The Brits are Coming!!!

[Muzh]

A little attempt at humor.

A Message from John Cleese to the citizens of the United States of America:
 
 In light of your failure to elect a competent President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately. Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (excepting Kansas, which she does not fancy).
 
 Your new prime minister, Tony Blair, will appoint a  governor for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.
 
 To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect: You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up aluminium, and check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.
 
 The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters, and the suffix ize will be replaced by the suffix ise.
 
 Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (look up vocabulary). Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication.
 
 There is no such thing as US English. [No, it's "American." -gb.] We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of -ize.
 
 You will relearn your original national anthem, God Save The Queen. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. A permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.
 
 All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and this is for your own good. When we show you Japanese cars, you will understand what we mean. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

 The Former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline) -roughly $6/US gallon. Get used to it.
  You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.
 
 The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. American brands will be referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine, so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion.
 
 Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters. Watching Andie MacDowell attempt English dialogue in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a cheese grater.
 
 You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies). Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable.
 
 You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.

 An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776).
 
 Thank you for your co-operation.
 

[groovlstk]

In light of this, does this mean we'll be asked to return Pooh and friends? 

Over my dead body! 

In 1947 the original toys Pooh , Piglet Tigger, Eeyore and Kanga went on a tour of the USA. They toured the USA visiting libraries and department stores. They ended up in Duttons Books offices and then in 1987 they were presented to the New York Public library. Where thay have been kept in a glass cage ever since.

[jb]

And then there is this from Australia -

Thanks America
Where do I start? I've wanted to say this for a long time. It is unbelievable that America gets badmouthed all the time. America has helped the cause of freedom more than anyone else. First of all I'd like to thank America for saving Australia's butt at the Battle of the Coral Sea in WWII. This prevented the Japanese from landing here, and bringing with them the concept of "comfort women". I think Australia's nature is such that we would have sacrificed 90% of our population rather than hand over any woman. America's intervention meant that we were never required to make that terrible choice. Thanks America!

Then of course there's the fact that you saved Europe's butt, not once but 3 times - WWI, WWII and the Cold War. I don't know why we don't hear more thanks from Europe for this. But in the absence of thanks from ungrateful recipients of American largesse, let me say it instead - thanks America!

And then there's all the foreign aid you give. And all the technology you provide. And all the knowledge that is provided for free. And the Mars rover images, also provided for free. And the GPS system also provided for free. Why don't the third world countries thank you for all the stuff they receive from America? I don't know. But let me thank you instead. Thanks America!

And something that is far more important than foreign aid is the security umbrella you provide, that the entire free world lives under. If there was any justice in the world, the rest of the free world would provide money to fund the American military, and hand over a cheque with a BIG SMILE. Instead, what do we see? Protests in places like South Korea. Unbelievable. How you can put up with the South Koreans is beyond me. The fact that you do put up with them, with a smile, exemplifies the inner beauty of the American soul. Thanks America!

And then there's the fact that after defeating an enemy, instead of rubbing his nose in the dirt, you instead show great magnimity and help him to his feet, immediately, ala Germany and Japan. You show that the best way to defeat an enemy is to turn him into a friend. You teach that we should judge people by their current behaviour, not past bad behaviour. If only the rest of the world could learn from America. But instead most of the rest of the world maintains grudges for centuries, transferring guilt to perfectly innocent people, and pretending to inherit suffering and permanent victimhood. If only people would adopt the American way, the world would be so much better. What can I say? Nothing. I am humbled in the face of American largesse. Thanks America!

And then there's the glorious imperial measurement system that you still cling to, in honour of the glorious King George, long after the rest of the world, including Australia, has metricized, which even caused one of the Mars probes to be smashed to smithereens. Hmmmmm. Hmmmmm. Ok. Hmmmmm. Let's move on folks, nothing to see here.

And then there's the fact that you give money to others in the event of a natural disaster, such as the Tsuanami, regardless of race or religion, yet no-one ever gives you a dime when you have a natural disaster. Both the government and the people individually have unmatched generosity. And even rich people in America tend to give their money to charities instead of passing it on to their kids, like people in most other countries. Thanks America!

