There was a great commentary on NPR last night about this. The gist of it was that this absurd gesture is probably doing the French a favor and that by an large would be a welcome renaming. If the goal were to piss off the French people, that would most likely be better accomplished by naming "French" as much crap frozen and fast food as possible. Funny thing though, I didn't know the term "hot dog" was born the same way as a political renaming of a frankfurter.

nm

Actually I assumed that neither of those actually came from France. You French are thought to have better culinary tastes than that.

Renaming the fries and toast is no big deal. Pouring French wine down the sewer in political protest is a terrible waste. If they don't want the wine just send it to me.

Ha! That's a good one. Thanks for my morning chuckle.

Not sure if it was the same commentary but there is a similar one on slate.com. I'm especially fond of "freedom tickler".

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

like calling cheezwiz french cheese...that would piss me off considering I am sure CW is not even made with milk :-)

I am half french half aussie and like neither wine nor beer...I guess that is why neither France or Oz wanted to keep me and they send me to the US with all my bad tastes :-)

France has always been, and as far as this man is concerned, will always be a trusted friend and honored, valuable allie. They gave us the Statue of Liberty, IMHO our most beautiful national monument that truly typifies the American dream and spirit. To me, French Fries are still French Fries. Jacques Chirac is a brave man and I salute his honor and integrity and conviction to his beliefs. "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it..." Who knows, four weeks from now history may remember Chirac as a great peacemaker, or a fool. He takes great risks. Admire his spirit. Admire his love of peace. Whatever the outcome of this affair, hope to your core it is the just one for humanity.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

And remember, without France, we are all going to be soooooo bored during july :-))

French Cheese it is!!

I do enjoy a platter of French Rinds, smothered in French Cheese served with a tall glass of French-Dog 20/20 wine.

Mmmmm thats living! The French do know the finer things! ;)

OK Pooks, WE are at War now!@!! :-)))

freedom kissing

sounds like a very liberating exercise.
Maybe I'll try that instead of my weekly yoga class.

May I suggest Freedom Menage for menage-a-trois?

---

-
[pink]I don’t use pink font[/pink]

manage freedom, isn't that what they are doing in the white house all week long?
A recent study showed that the french where the sexually most active country in the world. The US doesn't show up on that list untill about 15th or something like that.
So they should take frances advises seriously in Washington.

actually, this one is quite adequate :-)

hey freedom instead of et voila!
freedom wine instead of champagne wine

now the problem is for: Baton-rouge, Detroit, Paris, etc...
if Mexico follows France then we'll have to change all the hispanic names too...

The anges, Saint Frank, The Pass, The Crosses...

artistic ice skating was fun during the Olympic games!!

Research the statue and see who really paid for it!

being a big extension of Quebec...........if memory serves me right if it were for the Gaules, you'd all have a monarch :)

Ok, a little extreme but none the less sort of ironic that there is a need to put as much distance between the "Americans" and the "French" and yet historically the French are probably the US's oldest allies.........

ok, americans have done lots of things, but they didn't pay for the statue.
it was sculpted by Frederic Auguste Barholdi in Isere, then finished in the US (inauguration around 1896 I believe).
the French paid for the statue itself (fund raising)
and the Americans paid for the granit it stands on.
Total cost was $800,000 of the time (including shipping :-) ) of which $600,000 was from France and the rest from the US.

I'm from French ancestry. Spell my daughters name with a french spelling . I didn't mean anything neg. I have just read several places a different account . Can't remember where. I do remember what but will not say since I can't name the source. I have always wanted to go to France and I'm getting coached but this very generous guy with a French name!
I do have some French Army jokes!!!!!!!!!

good point: without us, you'd all be Pohms like the Aussies :-)

(for the non aussies pohm is what the aussies call the brits and it stands for prisoner of her majesty)

Please no french army jokes...I was among the last generation to go to the compulsory military service...
I have seen enough there...
We had a lieutenant who kept telling that our room of 8 should be symmetric...he was screaming that all the time...one day, I asked: symmetric with respect to what (too much math I guess)...that was the start of my troubles...

