Democracy NATO

No. There are 15 countries on the UN Security Council for a start. 5 of them are permament with veto powers.

3 out of 5 of those 5 permament members are prepared to use their veto against the US and UK - China just declared that today. That's a MAJORITY.

Out of all the 15 (the ten non permaments are elected by the General Assembly) it is suspected that there is currently a majority against.

Even if there is a majority for the resolution (after the usual bribes and bullying) but a veto is used, the thing falls. Those are the rules. If the US does not like those rules it can leave the UN. But even it will not dare do that. And it frequently uses veto powers itself - in support of Israel of course.

For a resolution to pass two things simultaneously have to happen:

1. No permament member should use its veto. 2. A majority of 9 is required on the entire Security Council.

As members the US and UK support these rules. Permament members can change these rules much easier than non-permament members and neither country have proposed changes.

The UK is may propose a resolution that will give Saddam more time but also authorise force. This may or may not pass. If it does though, it just shows the desperation the US and UK have got to.

The Security Council is problematic I agree. So let's go to a much more democratic body. The UN General Assembly. It represents every nation on the face of the earth. Why not? After all the US and UK say that Saddam is a 'threat to the world'. But any resolution authorising war would be voted down in huge numbers in the GA.

World opinion is against the war - European opinion is against it, Asian and African opinion is against it, global muslim opinion is against it, even America is divided. And the US and UK are having difficulty getting it past the Security Council, which is much easier to manipulate. If they do succeed they will get their UN authorised war. But it's a cynical and desperate use of the UN. It makes the war legitimate in legal terms, whilst reducing legitimacy of the law itself in the eyes of many. And it will not make the war just or necessary.

Oh, and by the way its not the NATO Security Council. Its the UN one.

Saddam is a liar. The missiles he is now claiming to destroy all of, he denied the very existence of not so long ago.

The threat is not to the world and Bush knows it. His 'fear' is that Iraq may become a supplier of cheap and portable chemical and biological weapons.

The real reason for war is to distract the US public from domestic issues Bush can't or doesn't want to handle.

UK support comes via the 'Special Relationship'.

The war is not justified by any means and even the US public is not totally convinced.

MSNBC has posed the question, 'Should the US use torture to get information from terrorists if it could stop future terrorist attacks?'

I can't believe any American would even think up such a question let alone answer with a 'yes'. But some have.

We are far better off living by example and by our own rules of justice and human rights. Let them cheat. They'll still lose.

'Mrs Babymash' expostulated:

Multiple choice:

A) They represent fully half of the countries with veto power.

There are more countries sitting on the fence than there are solidly for AND solidly against.

C) Ben's been into the mushrooms again.

D) All of the above.

'Mrs Babymash' expostulated:

Same thing that happened to NATO when the French threw them out.