I think I meant to say that specifying a definition will limit it's usage to the issue it is specified to. In this case, I think, "unilateral action of war". Trying to expand it afterwards leads to crappy results. France is not breaking international law by pushing to build a fusion- reactor. And I'm not putting world peace in jeopardy when I'm ordering "unilateral coffee" - that's black coffee, alone in a cup. And therefore a unilateral action is not the thing to be criticising.
Given that Iraq was an urgent threat, that there was no choice but to immediately go to war, it's not much to disagree with, I think. Rumsfeld is a hero. Europe is blind and/or appeasing, corrupt and an enemy of the US indirectly by not helping to disarm threats to american soil.

But most of us disagree with how much of a threat Iraq was. Then we disagree with how urgent it was, if at all. Many american generals as well as other "prominent" europeans disagreed with that we had to go into a full scale war in any case, and then yet again with that if it really was this urgent, there was not enough troops available to complete the assignement in a good way. All of this and more the heads in washington disregarded or brushed off. So basically, unless the threat really exists/existed or whatever, the case for going ahead with a slightly planned crusade becomes terrifyingly bad in every single respect. But if the threat existed, it was a noble selfless sacrifice for the greater good to go in without common or general support. In fact, it was a service to the human kind. So I wonder - what is it that decides whether Iraq was a threat or not? Any suggestions? The next natural question to ask would be - is this thing which magically will decide whether Iraq was a threat or not a good standard to judge whether N.Korea is a threat? What about Israel or Iran?

See, many europeans and also americans as it seems, do wonder about this. (Unless they think we should do nothing, on principle or something.) We think that perhaps there were some good reason for it which we don't know about - yet, everything we have been told has so far been very, very transparent. As transparent as nothing, really. So what is this gap between europe and the US really about? Some appear to suggest it is a principal thing, that there is no real reason at all. So, does this mean that the US is going to war just for spiting the Europeans and the Europeans oppose the US for the same reason? I don't really think so. All the same, noone, including the ones supporting the Bush- administration, the action taken, the neocon ideology or what they see as democracy and liberty seems to know exactly on what grounds the action of going to war is based upon. And if there is a reason - like "we must convert the unbelievers before they colonize the earth" or "we want their oil" or "we just want to show off and put them in their place" - those reasons are not really sufficcient. Alternatively, we don't want to think that we disagree about if these reasons are sufficcient. So there must be something else, right? (Any takers on this one?) And if nothing should be done, what are the reasons for that?

But here we are, discussing how to name what happened, just as if this actually mattered for how reality is. But under no circumstances will it be possible specify how it is that Washington knew how they had to act on this very urgent threat. There is no way to know or even discuss how it is that Europe will be, what was it, left to "fend off the wolves", if the US decides to leave the "barrel of gunpowder alone". It is not possible to be explained to how it is that "we" did not understand the "sense of urgency". Nor is it possible to get to know why this strange principal malalignment exists between Europe and the US. It is as if there is ... nothing at all to sustain the root of this problem, but belief and conviction, void of any real substance. It is almost as if an assumed fact without evidence is the point of disagreement. I wonder why that is. Hmm. Ponder, ponder.