Those who oppose Bush's stance on Iraq because he isn't instantly tackling all the other problems of the world are missing the point.<BR><BR>Even as individuals are we all capable of tackling all problem areas in our lives simultaneously? Don't we usually prioritise things?<BR><BR>Thats like saying because we can't do it all we shouldn't do anything at all.

Poor Iraqi people? I would bet they would be overtaken with joy if Saddam were ousted. They would welcome regime change with open arms.

Hey hanl<BR><BR>Give the Iraqis a voice, are you crazy?<BR><BR>I say lets just bring all the middle east kicking and screaming into the 21st century. We also need to keep them away from the French.<BR><BR>Just kidding, to many serious people on here.

Avalon you continue to confuse me. On the one hand you berate Blair and Bush as warmongers with no regard for the wishes of their countrymen while on the other hand you ridicule Blair as 'folding' when he appears to be acting with renewed flexibility.<BR><BR>Also, forgive me but there is no way I believe you found such obscure references as you cited. My guess is that they came from some on-line propaganda rag.<BR><BR>Regards,<BR><BR>MM

Kert,<BR>No, that's not what I mean -- and I'm not sure there will be much spoils anyway. What I'm saying is that those who oppose the war have every right to do so. But if the French, Germans, Russians, etc., are not going to take the risks the US and its soldiers are, suffer the casualties like the us, and spend the funds like us -- in short, have nothing to do with the waging of the war -- then they frankly can't make any claims to how the peace is made and how Iraq is re-created. I don't think any reasonable person will be surprised by this. You can't oppose something with all your resources then expect to have a say in it. Your choice.

I quite agree that the Iraqi people are likely to welcome a regime change. I'm just wondering how much of a say they'll have in the &quot;new&quot; order of things, that's all. <BR>They're the ones that have to live there, after all!

Operaman,<BR><BR>You must have some kind of hangup with this name thing!<BR><BR>You get pushed around when you were a kid?<BR><BR>BTW, I have seen a number of executives in deep kimshu...guess you were asleep when the CIT,and the cable guys, and officals of Worldcom were indicted?<BR><BR>The one I missed out on was Terry McAuliff of the DNC who made tons of $$$$ with Global Crossing...you calling for his prosecution?<BR><BR>Didn't think so!<BR><BR>So Operaman...selective ememory or just more Bush bashing?<BR><BR>BTW, here's a news flash for you...Bush is President, the Republicans control the House and the Senate...so get ovet it!<BR><BR>US

Enron paid $0.00 dollars in federal tax from '97-'00,Bubba did nothing about that. I think it's selective amnesia,kind of like Clintons sex life.

Yawn;<BR>In case you didn't realize it, there has been no proof delivered that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. So if you want to talk about obscuring the issues you might as well walk the walk yourself.

MC,<BR><BR>And Enron donated roughly the same amount of $$$ to the Demcorats!<BR><BR>US

uncle:<BR>&quot;You must have some kind of hangup with this name thing!&quot;<BR> Nope, just pointing out that is what you resort to when you have nothing factual to say.<BR><BR>&quot;So Operaman...selective ememory or just more Bush bashing?&quot;<BR><BR>Refer to my response to lynlor.<BR><BR>And to your last question:<BR>I don't care who is in the White House, if I don't feel they are doing their job<BR>or ignoring issues, I'll take issue with them.<BR>

Got to go now folks, hope this thread is still up when I come back tonight.<BR><BR>Beatle;<BR>Keep up the good work.

playing devil's advocate here..<BR><BR>no proof (that we know of) that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, however, a very provocative Op-Ed in the Post this morning posits that all the fallout from the Gulf War (including the necessity of keeping American troops in Saudi Arabia to protect them from Iraq) was just one more piece of the puzzle which led to 9/11.<BR><BR>the author (I quote) is Walter Russell Mead, senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations and author most recently of &quot;Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World.&quot; <BR><BR>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13019-2003Mar11.html<BR><BR>do I think war is the answer? no. do we (the world) need to do something, beyond what we've already done, about SH? absolutely. <BR><BR>caught b/w a rock and a hard place.

Very good points,flygirl. Apparently,some people don't feel SH is a threat. The plan for peace lies on his table,not GWB. If a massive military buildup will scare him into disarming,I'm all for that. Without it he will continue to disrespect inspections.

operamna,<BR><BR>Here's something factual!<BR><BR>&quot;U.S. charges two more Enron officials<BR>Employees of failed Internet venture taken into custody&quot;<BR><BR>Taken from Yahoo<BR><BR>US

Operaman,<BR>There is no proof that you or I know of that Iraq was involved with 9/11, true. Likewise, the vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers were not known to law enforcement -- and were chosen for that reason! So that argument is pointless. <BR><BR>Not to mention the primary reason for the war is to make SH comply with the terms of the Gulf War I surrender -- that he relinquish WMD -- and the subsequent UN resolutions demanding he disarm. The question for the UN is it really the meaningless body critics say it is, or does it have the gumption to enforce the resolutions it passes, or are all those resolutions meaningless too?