And then there's the fact that after 9/11, instead of nuking the entire Middle East in response, you instead freed 52 million people from state-slavery, and then poured BILLIONS into those countries, on top of the BILLIONS that the war cost itself, plus the sacrifice of your countrymen. All while everyone is accusing you of stealing oil. I don't know why these ingrates don't thank you for all you have done. Maybe it's because they're ingrates? Maybe with education their children will thank you. Just like European children thank you. Hmmmm. Hmmmm. Nevermind about that. Let me thank you instead. Thanks America!

Ok, I do have some complaints about America. No-one's perfect. But they're pretty minor in comparison to what America has done for the world. Sometimes I feel guilty even mentioning them. I feel that any time I mention them I should prefix them with "Despite how much America has done for the world, unequalled, and for which I am so grateful, could I please bring your attention to this relatively trivial matter ...". But in actual fact I'm just like everyone else - I just blurt out my complaint. This is actually pretty normal though. People normally only complain when something is wrong, they don't ring up "customer service" to say that the "product is working fine". So sorry for being human AND GET OFF MY BACK ALREADY!

Anyway, while I'm here, I'd like to ask for one more favour. Yes, that's right. Another bleeding foreigner asking for yet another favour. That's right, he couldn't just say thanks and keep his gob shut. He had to suck at the teat YET AGAIN. Ok, this is it. I want Iran to be liberated. And I want it to be done similar to how Afghanistan was done - with minimum force. I'm pretty sure you just need to ground the enemy aircraft and the people will liberate themselves. Protect any town that manages to liberate itself and possibly send in troops to make sure it stays liberated. Yes, I know you're sick of liberating ungrateful foreigners. So much of Iraq was ungrateful. But in Iraq it was necessary to disband the old army. In Iran, this is not necessary. What that means is you don't need to provide your own troops and do nation-building. You just need to flip the government like was done in Afghanistan. It should be an even more spectacular success than Afghanistan. But you need to have the faith to do one last liberation that will complete the jigsaw puzzle. I've already sent a letter to the Australian Prime Minister to liberate Iran, but of course I received no reply. So once again, I need to depend on the US to get anything done. I am hoping that the success in Iran will inspire you to liberate the rest of the world as well, but let's not worry about that at the moment. I hope that with the rest of the world liberated, we will be able to sort out a workable UN, and stop coming cap in hand to you all the time. But we haven't reached that stage yet. Please, I urge you to do this one last thing, after Iraq has quietened down.

Anyway, regardless of what you choose to do, as per your sovereign right to not do anything, and let me just reiterate that you are perfectly within your rights to take an attitude "we've done enough for the world already", I just want to repeat, from the bottom of my heart - THANKS AMERICA!

UPDATE - thanks to an email reminder, let me add that in return for liberating Europe et al, America never asked for anything in return, except perhaps somewhere to bury their dead. It didn't colonize the defeated nations. It did not rape German women and then subjugate the nation, unlike the Soviet "liberators". Not only did it not ask for anything, it actually provided assistance to allies so that they could rebuild. And I've remembered something else myself. After the Japanese were defeated, and China was liberated. Do you think that the Chinese were exuberant in their thanks? Nope. The commies took the credit for US heavy-lifting and then turned around and started calling America "capitalist pigs". Unbelievable. I don't have words to express my feelings.

[wxman]

Does this mean we will have to do the "silly walk" and call each other "twits"?

And now for something completely different. It is now time for the penguin on top of your tele to explode.

[corncrowe]

Prince William Gets Master of Arts Degree -- Prince William learned Saturday that he had achieved a master of arts degree in geography.

That's so he knows where the commonwealth used to be...

Cheers,

Jon

[wxman]

Prince William Gets Master of Arts Degree -- Prince William learned Saturday that he had achieved a master of arts degree in geography.

He needs it to keep track of where his swastika wearing brother Harry is. 

[Landscaper]

And then there's this from AMERICANS:

WASHINGTON -- Matt Raiche knew he was in trouble when the Marines handed him an orange jumpsuit, a bottle to urinate in, a Koran and a Muslim prayer rug.

Marine guards put the former Marine into a 6-foot-by-6-foot concrete cell, locked the steel door and told him to keep his mouth shut. In cells nearby, he heard imprisoned insurgents screaming in Arabic.

"They took us to be … insurgent terrorists," said Raiche, 34, one of 16 U.S. contractors arrested by Marines last month on suspicion of firing indiscriminately at U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians. "We said we were Americans. We didn't know what was going on."

So began three days of captivity for the employees of North Carolina-based Zapata Engineering, who were apprehended after Marines allegedly witnessed them firing weapons from an armored convoy passing through Fallouja.

