Well actually because Europe is not a unit. When europe wasn't interested in invading Iraq, it wasn't europe at all. It was each individual country in europe that wasn't interested, apart from the UK and Spain.

Spain's president was more or less bought and promised aid to Bush even before the subject was passed in parlement (it never did). He was thrown out by a large majority the next election.

My personal opinion is that the UK wasn't to eager either, but took Bush's side to act as a bridge between both sides of the atlantic (symbolic isn't it). If you hear Blair's lame excuses to join the US you might agree. Also Blair never got a real hard time from the rest of Europe.

__________________

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unilateralism
A tendency of nations to conduct their foreign affairs individualistically, characterized by minimal consultation and involvement with other nations, even their allies.

That is literal definition of "unilateralism". Or should i take your definition over dictionarys?
I very well know what you mean by disecting and explaining word, but we are talking about politicks and definiton i provided fits that.
Look at definiton provided by dictionary and explain how exactly does it fit it? Unless you would like to claim sience is a "foreing affair"?

@Bond
If you are negiotiating for a year about something in a work group existing of a number of nations, i would call it foreign affairs.

__________________

This is interesting, that tendency of prefering individual definitions over commonly accepted definitions.
Now I'm thinking of it that 's quite a common democratic people's behaviour.
Something here to investigate.

Okay, Bond369, let's use your definition. First, I'm glad to hear that the US never acts unilaterally. Secondly, since your definition specifically states that "foreign affairs" are conducted "individualistically", clearly the invasion of Iraq wasn't a unilateral action. Also of note, since we spent a great time "consulting" with and "involving" other nations, the Iraq invasion again fails the test of unilateral action.

Thanks for your support.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Does invasion of foreing country belong under foreing affairs?

I would assume so. Or, do you have a limited and specific definition for that as well?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Again, the unilateracy comes from one reason: the democratic us didnt acted accordingly to a set of rules that regulate that type of issues whereas they signed to stick to those rules.
If they had denunciated the set of rules or left it the organisation, they would have not acted unilateraly.
They failed to secure a un mandate. From an iraqi point of view this is a good thing since the democratic us are standing responsible for their actions against iraq while with a un mandate the whole world would have stood responsible for the actions of a few actually. The dilution of responsibility cant work against iraq which means that the duties of the democratic us and co to iraq are better.

Alright then, it wasn't unilateral. Bush rallied the forces of Evil and together they proceeded to Iraq where they will not rest until every native has bowed in submission to their Dark Lord, Democracy. Whoever resists using feeble wilsonian excuses such as sovereignty, autodetermination, or religion, will be strafed, schrapnellized, fuel-air exploded, uranium-ridden, MOABed, maybe fucked with a cop stick in Abu Graib, in short ground to dust. Or at least ashes. Let God recognize his own. Amen.

Than US did act unilateraly by far more than any european country with their sience project. Read what tfbm said.
And i limit my definitions to dictionary explanations and not to what would fit me and my wishfull thinking best. Its beyond me why are u so obsessed with finding in europe what isnt there. Well at least your looking in wrong places...
And yes, some countries did act unilateraly during Iraq conflict... they were in the "coalition of the willing" (idiotic term to begin with, shows nothing but which countries would suck up to US and would ignore their own ppl just for that).