Why should the worlds' security be decided by a slew of government appointees, especially if the bulk of these are speaking for the remaining dictatorships of the world who worry immensely over the liberation of Iraq?
Because SA claims the home of Muslim religion, and is accepted as such among the Muslim world.
We as a group don't worry much over a Liberal takeover of the government in America. The leader of the opposing party, Howard Dean, continously assures us of that fact.
No, France, Russia, and China didn't desire it because of the large outstanding balance Saddam Hussein owed to these three countries during the time he was manipulating the Oil for Food Scandal which is public news at this time.
Our Enemy, being the Saudi Regime? That is, of course, the presumed target the left decided should be the alternate target since the start of 9-11. (the primary one being America itself). Well, why not, except for the massive political and economic instability such a war would inflict upon the West. Which is, of course, exactly what the left desires in pursuit of the destruction of the USA system. How typical. What I mean is, if we had attacked Saudi Arabia from the beginning of 9-11, the complaints from the left would have multiplied into a scream of intolerable proportions, and of course, Bush would have lost the 2004 elections... as the left primarily desires over all other concerns.
Except you claim that "The countries can't resolve it militarily between themselves, they require a UN force by charter." Oh, that a great idea. Let's put all force in the hands of the worlds administration, mostly chosen by dictatorial regimes.
And yet you've debated me endlessly over the legal rights deserved to Gitmo detainees.
A balanced budget in wartime? Which Democrat even remotely managed such an accomplishment?
. 
.