Although the details remain unclear, the May 28 incident reflects the long-simmering tension between the military and private business in Iraq. Even though the government has hired companies to perform many functions there -- including providing security -- it does not formally oversee their activities, allowing misunderstandings and disputes to fester.

Raiche said the Marines seemed resentful about the salaries contractors in Iraq are paid. "One Marine gets me on the ground and puts his knee in my back. Then I hear another Marine say, "How does it feel to make that contractor money now?' "

The contractors who were detained have denied the accusations against them. They were released and are in the process of returning home. Three unarmed Iraqi subcontractors for Pasadena-based Parsons Corp. who were passengers in the convoy were also held and released.

The Zapata contractors, who were held at a Marine base near Fallouja, acknowledged firing warning shots to prevent a suspicious vehicle from approaching their convoy but said they never aimed at Marines or civilians.

Marine officers confirmed that the Justice Department was reviewing the incident to determine whether criminal charges would be filed. The contractors were questioned by the FBI and Naval Criminal Investigative Services.

The Marine documents said the Zapata contractors, besides firing on civilians, had unauthorized weapons in their vehicles -- AT4 antitank weapons and grenades. Several of the contractors said they were given those weapons by Marines in the months before the confrontation. The Marines said they could not immediately confirm the source of the weapons.

The incident also renewed questions about the U.S. military's treatment of prisoners in Iraq. One of the few things both sides largely agree on is that the Marines treated the contractors like any other detainees -- treatment the contractors found abusive and humiliating.

The Marines are investigating the contractors' abuse complaints but have found "nothing to substantiate those claims," said Lt. Col. David Lapan, a Marine spokesman.

The case is believed to represent the first time the military has detained contractors in Iraq on suspicion of endangering Iraqi civilians or U.S. troops.

By some estimates, more than 20,000 security contractors operate in Iraq -- a private army that is the second-largest armed foreign contingent in the country, surpassed only by the 140,000 U.S. troops.

The contractors perform functions that thinly stretched U.S. forces would be hard-pressed to provide, such as armed protection for Iraqi and U.S. civilian officials, including the U.S. ambassador.

Many contractors are retired soldiers from the U.S., Britain and Australia. Others served in the military of the old apartheid government of South Africa or the armed forces of Colombia and El Salvador, long linked to human rights violations.

The contractors work in a legal shadow world, largely unregulated by either the U.S. or Iraqi government. Under an order signed by Coalition Provisional Authority chief L. Paul Bremer III in June 2004, as the U.S.-led occupation drew to a close, contractors are immune from prosecution in Iraq as long as the actions in question were performed as part of their work.

Almost since the beginning of the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, there have been tensions between the private forces and the military.

Soldiers resent the perks the contractors enjoy. Contractors routinely make three or four times the pay of troops -- more than $100,000 a year.

Some troops and officials see the contractors as "cowboys" who enrage ordinary Iraqis with wanton behavior. Journalists have observed them pointing their guns and firing rounds at Iraqis who come too close. Contractors have been seen racing around Baghdad, Fallouja and other hotspots in armored SUVs, forcing Iraqi civilians off the road.

At a conference this year in Washington, Marine Col. Thomas X. Hammes noted that the military and the contractors had different objectives: The military wants to win the war and contractors want to serve their clients.

He pointed to the protection provided to Bremer by contractors as an example of divergent interests. The U.S. wanted to win over Iraqis, he said. But the aggressive tactics the contractors used to shield Bremer sometimes alienated them, he said.

"We can always get another ambassador," Hammes joked grimly.

Nevertheless, many contractors pride themselves on their professionalism. The highest-paid contractors are older men with extensive combat experience. Some view young U.S. troops as inexperienced and dangerous.

There have been numerous instances of troops mistakenly firing at security contractors -- "blue on blue" incidents in the parlance of Iraq, similar to "friendly fire" between troops.

Security contractors also complain that they lack many of the resources provided to the military. Contractors are not supposed to have access to military intelligence or carry heavy weapons.

The Fallouja case "brings to the fore this tension of using both private and public forces," said Peter W. Singer, a scholar at the Brookings Institution who has written about contractors. "Coordinating military forces is difficult…. Now it's even more difficult because you're adding private actors."

