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