Britain Is Our "Lone Supporter?"

OK, why are we back screwing around with the UN again? The organization in general, and France in particular, is ticked about our being even somewhat successful in Iraq, and is now trying to condition a multi-national force on a surrender of American control in post-war Iraq.

Now weren't they the ones screaming for a multi-national force to begin with? Are Annan and Chirac upset that they didn't get to ride in a glorious triumph? We're offering what they wanted and now it isn't good enough.

Why would we want to cede any real control over to the UN? So that they can create a new "oil-for-food" program? So that French and Russian oil companies can get back those contracts that they paid so much in bribes for?

Rebuilding in Iraq is not, and has never been pitched as, an easy process. It is going to take time and effort; blood and sweat. But our (meaning the US and Britain, primarily) efforts are focused towards actually improving the lot of the Iraqi people.

Can we unequivocally say the same about Chirac or Annan? I don't believe so.

Oh yeah, someone needs to tell the Thai's that they're not supposed to be helping us. It might make them look like they're supporting our efforts. (This is actually a very good thing and a credit to the Thai people and the Thai government. It looks like they understand the concept of "humanitarian" better than Annan, Chirac or any of the other "leaders" at the UN.)