I have a few thoughts to add, and I will try to throw in a typical European
point of view.

Bottom line : our interests may be way less different than our thoughts
about how to get there.

Denys wrote :

> At the moment, France and Germany are dead set against
> forcibly disarming
> Saddam Hussein.

This is not true. France and Germany are dead set against going to war
without giving peace a chance. As it was repeatedly argued on this thread,
war should be used only as a last resort. As such, France and Germany
currently advocate another US resolution before going to war.

I would think that nobody this side of the Pond would think that Saddam is
an angel. His record on killing, lying, deceiving, hiding, delaying, etc. is
outstanding. He needs to be disarmed. But the UNO is, AFAIK, the current
watchdog of the World, not the USA. That's why France and Germany have taken
their current stance in favor of a UN-mandated course of action.

> I have absolutely no problems with pacifism, but the
> shenanigans they are involved in go way beyond mere pacifism.
>   They are
> acting almost as if they were allies of Saddam.

Denys, Denys ... I usually respect and have great consideration for what you
say, but, honestly, on this point, I have a hard time to understand your
logic. You may dislike Schroeder and Chirac as much as I dislike Bush (I do
not have a problem with that), but ... please ... why nearly call my country
a Saddam allie ? This is not true, has never been and, most likely will
never be.

>  I have not
> seen a recent
> popularity poll on Chirac,

He's at about 50-55%, which is excellent by current French standards.

> but Gerhardt is down to 24% the lowest ever
> recorded in Germany.  This fascinates me as he just got
> reelected a few
> months ago, by the barest of margins.

5,000 votes or something like that, IIRC.

> His campaign was so
> inflammatory
> against the USA, it was remarkable.

I do not have the feeling Shroeder's campaign was directed against the USA.
I have the feeling it was directed against war.

> It even got down to the
> point where
> they compared Bush to Hitler and his National Socialists,
> this coming from
> the German Socialists.  By contrast, his opponents now
> register at around
> 54% support.  It's almost like the German people now believe
> they elected
> the wrong gang.  BTW, Gerhardt and his party suffered a
> stinging defeat at
> the polls in a couple of regions last week.

This is true, but it is for entirely different reason,s that have nothing to
do with the current international situation but everything to do with the
current German domestic situation.

To be more precise, Gerhard Schroeder was elected on a platform promising
jobs, money, no new taxes (read my lips ?), and the reality is somehow
different. I won't comment on WHY the actual situation does not behave as
promised, but that's it.

> All this to say that Germany is acting in a very strange
> manner, way beyond
> mere pacifism.  They are willing to destroy NATO

It sounds a bit odd to me to assert that Germany wants to destroy NATO, but
you certainly have very good reasons for that. I'm ready to hear your
reasons.

> and make a
> farce of the UN
> resolutions and by extension the UN, but I can't figure out for what
> purpose.

No, that's exactly the contrary ! Germany, France, and other countries, are
advocation another UN resolution precisely because they believe in a
possible UN mandate for going to war with Saddam. If these countries wanted
to make a farce of the UNO, would they advocate yet another resolution ?

> Gerhardt has painted Germany into a corner from
> which it may be
> unable to extricate itself.  Methinks they are hiding
> something very big.
> Something very damning that would be found once American and
> allied troops
> are on the ground in Iraq.
>
> France is also acting way beyond mere pacifism, but we know
> they have huge
> oil contracts and other projects with Iraq.

Yeah, not unlike the United States of America. I would rate France and the
USA on a similar level on these points. No better, no worse.

> The French have
> always been
> flexible with their diplomacy, making sure commercial interests were
> respected but I think you may see a change in their posture
> within 48 hours.
> I may be wrong, but some of the things they are now saying
> are definitely
> not as forceful as before.

AFAIK, France remains an allie. Not of Saddam as was wrongly implied before,
but of the West, and a full UN Security Council permanent, veto-carrying
member. To my knowledge, France has not switched its alliances. Being
"flexible" (what's wrong with that ?) is certainly no evil.

> The next witching hour is tomorrow when the inspectors report
> back to the
> Security Council.

Does anyone seriously believe that Saddam can't shuttle things around
between a few hundred sites at will ? Remember, the UN inspectors are only a
few dozens on the field, and they can't make sure that a site that has been
inspected one day won't be stocked full of WoMDs the next morning. In other
words, inspections are one thing, but ensuring compliance would come next.
Like itwas done until a recent period in North Korea, sealing facilities and
setting up cameras to monitor the sites.

> What is interesting is that in the last
> few weeks, they
> have actually discovered WMDs.  They were certainly not
> supposed to find
> anything,

Then what are inspections for, exactly, if not for finding what Saddam has
to hide ?

> but in a country awash in these things, it is probably very
> difficult to hide everything all the time.
>
> I would keep an eye on the lunar calendar from now on.

Makes sense ...

Christian

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *