We spent a very long time at the U.N.--losing a lot of military advantage in the process--trying to get a coalition together, until we realized that some nations were just fine with the status quo, and had no intention of helping.

BS#1: We spent a long time in the UN trying to get a coalition together???? We spent a month or so, wasting most of the time with hand-wringing declarations of how impossible diplomacy was, how evil the UN was, etc.

BS#2: Saddam knew with some certainty that he would be at war with us for 10 years or more. Somehow that extra month allowed him actually to prepare something? If anything, his military was weakening over the years, not strengthening. One month weaker vs. one month more prepared? Give me a break. He sure didn't seem very prepared. I could have done a better job.

The opposition would simply take turns bombing Americans, Frenchmen, and U.N. personnel. In the context of defeating the enemy and rebuilding Iraq, what would really change if we had more nations in there? Or the U.N.? If you are simply looking to save (very little) money and distribute the casualties to non-Americans, you might have a case.

What I have really found fascinating are those who would have supported the invasion of Iraq and its associated casualties, damage, and aftereffects, if the invasion has been blessed by the United Nations. Suddenly all the issues that are moral and tactical liabilities because the U.S. and Britain are doing them, go away if the U.N. had done it.

Kind of like getting your Crusades army blessed by the Pope in the old days. Now it's okay to do whatever you want. It's funny, but some leftists seem to view the United Nations very similarly.

I'm tired of doing this over and over, aren't you? If you have any question where I stand, and you care enough to look, I've already posted responses to BS like this.