nina

Actually his exact words were "They hate us".

dgruzew

baemel,<BR><BR>We are in the same boat as you. We plan on going to France/Italy in May-June.This is the best time in out lives to go on this type of vacaction regardless of all this political stuff. Our tickets are booked, so we are going. My friend has a brother that lives in paris(also American), and he has not experienced any bad blood. If we experinace anything like that we will have to politely remind them that &quot;We&quot; are not trying to start a war. &quot;We&quot; are just trying to have a very nice vacation in your country. Americans have individual views and that often don't reflect what the elected leaders are currently. Remeber Bush did not even win then popular vote - only the Electoral <BR><BR>

ThinGorjus

Margaret Thatcher Milk Snatcher was England's greatest PM?? Are you nuts?? She is a falling-down drunk with a limited scope and a narrow mind. I have a family friend who worked for Betty Boothroyd and she told me Maggie can't get through the day without her flasks of gin. What a way to run a country.

baemel

As I finished reading everyone remarks I just couldn't help but add...<BR><BR>To Florence: Not everyone thought Hitler was a menace early on either!<BR><BR>To Maccy: in regards to your words&quot;disappointed because I can't believe he's p***ing away his political career over this - what a waste!&quot; I am completely with Buzzy: &quot;there is no better measure of someone's sincere convictions, than to be prepared to sacrifice your own future for them.&quot; I admire him for it and sorry if you feel defending FREEDOM is a waste. It was a waste that thousands of people dies on Sept 11th. <BR><BR>I don't understand how people can just sit back and ignore the situation with Iraq. Everyone came together after Sept 11th to show support, to realize we're all vulnerable for such unpredictable and devastating attacks. Instead of turning around and bombing the hell out of every terrorist nation we dealt with it diplomatically and tried to gather the rest of the peaceful world to join us in stopping and preventing any further devastation. In turn, they all crawled back into their holes and pretend not to hear. Cowards. I am not a huge fan of war. But in sometimes you need to make sacrifices for the bigger cause.<BR><BR>enough of my soapbox.... just had to join with Buzzy on this. Guess I'll still be spending my money in France this spring...<BR><BR>

eric502

Read this, you might be suprised at what you learn.<BR><BR>http://www.petermandelson.com/uofkent.shtml<BR>

maccy

Baemel<BR><BR>First of all, I think we need to separate the issue of terrorism and the issue of Iraq - they are NOT the same thing. <BR><BR>Note: how much dissent was there about going into Afghanistan and removing the Taliban, who were proven sponsors of terrorism? Practically none. On the other hand, the links between Iraq and Al-Qaida have been shown to be tenuous at best. There are reasons for getting rid of Saddam, but if you're going after terrorists, Saudi Arabia is a much better place to start IMHO. <BR><BR>Second, re: the issue of being cowards/appeasers. If, as an example, Iraq invaded Kuwait again, or launched an attack against Turkey, you would see a lot of support for miliary action - in fact, in the case of Turkey who is a Nato ally, there would be practically zero opposition, except from those who disagree with war under any circumstances (I am not one of them). <BR><BR>The current case is not as clear-cut, and is much more difficult, since we are talking about rebuilding a whole country, not just defeating an army, which is why people are being more cautious about it.<BR>

sheila

John, <BR><BR>as I understand it, Ms Boothroyd's one to talk about gin being the staple of life!!<BR><BR>I bought a house in France today, having been there last weekend. Nae bother at a'

maccy

Baemel<BR><BR>First of all, I think we need to separate the issue of terrorism and the issue of Iraq - they are NOT the same thing. <BR><BR>Note: how much dissent was there about going into Afghanistan and removing the Taliban, who were proven sponsors of terrorism? Practically none. On the other hand, the links between Iraq and Al-Qaida have been shown to be tenuous at best. There are reasons for getting rid of Saddam, but if you're going after terrorists, Saudi Arabia is a much better place to start IMHO. <BR><BR>Second, re: the issue of being cowards/appeasers. If, as an example, Iraq invaded Kuwait again, or launched an attack against Turkey, you would see a lot of support for miliary action - in fact, in the case of Turkey who is a Nato ally, there would be practically zero opposition, except from those who disagree with war under any circumstances (I am not one of them). <BR><BR>The current case is not as clear-cut, and is much more difficult, since we are talking about rebuilding a whole country, not just defeating an army, which is why people are being more cautious about it.<BR>

maccy

oops! double post - sorry

bettyk

Many people forget that Iraq has loads of oil that can be used to finance its rebuilding, altho it may take a few months to get everything back on line depending on how many bombs Saddam plants. There are also other Arab states and countries that can lend assistance in rebuilding Iraq. The US doesn't have to do it alone.

