An intense and emotional debate is not synonymous with a -good- and -rational- debate. The absence of -proof-, the absence of -evidence- led France, Germany, the two US mainland neighbours Canada and Mexico, and eventually the UN General Assembly to adopt policies based on international law.
The quality of the debate and its eventual outcome in the UK was based mostly on the credibility of its Prime Minister (and the collateral benefit and greed associated with being on that side, a cynic might add). You know how that one went. A lame duck? Who cares? We all have a much bigger problem now from geographical, political and security perspectives than the lost "credibility" of any two national political leaders can place a bet on: a tragic, lasting legacy to be sorted out by their successors.
After further review, I'll change my answer! I maintain that the level of debate that took place in the UK was higher than anywhere else. However, in this case, by "level", I am referring to quantity, not quality. No other nation could possibly have indulged in as much debate on the matter as the UK. The problem was that nobody in the debate was using facts. The irony is that, had we had a Conservative government proposing the use of force, the level of debate and cross examination from the Labour benches would have been far better than that which we saw from the Tories on this occasion.