According to Lapan, the Marine spokesman, Marines saw a convoy of trucks and sport utility vehicles firing at soldiers and civilians about 2 p.m. on May 28. About three hours later, another group of Marines observed similar vehicles firing at a Marine guard post. The troops stopped the convoy and detained the 16 Americans and three Iraqis traveling in the vehicles, placing them in holding cells at Camp Fallouja.

The contractors have denied firing shots at the Marines. Two of them, Raiche and Rick Blanchard, repeated those denials Friday. Blanchard, 42, a former Marine and Florida state trooper, said the Marines had confused the Zapata convoy with an earlier security convoy that had fired indiscriminately.

Raiche said one contractor fired three shots at the ground in front of an approaching Iraqi vehicle as the convoy passed through Fallouja. "That's standard procedure," said Raiche, a 34-year-old former Marine. "We don't want any vehicle inside our convoy. It could be a car bomb."

Blanchard and Raiche said they were physically and mentally abused by Marine guards. They said the Marines taunted them about their salaries, slammed them around and threatened them with a guard dog.

"They were treating us like we were the insurgents," Blanchard said. "It broke my heart the way the Marines treated us."

Lapan said the group's release after three days did not mean the Marines considered them innocent.

[wxman]

This may be true, or may not. I wasn't there. But one thing most intelligent Americans believe, is that there are 2 sides to each story, and to take what the media publishes with a grain of salt. Journalism is basically dead in America, it is now all shock factor, whether it is true or not. I highly believe the media edited information that may implicate these contractors, or at least cast some suspicion on them, as we all know that bad stories about the US military, whether true or not, is what sells, not the good things they are doing.

[Landscaper]

much better examples of editing out information


Philip A. Cooney, the chief of staff to President Bush's Council on Environmental Quality, resigned yesterday, White House officials said.

Mr. Cooney's resignation came two days after documents revealed that he had repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that cast doubt on the link between building greenhouse-gas emissions and rising temperatures.

Mr. Cooney has no scientific training. Dana Perino, a deputy White House press secretary, said Mr. Cooney "had long been considering his options following four years of service in the administration." Ms. Perino said the decision was unrelated to revelations about the documents. Mr. Cooney did not return e-mails messages or phone messages left at his home.

Ms. Perino noted that the documents in question dated from 2003.

"He had accumulated many weeks of leave and had decided to resign and take the summer off to spend the time with his family," Ms. Perino said.

Before moving to the White House in 2001, Mr. Cooney, 45, was a lawyer for the American Petroleum Institute, the main lobby for the oil industry, and held the position of "climate team leader," in which he fought restrictions on greenhouse gases.

The documents, first described on Wednesday in The New York Times , stirred reactions ranging from defenses of Mr. Cooney by oil lobbyists to strident criticism by environmental groups and satire from Jon Stewart on his comedy-news program "The Daily Show."

Most scientists and scientific groups, including the National Academy of Sciences in a letter released this week, have said the relationship between greenhouse-gas emissions and warming is clear enough to justify prompt actions by countries to curb emissions.

Philip Clapp, the president of the National Environmental Trust, an environmental group in Washington, said the problem with White House treatment of the climate issue was broader than just one person.

"His resignation is less surprising than the fact that the lead oil industry lobbyist on global warming should have been given this kind of power over climate science and scientists," Mr. Clapp said.

Myron Ebell, who for years has fought restrictions on greenhouse gases on behalf of groups with industry ties, said Mr. Cooney's actions were part of the normal adjustments to language in government documents to mesh them with policy goals.

"The idea that only scientists are able to deal with that is ridiculous," said Mr. Ebell, who currently directs climate policy for the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute. "Citizens have to be able to deal with these things and decipher them, too."

He added, "This is a news story because the White House is so secretive, not because he did anything wrong."



A briefing paper prepared for British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers eight months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq concluded that the U.S. military was not preparing adequately for what the British memo predicted would be a "protracted and costly" postwar occupation of that country.

The eight-page memo, written in advance of a July 23, 2002, Downing Street meeting on Iraq, provides new insights into how senior British officials saw a Bush administration decision to go to war as inevitable, and realized more clearly than their American counterparts the potential for the post-invasion instability that continues to plague Iraq.

In its introduction, the memo "Iraq: Conditions for Military Action" notes that U.S. "military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace," but adds that "little thought" has been given to, among other things, "the aftermath and how to shape it."

