flogging the dead horse (UN) doesn't do any good as far as Syria is concerned, when in
fact, direct talks between the USA and Syria are more effective.
You don't see the UN involved in Korea, in fact Korea insists on direct talks with the USA.

The UN has had decades to adress world problems, yet it does little or nothing.

It takes a year just for the UN to come up with a statement like "we condemn those actions taken by"

Then, another year to draw up a proposal to take action, which usually consists of santions, meanwhile, millions die....

Also, when a country like france, russia, say they are going to veto a resolution before they even hear it, those countries should loose their veto.