148,000 Americans died on French soil during WWI and WWII. The debt has been paid.

that was not the point actually...the statue was something to celebrate friendship between our two countries.
besides, that puts one life at $4...that's not much.

According to this twisted logic, I better put a Colnago decal on my Corima- oh yeah, I already have to do that, as Squadra Chupa Cabra (my new team) is sponsored by Colnago. With all of the weirdos, rednecks*, and the like around here, it's a good thing that my Corima does not have it's headtube "badge" (as it's a French flag)...

I think there are many better things our leaders could be doing besides banning the description "French" from food items served in the Congressional mess hall. How 'bout figuring out how to rev up the economy?

I will go on and order "French" fries and "French" toast whenever I find the need for fast food fat.

*No disrespect to the poster named Redneck, as I am sure he does not run down cyclists in his rusting Chevy C 1500 of '70s or '80s vintage.

"Please no french army jokes..."

Are you sure? I've heard a few really good ones lately!!

Being English, this doesn't really matter too greatly... French Fries are Chips, and French Toast is Eggy Bread. The only problem I can foresee is the renaming of French Knickers...

Screw the French. Chirac is a coward! The only thing we need France for is a place for Lance and Team U.S. Postal to ride. Perhaps they should bone up on their German or Russian. Next time perhaps we won't liberate their country. As Patton said "I'd rather have the German army in front of me than the French army behind me."

---

Craig

you are a smart dude :-)

---

this is from www.frogweenies.com, support our troops, put U.S. flag stickers on your Mavic and Corima wheels:

anyway:

France's disgraceful behavior at the UN has been laughable. France is jealous of US world influence and is attempting to block, veto and prevent the US-lead military action in Iraq. France's actions amount to an enemy and not an ally. France’s anti-American rhetoric and disgusting, ill-mannered behavior on the World’s stage should be condemned in the strongest terms possible.
Each day France is permitted to continue their “pro-Saddam” charade, American citizens, the American economy and American soldiers are put at tremendous risk. Make no mistake about it; the performance you’ve been watching from France has nothing to do with hating war. It has everything to do with hating Americans. Show your support for the American troops overseas and your fellow citizens here at home by participating in the Official French Boycott.

also as much as we are being accused of our desire for oil being the true motive of George W., France and Russia are protecting the huge oil contracts they signed with Saddam. He has cleverly used that resource to drive the current wedge between our countries. Curious as to why France has deployed their largest battle group to the Persian Gulf two weeks ago. It sucks that it had to come to this!!!

Brian

living in / or during the Wiemar Republic. Your Xenophobia is really to much to bear.

I understand that this is a concept difficult for you to grasp but Germany, France and Great Britain are democracies.

The governent is determined by the will of the people. The people that voted the governments in to office in those three countries do not want to go to war. So it would not really be truly democratic if the governments in those countries chose to go to war against the will of the people. It would be like the US governent going to war against the will of it's people. I am sure you have been "Pro" every war the US has fought but what would you think if 70% of the US population was opposed to a war and the government went anyway?

It is also ironic that you as an American complain that another democracy does not agree with you, a country founded as a democracy does not like other democratic countries when they disagree with them.......thats great........

Excellent point.. the US motivations have much to do with the Cheney whitehouse and the company he used to head, Haliburton. Anyone heard of them? They rebuilt Iraq's oil industry after the last US incursion, on the order of billions of dollars. Is Iraq really a legtimate threat to Americans or a nuissance? Does this have anything to do with Haliburton's numerous contracts to support our troops in the Gulf.. and the huge amounts of money they stand to make? It all revolves around money.. the French, Russians, and Germans know this.. they are protecting their interests. Afterall Iraq is sitting on the worlds 2nd biggest oil reserve. If the administration wanted to really do something about our dependance on fossil fuels and all the trouble associated with maintaining the supply (in a very unfriendly part of the world) we'd all be driving hydrogen powered cars in a couple years.. that won't happen. Why? Because big business has their hands in all aspects of American politics.

The worst part of all this... American soliders are putting their lives on the line for some very questionable motivations.