For those who were interested in how the Brits are reacting to the French.<BR><BR>No, we're not about to start renaming French Fries &quot;Freedom Fries&quot; (we eat chips, anyway). That's just petty and childish, in the vein of &quot;They won't play my way so I'm going to take my ball home&quot;.<BR><BR>We've ALWAYS had a rivalry with the French, we're naturally suspicious of each other, and their current stance comes as now great surprise to us - we've never relied on the French to take our part in anything, and actually expect the to do the reverse of whatever we want. <BR><BR>So our reaction is &quot;typical bloody French, they're only trying to make themselves feel like they're still important in world affairs now they've lost their empire&quot;. Meanwhile, the French no doubt regard the British stance as &quot;Typical rosbifs, only suckng up to the Americans so they can still feel important on the world stage&quot;.<BR><BR>Mutual, longstanding animosity and suspicion, that actually just materialises as basically laughing at each other.<BR><BR>We happily manage to separate historical political rivalry from individuals and commerce. Glass of chablis anyone?

Magnus<BR><BR>what a daft thing to say- there is no proof so we'll bomb them just in case???<BR><BR>And whilst I mostly agree with Kate's analysis, for Brit, read &quot;English&quot;. We Scots are proud of our Auld Alliance.<BR><BR>

To Kate:<BR>Most intelligent post of previous 136.<BR><BR>To Buzzy:<BR>Go on your trip and enjoy every moment.<BR><BR>JoeG

No, we're not about to start renaming French Fries &quot;Freedom Fries&quot; (we eat chips, anyway). That's just petty and childish, in the vein of &quot;They won't play my way so I'm going to take my ball home&quot;.<BR><BR><BR>So good for you!<BR><BR>Those of us that want to will...nuff said!<BR><BR>US

Sheila,<BR>Were you asleep and you just woke up? I said (listen closely) there is no proof that the general public knows of connecting 9/11 to Iraq. But that is *not the reason 1441 was passed and Iraq faces war.* It is because by the terms of their surrender in 1991 they had to disarm and prove they disarmed. And by terms of subsequent UN resolutions they were required to disarm and prove they disarmed. THAT is the reason. understandable?

Twelve years and 17 resolutions violated is never enough for folks like Sheila!<BR><BR>US

Thanks Kate &amp; Shelia, just as I was hoping. I agree that changing the names of food to &quot;freedom fries&quot; and the like is childish. Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm just glad that our allies are also a little perterbed with France's political stance also.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood, Magnus. I thought you were saying that the September 11th terrorists were bad guys and no-one knew it; thus, even tho' we don't know Iraq was involved, we should take them out. In fact I have re-read your post and I'm struggling to see how else to interpret it.<BR><BR>And Sam, I'll condemn them all you want for their breaches. Could you remind me, please why no-one did anything about it before? And why NOW is the right time to do something all of a sudden.<BR><BR>I know we will never agree on what might be the right thing to do to achieve their compliance.<BR><BR>What category are you putting me in now?

Sheila,<BR><BR>You fit into the the &quot;Axis of the Naive&quot;!<BR><BR>US

Ach well; anything's better than being Yankee Doodle Dandy:)

Sheila, I stand corrected and humbly apologise for lumping the Scots in with the English. Auld Alliance and all that. <BR><BR>(Although quite why you'd ever want to throw your lot in with the French, of all people, just to take a stab at the English, I'll never understand. But &quot;c'est la vie&quot;!)<BR><BR>I actually quite admire the French stance, I'm just not entirely convinced of their motives, but then I'm English, I think it says in my passport something about &quot;for Queen and country, and definately anything that pisses the French off&quot; :-)

Sheila...think about your question!<BR><BR>&quot;Could you remind me, please why no-one did anything about it before? &quot;<BR><BR>Sheila, I'd suggest that you think about who was President for eight years of that time frame. <BR><BR>Bill Clinton!<BR><BR>And guess who was President when Saddam tossed out the inspectors in 1998?<BR><BR>Bill Clinton<BR><BR>Suggest you ask him why nothing was done!<BR><BR>OTOH, Bill Clinon also promised to get the people that were responsible for the Cole bombing, the failed WTC bombing and the African Embassy bombings...BUT NEVER DID!<BR><BR>Clinton had a great record didn't he!<BR><BR>US

US..Most likely,Bubba conducted a poll that did not favor action for these attacks. Think about ,WTC attacked in '93,he had some little wimpy response and left it at that. So much for protecting the constitution against all enemies,foreign and domestic. And,furthermore with the embassies in '98 and the Cole in '00. We can blame this mess in Clinton.

