now I understand what you were intending to communicate.

Re Unilateral, the press of the world has placed the term into common usage and within a meaningful context - I don't believe *anyone* really has illusions about the role of the US vs the role of UK. It is a fact that both Blair (UK) and Howard (Aus) have stated in their respective parliments that they **WILL** only go into Iraq with US, if UN gives mandate (just what that really means is open to your own interpretation - I know what I believe it means vs what they are both really thinking).

Australia's reward is understood - an OTA. We Aussies at times think of ourselves as another state of the US and for good reason and most are happy to do so. I certainly do - whan I am in Calif & Texas I feel 100% at home.

But I believe the word Unilateral is being used acceptably and accurately. I think the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.

Cheers

Doug Marker