I am not "Pro-war" but I am Pro action to protect American citizens. Saddam has proven to be a liar and a cheat. He needs to go and we can do that without any help. Next will be the mad men in North Korea and perhaps Iran. I have NO quarrel with anyone Iraqi, Korean or Iranian. Indeed I have friends of those and other nationalities. I do have a problem when they threaten their neighbors or us. War sucks and should be avoided at all reasonable costs. The deal in Iraq is not a new war but a finish to the Persian Gulf war to which Saddam agreed to do certain things and he has not done them. This is not the first thing France has done to anger little old me. Remember our '84 flights to Libya? I say to heck w/France, Germany & Russia. Just don't be looking for anything friendly from us ever again. I sure hope the French task force is there to help, for their sakes.

---

Craig

Just make it crystal clear to me what going in to Iraq is going to do in terms of offering protection because while SH may have promised to do things post 92 and might not have, he also has not posed ANY threat at all to the US.

As far as lying and cheating go, I hardly think that the US has a foot to stand on if that is going to be your argument. Lets face it, if the US has been unable to present evidence to the security counsel and all the coutries other than the US, including Britain are still trying to resolve this another way I dont think we can count on the US having been entirely truthful about its motivations for wanting to go in to Iraq.......

I will try to set the record straight here, because I have noticed something interesting...what we hear on the french news, and what is being translated in the US news on channels like Fox are very different...
Fox is so much pro GWB that they BS the translations...I guess I understand french much better than any journalist at Fox.

anyway, here it is:

1. Chirac is not against war. Nor is he for Saddam. He (as well as French people, Russians, Germans etc...) want Saddam out, but they are all against a resolution whose only consequence is war.

2. the only thing that Europe (I count Britain with Europe as the only english for war is Blair..all the others are against...) wants is to get rid of Saddam in a peaceful way without going to war. As long as there is a way to achieve this, why do you want to put in jeopardy the lives of american soldiers, civilians in iraq (for info civilians in iraq are as innocent as all the people that were in the WTC on 9/11...)

3. if there is no other alternative, then the UN will go to war (that was in the talk of Chirac...) but in the meantime, SH is destroying weapons, so things are working...better have him destroy weapons under a war threat than really going to war...remember Gary...YOU are not going, YOU will still be riding your bike when US soldiers will be fightng...it's pretty easy for you to say "let's go to war" as you are not going...

4. ultimately, going to war without the agreement of the UN will lead to one thing: more planes crashing in towers, lead by fanatics who will hate the US even more. A deepening of the gap between Europe and the US. the next time a conflict will arise, everyone will say "screw the UN" we'll do it alone, this will lead to a WWIII and then, you will give a rat's ass about stupid triathlons etc...when the planet is about to explode because some thought the only solution was war....

It took 11 years to figure out that Saddam is such a HUGE threat?? In those 11 years, has his evil-doer, axis-of-evil regime posed a threat to Americans? Powell is having a hell of a time making a case of this in the UN. Did you see the pictures of the smoking-gun drone.. what kinda Jr High science project did that turn out to be?

Ameican alienation is a bad thing. Once the EU gets its act together they will offer some serious competition to America's capitalist machine. Only a matter of time before the UK joins the team.

mike

Eastern Europe could become a monster in terms of economic power.

Its really funny when the US imposed steel tariffs to protect the US steel industry they imposed them on Britain. The UK response was if you dont relax the tarrifs we will put tariffs on Florida OJ, PA Cotton T-shirt and Harleys made in WI. Three swing states. A commentator noted about this that it should teach Bush not to bring a knife to a gun fight..................apparently the less was not learnt.

Its so funny that Powell can not convince one country on the security counsel that Iraq poses and threat and all of the countries he is trying to persuade are a damn site closer to Iraq than the US..........

I'm still unsure of where I stand on this whole issue. Usually I'm one of the war drum beaters, but for some reason not in this case. There's something about this one that doesn't sit right with me.

I do believe one thing is very clear though. None of the "progress" or new "compliance" that the world is witnessing by Iraq and Saddam "sharing" information and destroying some of their irrelevent weapons would ever have come to pass if it were not for the immense pressure currently being exerted by the US. So while the current diplomacy may be working, it is only working because of the threat of war that the advocates of diplomacy are trying to avoid.

it is fascinating to see that each time you post here you are very good at bringing the discussion to its lower possible level. You're scary and I'm happy not to know you.

