[TerraMex]

1) Blair .

Well, just like you said, if there were elections tomorrow, he'd probably loose . The thin line between a good leader and having more of a dictator attitude is crossed when most of his executive is against him. He hasnt even consulted the House or most of his ministers. Taking a decisive action like this, doesnt really say if he's a great or not leader, just says he doesnt listen to anybody. I've heard a few news on Sky that there were some talks of giving him the boot.

2) I wish the majority of news org. in this country were honest, but that isn't the truth either.

Agreed. Most of the current media is more interested in rating than is on giving an imparcial view on a subject. It a general problem, even here in europe , but for what i've seen in CNN, ABC and a few others, it not as worse.

But raises an older issue. Because what you see/hear may not be representative of the truth, shouldnt you be more open to other points of view, or at least giving them some attention?

3) The UN doesnt exist for the sole benefict of "a" country. It has a vast amount of programs since education to enviormental issue , or even economical, that are being dealt with. And those are priceless. The inter-relations between countrys and those programs have worked in the past and hopefully , continue to do so.

However, in more specific, the US, they have used the US to pass points and resolutions they feel they needed, and put pressure on some countrys , etc. It has been a good tool . AND , several economical and trade agreements, and many other , have been made through the UN.

Just because it doesnt show up on CNN, doesnt mean it didnt happen, or it isnt relevant. So my answer is yes, it has done something.

4) They have been disclosing more than you think in these past months.

But if you read the others posts, what we (at least I) said was that Iraq probably has something, but it is not that relevant. It's like saying he's armed , but what he has is a pop gun.

The US has nukes, has he used them lately, or even during the cold war? No. They're dissuasion weapons. And most of the times , dissuasion is the best weapon.

Back to Iraq, have you seen those weapons? The ones i've seen on tv are rusty , dirty, and dented. However, they're "weapons of mass distraction" (pun intended).

Wich makes perfect sense . Attacking an Iraq with little or no weapons worth of record would assure a clear and low casualty win. If the main purpose is control over the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world, makes even more sense. Or that's just a coincidence?

The real breach between the UN is devided in two main issues:

1) Are they going for the oil ? Most think so. And the US havent given any real effort to prove them wrong.

2) Going to war without an UN resoltution. There are proper channels. The US are a part of the UN, and they have signed an agreement on what those channels are. It a question of respect. And they again insulted the UN by calling them irrelevant. They're not a dog that you command at free will.

Besides, in the past, the US is the country that used the most the veto option in the securty council. It's the old "it's my way, or the highway". Now it backfired.