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.