What makes me laugh about this, is you speak as though France have
really
        gone out on a limb, just to spite the US.  Maybe this is the way
it's
        presented in the US.

        France, Germany, Russia and a number of other countries are
representing
        what the majority of the world thinks.  It is indeed the US and the
UK who
        are the ones not 'playing ball'.  To basically blame a nation, who
is well
        within it's rights under the democratic process of the UN, to object
to all
        out war, without pursuing other methods and without even seeing the
report
        from Hans Blick (not sure of spelling) is unbelievable.  Basically
it shows
        that the US has no respect for the democratic process of the UN and
is just
        a bully.  It will go to war, whatever the UN decides, what kind of
statement
        is that.

        France has threatened to veto any resolution authorizing force as a
means to backup the support of resolutions that the U.N. passed 12 years
ago.  France refuses to hold Iraq accountable to the resolutions that the
U.N. has passed.  Hmm..and we wonder why the U.S. has indicated that the
U.N. is worthless.  What is the point of these resolutions if they carry no
weight?

        The immature nature of some of the responses from the UK and even
people on
        this list, that somehow France (and old Europe) now supports Saddam,
is
        inflammatory, untrue and rather pathetic.  Added below the old
chestnut from
        Chuck, which he has brought up more than once, that the US saved
France in
        WWII, not to mention the whole of the world in previous emails,
again is sad
        and inaccurate.

        Yep, the U.S. did not liberate the French.  Of course not.  And
Normandy never happened either.  I won't say that France supports Iraq.  I
say that France has no stomach to actually hold up it's end of the deal and
act as a world power.  12 years is enough time for diplomacy.

        The other one is anyone who doesn't support war is obviously a
communist and
        apparently Today Mandela is now virtually a communist.  That's like
saying
        Bush, as a right wing capitalist, is almost a Nazi.

        This isolationist idea that somehow the US can exist as some
autonomous
        nation that doesn't need or even want any ties with nations that
don't just
        accept US policy.  That would be financial suicide for the US and
world
        economy.

        What is financial suicide is our continual support of the world
economy.  We spend way too much money helping other governments.

        As yourself a simple question, if you've waited 12 years and the UN
are
        asking for longer (maybe 5 weeks, to examine other avenues, wouldn't
the
        sensible thing be to wait the 5 weeks and at least get the UN and
more
        people on your side.  Even listen to Hans Blick, the man who
actually went
        to find the evidence.

        The French aren't asking for 5 weeks.  They absolutely refuse to
authorize any resolution which contains any mention of hostilities.


        -----Original Message-----
        From: Chuck Ryan [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
        Sent: 17 March 2003 18:09
        To: [log in to unmask]
        Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Worth Considering II - (questions,
        questions)


        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Richard Ali [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
        > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 10:14 AM
        > To: [log in to unmask]
        > Subject: Re: OT: Worth Considering II - (questions, questions)
        >
        >

        <snip>

        > Do you think everything that could be done peacefully has been
tried?
        >

        What else is there to try but more of the same?

        Sanctions failed because nations like France, Germany, Russia and
China
        chose to ignore them.

        Diplomacy in the arena of the UN has become a tool for the dictators
of the
        world. There is no teeth behind the words of the UN so the words
mean
        nothing. Like telling a child that he will be spanked if he does not
stop
        jumping on the couch and then failing to follow through, the threat
means
        less and less each time it is used.

        > When we (UK, US, etc) traded with Saddam and considered him a
        > friend (in full knowledge of his activities), was he "evil" then?
If so,
        > what does that make us?

        When you say "in full knowledge of his activities" you are speaking
in
        hindsight.

        Sure, the US tried to treat Saddam as a friend. It is in the
interest of the
        US and the rest of the world that it gives the benefit of the doubt
and
        takes a country's leader at his word. If a leader proves through his
actions
        that he is unworthy of that friendship the policy toward him must
change. As
        we all know, goverments take time to change direction when goverment
        officials have invested their reputation into a policy.

        You can say that the US is responsible for creating Saddam because
we tried
        to treat him as an ally. But what is our alternative? Do we cut all
friendly
        ties with the nations of the world in case they too someday have a
leader
        that acts against the interest of the US and the world?

        Will we one day face blame if France continues its drive to dominate
the EU
        and moves it in a totalitarian direction? After all, we saved it in
WWII and
        rebuilt it afterwards so we must be to blame for all of its future
actions.

        > Is war "evil"?

        War, like diplomacy, is a tool that can be used for good or evil. I
expect
        that diplomacy easilly rivals war in the number of deaths it has
caused.

        Comments are my own, not my employer's... etc.




        ==================================
        This message contains confidential information and is intended
solely for
        the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you
are not
        the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy
this
        email. Please inform the sender immediately if you have received
this e-mail
        by mistake and delete this email from your system. Email
transmission cannot
        be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be
        intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or be
incomplete. The
        sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or
omissions in
        the contents of this message, which arise as a result of email
transmission.
        If verification is required please request a hard copy version. No
contracts
        may be concluded on behalf of Virgin Express SA/NV by means of email
        communication. Finally, the recipient should check this e-mail and
any
        attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no
liability
        for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
        ==================================

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

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