I still believe that it is better to have SH destroying weapons because of a threat than having american soldiers (or other countries if there is eventually no alternative) risking their lives, and throwing bombs on iraqis (which is unlikely to decrease the number of terrorists who hate the us...)

For the threat to be taken seriously, it must be a serious threat. If we (the US or a coalition) actually were not willing to send in troops as has been the case for the last 10 years, then Saddam would do nothing to meet the demands of the U.N. as has also been the case for the last 10 years. I agree with you that I'd rather have SH destroying weapons then to have others dying, but the two are obviously not completely independent of one another. Apparently to get him to do anything, we must have people who are willing to risk their lives and on the verge of going in. Right now, I guess I agree that the current situation seems to be working. The White House seems to think differently. I can be convinced, and if there is a real threat here or progress is actually not being made, I wish the White House would make a case to convince me. Because they do not leads me to believe they cannot. Truth be told, I kind of hope they find some smoking gun or something that justifies to the world that we need to go in and take care of this. (Sorry, now I'm getting a bit scary) But until there's an obvious threat or reason, I remain very hesitant.

I too would like to be convinced beyond a doubt, but me & my opinion are irrelevant. We (like the French, Germans & Brittish) live in republics where we elect leaders to make these and other important decisions. The threat comes from who SH can give his WMDs to, Bin Ladin & such. SH destabilizes the whole region. And I'll admit that lots of the problem relates to oil and the survival of Israel. The fact that we kicked out the Palistinians and recreated Israel are reasons, arguably reasonable ones, why Americans are hated among the islamic peoples. If you think Iraq is a problem just wait till it is time to deal with N. Korea.

---

Craig

The whole logic behind the concept of using inspections to force a country to disarm is inherently flawed. The ONLY value behind inspections is to verify that a willing participant is truly disarming. The belief that we can just keep 'inspecting' until SH has totally disarmed is simply a joke.

300,000 troops at his border, essetially a gun to his head, he throws out a few crums for the world to see, and the world declares 'See, It's working!'

Before 9/11, folks would have thought we would be crazy to invade Afganistan. After, how many said "What did we know and why didn't our government do something to prevent this tragedy?" We have much more now on SH than we had before 9/11 on Al Queda, and folks are still saying where's the threat?

"We have much more now on SH than we had before 9/11 on Al Queda"

As far as knowledge of intent and plans to attack and kill Americans, we had mountains more information and evidence on AQ than we do on Iraq. This is not my opinion, but fact.

Andrew,

Two words, three names:

Viet Nam, Andrew Jackson, Samuel J Tilden, and Grover Cleveland.

Brian

It is all about politics.

France's only concern is to show its power so that it can set itself up as a real power in the EU. They are using their veto to hold the US down and put their country in a favorable/powerful light ... to show other EU countries that France is a powerhouse ... to be the new EU leader. Im sure the french have no problems ousting Saddam or going to war but they want to be the ones to make the decision. See, years ago the French played a role in international events. They were part of the big picture. They tried to stop us from bombing Lybia as well.

Its not about oil, its not about Saddam, its not about peace ...

Its all about politics.

So if the plan is to attack and kill Americans, we act. If the plan is to attack and kill some other humans, we don't?

your understanding of politics is simply astonishing Gary...you should join the Bush administration.

your understanding of Europe too is so brilliant...
you should abstain yourself to make any comment on Europe (or France for that matter) when the only
thing you know about Europe is: it's somewhere east, and there is a country that makes nice wheels and that has a cool bike race.

See, I live in the US, and truly love this country (which does not mean I have to like everything about it). But to try to understand what is going on, I am trying to get some knowledge of American history, american constitution, politics etc...
you make comments on things you know absolutely nothing about...

I have no proble with French people, many former frenchies as freinds, its the way that France is using their veto as leverage to put them in a position of temporary power.

We are going into Iraq.