Back from work- Did you right wingers miss me? Only joking, we all should have a beer sometime. 2 things: 1- If Iraq has been in non-compliance for 12 years, will it hurt to extend the deadline 45 more days, especially if that will secure more of a coalition. 2- Do you really think that Rumsfeld is a positive factor for the admin., or is he a hindrance? Just curious?

Sheila,<BR>Maybe my post wasn't clear. <BR><BR>I was saying the 9/11 guys were bad guys and no one knew it. And I am saying Iraq could have been involved with 9/11 and we don't know it. But that's not my justification for attacking Iraq.<BR><BR>The simple, irretufable reason for attacking is to disarm SH because he has defied the terms of the 1991 surrender and UN resolutions. You ask why now? I answer: because better now than before he uses these weapons again. Ideally, I agree it would have been better to do this ten or more years ago, although the French and others probably would have whined then, too, and at that time we in America had a wishy-washy president who didn't have the strength to tackle big problems. Admittedly, he also didn't have the public support for warring on terrorists and like-minded dictators that has risen in the US since 9/11. <BR><BR>So maybe it should have been done sooner. That's no excuse for not doing it now. <BR><BR><BR>There are other good reasons for taking on Iraq too: SH's treatment of the Iraqi people, possible terrorist connections, creating a &quot;democracy&quot; in the Middle East, sending a message to Iran and North Korea and others, because it's the right thing to do, etc.<BR><BR>But the main reason remains to enforce the provisions on the '91 surrender and UN resolutions. Or else those things are rendered completely meaningless. <BR>

Hey Beatle<BR><BR>Do know what it cost to keep our Army over there?? I don't know but it must be a considerable amount. <BR><BR>I kinda like the name freedom fries.<BR><BR>I say lets get it over with and move on, my stocks are taking a beating.<BR><BR>

Beatle..The beer? agreed. Do you really think he will disarm in 45 days? I did'nt think so. We are enabling this guy and he should be held accountable for his actions. We are not talking laughing gas here. These are deadly weapons. Rummy has always had it out for Iraq since we did'nt finish the job in '91 (congress and the UN said no to invasion). Call that what you want.

Since everyone else is submitting opinions under the guise of knowledge, I’ll chip in…<BR><BR>Regime change in 2003 Baghdad will be followed in 2004 by regime change in Washington. The most ignored historical personage of the moment is good ol’ George…Santayana; you know, the line about not remembering – and therefore repeating – the past. <BR><BR>(I actually like another of his quotes better, and somehow it seems equally fitting, for all sides today: “Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim.”)<BR><BR>1. War over quickly, US employs ex-regular army (Iraqi) to rebuild country with US dollars, EU denies aid, US economy further tanks, it’s the economy, stupid, bye George.<BR><BR>2. War not so quick, human and monetary cost high, US economy really tanks, all we can afford is Freedom Fries to go with our Faux (no, wait that’s French) Foney Freedom Dips, gas is $3 (1 Euro) per gallon, it’s the economy, stupid, bye George.<BR><BR>3. No war, Dow at 5000, Granny still can’t afford her meds, it’s the economy, stupid. Bye…<BR>

Several good recent editorials in the NY Times and other newspapers re the fact that post-9/11, the US had almost the entire world as its allies (&quot;We are all Americans&quot;) and that Bush's arrogant &quot;my way or the highway&quot; attitude has been instrumental in destroying that. Bush apparently does not care, but lots of the rest of us do.<BR><BR>http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,912824,00.html<BR><BR>From one of them: &quot;I never felt more traumatised as an American than in the days after 9/11. But despite the very real threats, I also never felt more optimistic - because of the national unity we had, and you had, to face those threats. If whatever is left of that post-9/11 solidarity is exploded by a divisive, unilateral war in Iraq, we will not only be sacrificing good feelings, but also the key to managing this complex, dangerous world.&quot;<BR><BR>

Eric- Well at least we're in the same boat with our stocks. <BR><BR>It looks like the Brits want to extend the deadline. With Iraq surrounded, and daily reconnaissance missions, what hurt could it do. Yes, Eric, it will be more money, but if it means a more solid and unified coalition, isn't it worth a try. Would a unified coalition cause Saddam to disarm- I don't know but with 20 yr. old lives at stake I think we owe it to them to give it a try.

Gardyloo...you're really that rat James Carville, aren't you!<BR><BR>Man the US bought that crap once and look what it got us...Bubba!<BR><BR>No thanks!

Sam, I have more hair AND I have eyebrows - two, not one like some...<BR><BR>

OK, then you're not Carville ;~))<BR><BR>US

Beatle;<BR>You are right. We owe it, not only to our troops, but everyone in the international community. More inspectors on the ground with a more agressive inspection program. The French would have to go along with that. If Saddam balks at such a program then I think we would gain a lot more international support.