I had the same happy surprise regarding Mendala - Nelson, I mean, Not Winnie.
I agree that some restraint is needed. Perhaps the question is, "to what extent are the present constraints among allies and in international forums sufficient?" Clearly France and Russia were not able to restrain the United States and Britain in the Security Council. However, given the very complex history of the Iraqi matter and the equally complex motivations of our antagonists in the Security Council, it is far from clear to me that the world would be any better if France and Russia were able to have prevailed.
Much is made about the various legal pretexts for the overthrow of the Iraqi regime. I believe this debate misses the central point. The removal of the Iraqi regime removed a cruel oppressor from the backs of the Iraqi people. In addition it may lead to the creation of a secular government in the Arab country most able to benefit and prosper from it; may contribute to blunting the ambitions of outlaw nations, bent on WMD blackmail; and finally may advance the conditions needed for a stable peace in the Mideast. These issues are complex and coupled in a most non-linear way, and the corresponding solutions (if they exist) must be judged with all this in mind.
International forums such as the UN General Assembly will never be able to deal with such issues - guided as they are by the international least common denominator of autocratic robber governments. The Security Council has proved itself to be only marginally better. We are left with this dilemma.
