"Contrary to an earlier philosophy.":
"William J. Clinton is the former president of the United States. In this article he echoes former U.S. President Jimmy Carter's Nobel peace prize acceptance speech last week calling on the United States not to act unilaterally but work with the United Nations."

And we did just this- we went to the UN, had success in terms of 1441, but then France torpeded the whole process by saying it would veto any means of enforcing that resolution.

Now, what would be an example of the US acting unilaterally? US launching cruise missiles into Baghdad. Or bombing selected targets in response to a terrorist attack.

What is the difference between launching cruise missiles and marching in troops? [Other than by putting in troops, it clearly shows that we are more serious about changing the regime.]

Now, why doesn't the UN put troops into Baghdad? The answer is that these troops will be captured and/or killed. If France doubts this, why not sent in French UN soldiers? Or if demonstrators think Iraq is some poor victim, why don't they go to Iraq and demonstrate?
What would happen if say 100,000 Arab demonstrators took buses into Baghdad and stood by the people of Iraq. Who's stopping these people from going to Iraq? If there are so many people who want peace in Iraq (opposed to simply being against the US) why don't they do something which is more effective than prancing around on relatively safe streets?
Why not take some real risks for peace?