When we are done, free the opressed Iraquis, learn of the horrible lives they had, learn of the terrors of the regime, learn the real reasons France wants to stay out and we find the weapons of mass destruction what will your beloved country say then? What light will France be held in when we show the thousands of chemical and biological bombs to the world?

If France does not back us then they are not our allies are they?

Bush said "you are either with the U.S. or you are with the terrorists".

I guess we know where France stands now.

They are not allies of the U.S., it is very clear they are not our freinds.

I'm not sure if you're trying to draw conclusions for me or not, but I certainly haven't stated or advocated either part of that statement. Plus given our recent tendency only react and not act. I would say that the state of things is such that regardless of who the plan dictates is to be attacked and killed, we do nothing until it's done.

Granted, the current administration is trying to change this by being proactive against what it views as a very real threat. (I certainly applaud their efforts to be proactive.) All the posturing and argument that's going on is just a debate over how accurate they are in their assessment. I, for one, think that the debate is a healthy and good thing and am open to evidence and arguments from both sides. I'm simply inclined to think that if they're having this hard a time convincing allies that Iraq is the threat they think it is, then maybe they don't have as compelling a case as they'd like us to believe.

Bush said "you are either with the U.S. or you are with the terrorists".

that would not be the first time he says something stupid, wouldn't it....
Explain to me why suddenly after 24 (yes, twenty four...) years of Saddam in Iraq, suddenly he has an urge to help the poor iraqis??

Stop saying "we are going to war"...they are, the us soldiers, you will be watching comfie in your chair...then you'll go for a ride...

Also, one history question: which country is the only country to ever use weapons of mass destruction on civilians?

I agree your government is great,
check this. I was wrong.

www.whitehouse.com

What brought WW II to an end and Iraq are apples and oranges. That action saved perhaps a million or more American lives. SH has ALSO used WMD on his own people. That would be the equilivant of our government bombing say....El Paso. Two totally different scenarios. I agree with the above posts. I have no problem with French people, they have a right to their opinion. It is their government which perhaps needs a regime change!

---

Craig

you know nothing of what I do for a living, I spent 10 years fighting drug cartels in south/central america to free us from that crap in the 90's, so shove it ... I did my time in the military, I was in Desert Storm as well, what the h*ll do you know about anything? I saw Kuwait after Saddam had his troops trash the city.

He tore everything up, paintings, museums, glasswork ... blew holes in the road for no reason, trashed the place, broke windows, looted the town, killed Kuwaiti civilians, it was bad.

a million americans? when all historians agree that Japan was ready to capitulate even before the bombs were dropped???
If your gov. was so right about what it did, why did Bill Clinton make public apologies to the Japanese?

I agree, SH has WMD. He has used them on his people. Then in Sierra Leone, there are about 100,000 people without a hand, a foot, or both, because rebels hunt them and torture them? does Bush plan to help them?
In North Korea people are starved to death by their gov. Does Bush plan to help?

I agree, Saddam has to go one way or another. Though what euro gov. have said is: as long as there is a peaceful way to do so, let's follow this path.

Hey Francois, I have no quarrel with you personally, just hoping for a lively debate which we are having. I am enjoying it as I hope you and others are as well.

Bill Clinton is a no back bone weeny. I'd have told the Japs to shut up, just as all the other people who think they are owed something from the past. It is today, get used to it! History is history. Apologizing to the Japanese served no useful purpose for us.

N. Korea, yes we will help them. Only it will come to a head over their government and their irresponsible actions.

Sierra Leon-by all means help them too, as well as any other place where bad things happen. Only thing is soldiers do that kind of work and it is very unpleasant, ask Gary from SD.

---

Craig

I have no quarrel with anyone. Just pointed out that what the media are telling you and what is being said by the french gov. are two different things. the other day on tv when chirac was talking the translation was all BS...

One point I seriously disagree: today is today...the actions of our gov. have to be based on the past, not to repeat the same mistakes. History is important. This is what Europe with several thousands of years of history has learnt the hard way. This is why Europe now understands that is so important to stick together and come up to a peaceful solution.

Apologizing does not hurt your pride or your ego. It does not make you a lesser man or a lesser country. it shows compassion and understanding, two of the values of the religion that GWB has been so inclined to refer to in recent days.

