Doesn't matter....
I told people a while back the UN was not oging to support us going into Iraq.
They went along thus far out of our threat of making them "irrelevant."
Intel has said for some time that an invasion of Iraq will likely spin out of control and turn into WWIII. The UN knows this, and if they support going in, and it goes bad, they share the blame for it.
However, if the UN doesn't support us and we go in and this happens, they can prance around saying, "See, we told you not to. See, this is what happens when you have nations like the USA calling the shots." While I don't think the UN would orchestrate WWIII just to gain power, they see the handwriting on the wall and are willing to use curcumstances to enlarge their plan for global government.
If the risk wasn't there, the UN would be in on it. They's want to share the credit if everything goes right. As the odds of that is slim, they are willing to end up with egg on their faces for not being with us than share the blame if what they expect comes to pass.
Oh, and waiting to deal with Iraq will not change this.
It won't be the USA starting WWIII. However, our involvement in Iraq will not be the 10-day quickie they claim it should be. When we get bogged down, other nations will initiate hostilities while the USA is too busy to get involved. Hostilities will escallate, and likely some nukes will be lobbed about.
We have UN authorization to take action. The last resolution implied this and did not expressly prohibit military action. This last resolution is nothing more than a formality, but the UN will gladly use a legalistic argument to make themselves look like the good guys and the USA look like the bad guys.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
