The House and Senate voted strong resolutions opening the way for the Bush administration to take action in Iraq including military force if necessary. Now, the action turns to the UN where I'm guessing the UK will back equally strong language. It seems that China is remaining pretty silent and will abstain or offer a yes vote but not say much about it. The problem is the French and the Russians who threaten a veto in the Security Counsel in the hopes of getting a weaker resolution.

It remains to be seen whether the latest news about the oil tanker attack off Yemen may influence the French thinking on Iraq. Certainly, they could claim, we should focus on Al-Queda and leave Hussein to another day. Nonetheless, the French have historically taken foreign policy positions in opposition to the USA where you wonder if they are doing that merely to say they aren't kowtowing to the USA.

The world waited far too long to take action against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Of course, there are still problems and will be for a long time in that broken country. However, few would dispute that the lot of the average Afghani, espcially women, has improved.

Iraqi's people have suffered much under Hussein's rule. Money that should go to the purchase of food and medicine instead gets diverted to building weapons of mass destruction and military power to keep himself in power. Why do the Iraqi's need chemical, biological and nuclear weapons? Most countries in the world do not have them and see the folly of wasting valuable resources in getting them.

I do not want war as the first option. Who does? But you listen to some of the critics and you think the USA is going to bomb Bagdad for breakfast tomorrow. The strong show of resolve is essential. Making this point with much more flair was NY Times Friedman.

Hussein has a sorry history of mis-calculation. Hopefully, he won't this time. Or perhaps some in his inner circle will take it into their own hands to make sure he won't mis-calculate.