The July 21 memo was produced by Blair's staff in preparation for a meeting with his national security team two days later that has become controversial on both sides of the Atlantic since last month's disclosure of official notes summarizing the session.

In those meeting minutes -- which have come to be known as the Downing Street Memo -- British officials who had just returned from Washington said Bush and his aides believed war was inevitable and were determined to use intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and his relations with terrorists to justify invasion of Iraq.

The "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," said the memo -- an assertion attributed to the then-chief of British intelligence, and denied by U.S. officials and by Blair at a news conference with Bush last week in Washington. Democrats in Congress led by Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record) Jr. (Mich.), however, have scheduled an unofficial hearing on the matter for Thursday.

Now, disclosure of the memo written in advance of that meeting -- and other British documents recently made public -- show that Blair's aides were not just concerned about Washington's justifications for invasion but also believed the Bush team lacked understanding of what could happen in the aftermath.

In a section titled "Benefits/Risks," the July 21 memo states, "Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks."

Saying that "we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective," the memo's authors point out, "A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise." The authors add, "As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden."

That memo and other internal British government documents were originally obtained by Michael Smith, who writes for the London Sunday Times. Excerpts were made available to The Washington Post, and the material was confirmed as authentic by British sources who sought anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the matter.

The Bush administration's failure to plan adequately for the postwar period has been well documented. The Pentagon, for example, ignored extensive State Department studies of how to achieve stability after an invasion, administer a postwar government and rebuild the country. And administration officials have acknowledged the mistake of dismantling the Iraqi army and canceling pensions to its veteran officers -- which many say hindered security, enhanced anti-U.S. feeling and aided what would later become a violent insurgency.

Testimony by then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, one of the chief architects of Iraq policy, before a House subcommittee on Feb. 28, 2003, just weeks before the invasion, illustrated the optimistic view the administration had of postwar Iraq. He said containment of Hussein the previous 12 years had cost "slightly over $30 billion," adding, "I can't imagine anyone here wanting to spend another $30 billion to be there for another 12 years." As of May, the Congressional Research Service estimated that Congress has approved $208 billion for the war in Iraq since 2003.

The British, however, had begun focusing on doubts about a postwar Iraq in early 2002, according to internal memos.

A March 14 memo to Blair from David Manning, then the prime minister's foreign policy adviser and now British ambassador in Washington, reported on talks with then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. Among the "big questions" coming out of his sessions, Manning reported, was that the president "has yet to find the answers . . . [and] what happens on the morning after."

About 10 days later, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw wrote a memo to prepare Blair for a meeting in Crawford, Tex., on April 8. Straw said "the big question" about military action against Hussein was, "how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be any better," as "Iraq has no history of democracy."

Straw said the U.S. assessments "assumed regime change as a means of eliminating Iraq's WMD [weapons of mass destruction] threat. But none has satisfactorily answered how that regime change is to be secured. . . ."

Later in the summer, the postwar doubts would be raised again, at the July 23 meeting memorialized in the Downing Street Memo. Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, the British intelligence service, reported on his meetings with senior Bush officials. At one point, Dearlove said, "There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman, appearing June 5 on "Meet the Press," disagreed with Dearlove's remark. "I think that there was clearly planning that occurred."

The Blair government, unlike its U.S. counterparts, always doubted that coalition troops would be uniformly welcomed, and sought U.N. participation in the invasion in part to set the stage for an international occupation and reconstruction of Iraq, said British officials interviewed recently. London was aware that the State Department had studied how to deal with an invasion's aftermath. But the British government was "shocked," in the words of one official, "when we discovered that in the postwar period the Defense Department would still be running the show."

The Downing Street Memo has been the subject of debate since the London Sunday Times first published it May 1. Opponents of the war say it proved the Bush administration was determined to invade months before the president said he made that decision.

Neither Bush nor Blair has publicly challenged the authenticity of the July 23 memo, nor has Dearlove spoken publicly about it. One British diplomat said there are different interpretations.

Last week, it was the subject of questions posed to Blair and Bush during the former's visit to Washington.

Asked about Dearlove being quoted as saying that in the United States, intelligence was being "fixed around the policy" of removing Hussein by military action, Blair said, "No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all." He then went on to discuss the British plan, outlined in the memo, to go to the United Nations to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq.

Bush said he had read "characterizations of the memo," pointing out that it was released in the middle of Blair's reelection campaign, and that the United States and Britain went to the United Nations to exhaust diplomatic options before the invasion.