uncle_sam

Maccy,<BR><BR>Tony Blair may be the rarest of politicians....someone willing to do what he believes is right regardless of the price!<BR><BR>Too few of them around if you ask me!<BR><BR>We had a President here in the US for eight years that wouldn't head to the &quot;loo&quot; without taking a poll...no core values and it showed!<BR><BR>Blair may be costing himself in any future elections but he is doing so because he believes in what he is doing!<BR><BR>US

maccy

Uncle Sam<BR><BR>I have no doubts whatsoever about Blair's sincerity and conviction. However:<BR><BR>1. Just because someone thinks he/she is right, whatever others think, does it automatically make them so? Dangerous line to take, if you ask me.<BR><BR>2. More to the point, how far should a politician be accountable to public opinion (not to mention his own party, not to mention international opinion) in a democracy? <BR><BR>At the end of the day, if Blair decides to go ahead without UN backing it is down to him to make the case to the country for doing so - something he has NOT done. <BR><BR>It is precisely because I like Blair, and I DON'T want to see him go that I'm worried that he may be making such a huge political miscalculation. Call me cynical, but I would rather see Blair IN power, even if that means some compromises &amp; horse-trading, than the candidates who are likely to replace him.<BR>

ira

Maccy,<BR> Thank you for your courteous reply.<BR><BR>Florence,<BR> Thank you for your funny remark.<BR><BR>

uncle_sam

Maccy,<BR><BR>You make a valid point particularly if the politician is taking the country off a cliff wihtout a reason.<BR><BR>I personally believe that Blair has far more information upon which to make this decision than the general populace. And I also beleive that he is a man of principle and is willing to risk his career on soemthing that he believes is right!<BR><BR>Its lonely at the top and its sad that we have become so cynical and have so little faith in our leaders to do the right thing...I believe that he is...but only time will tell!<BR><BR>US

Jack

I would question a trip to France, but only because of the divisions I see in the world right now. The primary purpose of the UN is supposed to be maintaining international peace and security. However, some countries, notably France, are preventing the UN from carrying out that mandate. <BR><BR>Blair and Bush see Saddam and Iraq as being a threat to world peace and security with what appear to be very good reasons. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam has already used them on his own people and a neighboring country. Under Saddam, Iraq has already started two wars. At the end of the first Gulf War, Iraq agreed to disarm. It didn't and twelve years of UN resolutions haven't changed that simple fact. Even with inspectors and British and American forces massing on its borders, Iraq continues to hide those weapons. If Iraq really wanted peace, all it had to do is disarm. We can only imagine what would happen if Saddam is left in power and is finally able to develop some type of nuclear arsenal. What would the world be like then? <BR><BR>Despite all those facts, the French are opposed to taking any action against Saddam and are threatening to use their veto power at the UN to prevent a UN resolution that would allow a regime change. Why? Its certainly not because the French are particularly anti-war. I am not sure I understand all the reasons, but I don't think it has anything to do with Saddam or Iraq. I also don't think it is for purely economic reasons, although that may play a part. Rather, I think it simply has to do with France wanting to put the British and their American cousins in their place. A veto at the UN is the only way France can attempt to reclaim its relevance as a world power. Sadly, this search for meaning and status ignores the real and present threat posed by Saddam.<BR><BR>No right thinking person wants to see a war. It is something that is done only as a last resort. I do not belive that Blair or Bush are taking that step lightly as they are both staking their political futures on the outcome. <BR><BR>What really bothers me most, however, it that when Briton and American soldiers are finally engaged in what will probably be a horrible war to depose Saddam, Frenchman will be sitting in their cafes reaping the benefits. The thought of being in France while that is happening is enough to keep me from going there.

eric502

Maccy<BR><BR>Public opinion changes with the wind. You should vote for a person on what he stands for. If a leader changes his mind each time public opinion changes nothing would ever get done.

bettyk

If there is a regime change in Iraq, France's oil contracts with Iraq could be null and void. They have a lot to lose if we go to war.<BR><BR>As Bush has said time and again, there doesn't have to be a war. All Saddam has to do is disarm.

uncle_sam

Jack and eric502, <BR><BR>Hope I'm not the proverbial &quot;kiss of death &quot; on this board for the two of you...but those were great posts!<BR><BR>US

maccy

Eric502<BR><BR>Fair play, no you can't govern by focus group. However...<BR><BR>A few weeks ago, 1-1.5 million people gathered in London to protest against what Blair is doing. <BR><BR>This was not just your usual rent-a-mob either - we are talking about people of all ages, backgrounds and political persuasions, many of whom had never been on a march before, who were exercised enough about this to get up at 5 in the morning and travel by coach down to London to make their voices heard. <BR><BR>That's a pretty strong indicator to me that the government should sit up &amp; take notice

maccy

Also (I know I'm really rambling here, but this is a good thread so WTH! )<BR><BR>Uncle Sam mentioned Thatcher - who offers a very instructive example of what happens when you do ignore public opinion.<BR><BR>She was unassailable for many years, but then made the massive mistake of forcing through the Poll Tax. This was against the wishes of Parliament, and it was LOATHED by the public, who refused to pay en masse. Result? She was ousted. Lesson? When people get angry, you should listen.