Ciao!

It is a pitty that you have to count countries for support of the war. On the one hand you downplay the importance of Canada because it only had little troops in the region but on the other hand you add countries to the support list like Albania and Rumania. What important role are they about to play?
The thing is that many traditional and important allies of the United States fail to agree with the course. France and Germany, of course... Canada, too. The support of others is not sure. Italy for example backed out a lot since January because of strong domestic pressure also coming from the Pope. In Britain the government is torn over the decision. Some members already resigned others may follow. Some traditional allies still favor the US led strategy. Australia for example. But even there public opinion is different from the opinion of the country's leaders. While I don't want to insult the recent democracies from Eastern Europe that have joined the American Iraq-strategy, it is kind of hard to accept their attitude as one of full support. I can't help thinking that they might want to trade moral support for economic aid / investments.
Anyhow, I want to say something about wars being fought without UN consent.
True, only one major war has been fought with consent (Korea) as far as I know. Most of the wars were fought without asking the UN for permission. However, this war is fought AGAINST the specific will of the UN. That is a whole different matter.
Not asking the UN for permission is bad, in my opinion. But asking it and then persue your goal against its explicit will shows such disrespect for the international community united in this institution! How can any nation act so bossy, as such a know-it-all?
The question of weapons for Turkey does not have to anything with honor. First of all, Turkey got our defensive weapons, the ones they asked for. They are just operated by dutch soldiers. Furthermore you fail to see the support Germany gives to its allies including the US by protecting American institutions, bases and so on in Germany, granting the right to use its air space and so on.
Granting the use of our air space might even be a breach of our constitution. The international law experts are not clear on this and still the Chancellor granted it.
Most importantly you fail to see Germany's role in the fight against terrorism: Germany and the Netherlands are leading the force in Afghanistan. A conflict, which is far from being over. But the united States felt they needed a new battleground before finishing the fight in Afghanistan and installing a working democracy there.
Now that war in Iraq is about to begin, let us hope that it will be swift and with as little bloodshed as possible. But every single soldier and civilian dieing there is one life wasted. The war couldn't have come at a time when it was more uneccessary than now.
The french are saying that they will join the war in case Iraq uses banned chemical weapons. In that case Iraq would clearly be a threat for the region/world. By now, no proof has been produced that Iraq still possesses such weapons. In consequence, France had said it would veto any resolution allowing war, no matter how it was worded. This is a pricipled attitude.

The point isn't that this support was important; it's token support to be sure. The point is just that I'm tired of hearing this called "unilateral" action, when there are 30-45 countries involved. That's a multilateral coalition by definition.

I'm tired of hearing about how this war is against the will of the UN. All eighteen resolutions - many of them calling for "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to fully cooperate - are still in effect. This was does have legal UN standing - it only doesn't have the cooperation of France and a few other "major" powers.

The Council did not want to vote in favor of a strike. In fact, such a resolution would have been vetoed. What follows is that in fact this war is waged against the will of the UN. No doubt about that.

Check your premises. The council also didn't vote against a strike. And it did authorize "serious consequences" under 1441 - not to mention the previous resolutions. A matter of technicalities, to be sure. But international law (if it even exists) is built on minor technicalities.

Finally, please read the actual text of the proposed resolution in question. It didn't even specify strikes.

I love the logic of using a potential (or real) veto as a test of "acting against the will of the UN." In that case, I invite a vote on whether the US is violating the will of the UN. What? We'd veto the resolution? Well, there you have it. We're not violating the UN. And since we'd veto that resolution, making it fail, then we must be acting w/ the will of the UN! Hurray!

Now do you notice the faulty logic of that argument?

I notice that logic. It is not the main point, though. Before France announced that it would veto the US and Britih were unsuccessfully trying to assemble the 9 necessary votes for a new resolution. My argument was that there was a majority in the Council to block that new resolution. I didn't mention that clearly enough, I guess, cos I thought I was stating the obvious. I mentioned France' veto plan merely for emphasis.

The Council announced "serious consequences". It is for the Council to decide on their nature, not for a minority of it. This war is fought with the support of a minority of the Council and of the UN in general. Not to mention, it is fought with the consent of a small minority of people all over the world. If you want to remind me of other wars fought with the support of a minority of countries, fine. But doing wrong things twice, doesn't make them right.

The appeal to the polling data on the war is known as an "ad populum" logical fallacy. Just because something's popular, doesn't make it right. You must appeal to evidence, facts, reasons for/against policies, not their popularity.

Council support was always unclear. At one point, Powell believed he had 10 votes. French resolve to veto ended the process. Don't forget the council has only 15 members - w/ different luck, more of the 45 coalition countries might've been there.

Abt the ad populum "fallacy": in a democracy the majority determines what is right and what is wrong as long as people behave according to a certain code of conduct. In the Security Council countries have been playing by this rule for decades. Disregarding the majority is a violation of that code of conduct. One shouldn't advocate democracy if one is not willing to practise it with all its consequences. Only the Council shall decide on how to enforce its resolutions, not a minority in it.

It is doubtful whether Mr. Powell had had the 9 votes neccessary. I don't see the majority of the countries represented in the Security Council on the support list for the war on Iraq.

The veto power may be used by any country wielding it as it sees fit. France would have done that now as the United States have done so on many other occasions. The veto power is a historically motivated exception to the democratic principle exercised in the Council.

Whether it is to be abolished is a different issue. I wouldn't want to replace it with a different veto system. If the current system is to be changed i would favor majority rule, maybe with 10 out of 15 votes...

No, democracy doesn't mean that the majority is "right". It only means that the majority gets to implement its policy - until a future majority changes it. Or do you suggest that segregation was morally "right" up until the 1960s? Or that Hitler was "right" because he was elected by the German voters? Certainly not. There are values that supercede democracy.

I was not talking abt being morally right but being legally right. There are indeed values that supercede democracy. But which one has been violated by the Council? Self defense? I don't think so.
(ok, this was my last comment on this. Sorry, Miguel... I couldn't resist)

If you're arguing that law dictates what is morally right, then check your premises. Everything Hitler did was perfectly legal. All properly approved and passed by the Reichstag. All the paperwork properly filed and archived. His judges followed nazi procedure. So ... was that "right"? It was legal. Or is there another standard to morality than legal proceduralism?