If we had gone into Iraq under a U.N. banner, with France and Germany cheering us on, would the bombs and tanks have killed fewer Iraqis? Would that little boy's arms still be on? Would the soldiers have surrendered faster?

How would thousands of foreign forces make the occupation more "managable?" Would those Iraqis who resent the occupation resent it less if the occupiers were French? Or German?

Would fewer soldiers be dying during the rebuilding effort right now if more of them were U.N. troops? Would Baathists be more reluctant to put bombs under U.N. trucks? Judging by recent events, it doesn't seem so. Or is it simply as cynical as saying it's not as bad for America when a U.N. soldier gets killed?

Would the lights be coming on faster, water be restored sooner, and democracy coming along faster if U.N. people were running things? If you answer yes to the previous question, can you show me the slightest bit of evidence from any past endeavors that the U.N. would be doing a better job than the U.S. at getting this job done?

Who are these more "experienced" officials mentioned in the article? What is their experience? What nations have they brought to freedom? Or is their experience simply filling U.N. coffers with oil-for-food cash?

What has the U.N. done in dealing with tyrannies over the past twenty years to earn anything other than contempt, or at least the disappointment, of freedom-loving people?

If other nations of the world want to join in, I would bet most of them would be welcomed. Financial support wouldn't suck, and these nations should be damned lucky that all they have to contribute is money, instead of blood.

If the objective is to allow the U.N. to come in after the fact and decide that now that the hard work is done, they want a piece of the action, forget it.