If we have to use paragraphs, then the terrorists have won!

Come on, man, if you're going to argue this case at least know the basic facts. France outright assured Colin Powell that they'd support war if Iraq didn't comply with the first resolution. That's the ONLY reason we accepted 1441. Then, after it was passed, the French came out and said they'd NEVER support armed measures for ANY reason, regardless of whether Iraq was found in violation, and would veto anything that authorized use of force. They lied to Powell, and thus, stabbed us in the back.

From a March 17 article in the NY Times :

Dining in September with a group of foreign ministers at the elegant Hotel Pierre in New York, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was uneasy. France was advocating that a first resolution at the United Nations Security Council, demanding that Iraq promptly disclose its weapons and disarm, must be followed by a second resolution authorizing war if Iraq refused.

"Be sure about one thing," Mr. Powell told Dominique de Villepin, the French foreign minister. "Don't vote for the first, unless you are prepared to vote for the second."

Mr. de Villepin assented, officials who were there said.

But in the months since, France has rejected any second resolution clearing the way for war. And Mr. de Villepin won over most of the other 13 Council members.

Powell was even late to his daughter's wedding because he was on the phone with the French, hammering out what the phrase "material breach" would mean. He spent weeks getting assurances from the French that they'd support conflict if Iraq didn't comply. Over and over again they assured him they would. Then, not only do they come out and say they'll never support war under ANY circumstance, they had the gall to fly around the world convincing other nations not to vote with the United States. It doesn't get more two-faced than that.

-Brian

Double post.

Well George Bush LIED during the election when he said he did not support nation building, and would never engage in military action without the kind of coalition his father put together in 1991. This was the ENTIRE BASIS of the foreign policy aspect of his campaign. He LIED when he said that and he STABBED US IN THE BACK.

Get real, Sludge. The French did exactly what Bush did. They CHANGED THEIR MINDS. Countries are allowed to do that, you know.

This attitude some Americans have that, "This country better obey us, and that country better tow the line!" is so unrealistic and unpragmatic of a foreign policy.

For that matter the Weapons Inspectors weren't allowed the time to do their job and determine if Iraq was in breach. It wasn't the French acting in bad faith here.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/nat/newsnat-17apr2003-37.htm

I'm sure these dead protestors feel very liberated.

From now on it's not a message board. It's a Freedom Board. And these are Freedom Posts.

Speaking of a country changing its mind...

"As relations between Iraq and Kuwait deteriorated during July, America continued to show no concern over any threat to Kuwaiti sovereignty. By the end of the month, rumours of an imminent Iraqi invasion were rife in the Gulf region. On 25 July 1990 Washington responded by sending its ambassador in Baghdad, April Glaspie, to reassure Saddam that America would not interfere. We don't have an opinion on. . .your dispute with Kuwait, Glaspie told the Iraqi ruler several times, adding that US secretary of state James Baker had directed our official spokesman to reiterate this stand. The following week, as Iraqi tanks warmed up on the Kuwaiti border, both Bush's aide Margaret Tutweiler and assistant secretary of state John Kelly stated publicly and repeatedly that the USA felt no obligation to come to Kuwait's defence if it was attacked. "

from http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27c/057.html

I suppose there may be some theraputic value to venting your opinions here, as long as you are of sound enough mind to realize that in the grand scheme of things your opinion doesn't mean shit if you can't back it up with sufficent firepower.

From the article:



With all due respect, what SHOULD the U.S. soldiers' response have been?