Bush is an idiot. He is following in the footsteps of his father. This isnt to help any starving iraquis, it's to finish what his dad started.

WMD...i would have to say that hitler used them with the concentration camps, as well as stalin and his great purges...they both killed over 5 million people each.

Saddam needs to go...but if the french or russians veto the strike, what will the cost be. There needs to be an agreement on the most effective and globally sound method of taking him out of power, and it cannot only benefit the americans, as many other moves of the sort have done (the americans love dictatorships, but only when they can control the leader)



-kevin

---

---

"Anyone can work hard when they want to; Champions do it when they don't."

You raise a particularly good point. Translation is such a iffy prospect, kind of like statistics. Please give more insight to what the French govt actually said.

I am outt here for the day, I'll be back tomorrow

---

Craig

The Euro governments are proposing inspections for 45 more days or various scenarios. In the meantime America's military is at Iraq's door giving SH a reason to let inspectors into Iraq in the first place. Those men and women are sitting in the desert as the temperatures climb. They will have to wear rubber suits to protect against the weapons SH says he doesn't have. Iraq is digging in making the loss of life greater if an invasion is required to disarm Iraq. I haven't heard Germany, France, Russia, China et al say they will send forces to provide the incentive for SH to continue the inspections. Maybe extended inspections will do the trick but let the Americans and British go home and have Germany, France, Russia and China put up the force required if they fail.

suggesting but I am not familiar enough to say for certain given that I am one of the immigrants that Gary in SD hates.............

Please elucidate.......



ANdrew

enemy?

You really were born 70 years to late and in the wrong country, you are far more suited to Hitlers and Goebels Europe than you are to a country where free speech and differing opinions are meant to be respected.

It is blatantly clear from every post in which you have addressed this issue that you cant seem to differentiate between people that would like to work this out with out war, and Al Queda. You clearly feel that anyone that disagrees with the Bush office's policy of carpet bombing Baghdad is for all intense and purposes a terrorist.

This alone singles you out as a ___________, lets see if you can guess the word.........

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

I think this would sum up your views on what the US's role in the world should be quite succinctly.

Bet you cant guess the word...........

Actually it would be more equivalent to our government turning machine guns on unarmed people because their differentness is seen as a threat. The Lakota "Sioux" have a lot in common with the Kurds.

Listen I don't think you need to start bad mouthing somone elses country. Like your dumb ass knows what really goes on in the world. Before Sept. 11th you would have said the same about BL. Aren't you the one that was bragging about your hockey team? If they are soooo tough have them watch the borders your guards do a darn poor job!

the french sucks! their women have hair all over their bodies and the men like wearing womens clothing. also andrewmc sucks. and anyone that doesn't like our presidents policy on dealing with iraq sucks.

well said genius...and we have beret, and we walk with a baguette under the arm...
and we are the greatest in the world, and my dad is stronger than yours, and he is a cop, and will beat your dad up....

One thing to keep in mind... Historically, the reason that we don't interfere in other states' affairs is because what goes on in the state is internal to that state. That is a fundamental principle of international law, and it has minimized conflict for years. However, if that state's domestic affairs become a threat, which can spill over to other states, then intervention is necessary. Thus, Afganistan's invasion was justified, in the sense that the lawlessness/or implicit authority in that country enabled Al Quaeda to develop into a potent force. Sierra Leone, while unspeakably tragic, does not fit into that doctrine. Iraq does, as its leadership, with its past behaviour, such as invasion of Kuwait, the war with Iraq, and its support of terrorist organizations, fits into this doctrine. Intervention can be justified. The UN's lack of support is unfortunate, especially as it is needed as an instrument for post-war Iraq.

Food for thought...

"We have peace in our time" - Neville Chamberlain, after the Munich crisis, when Germany swallowed Czechoslovakia, and Britain and France did nothing to save her, and Hitler, emboldened, then continued with his acquistions, and the rest is history..

illiterate.

1, I am not Canadian.

2, I am a US immigrant.

3, I do know, probably far better than you, what goes on in the world.

4, True republican response, if you disagree with them you must be the enemy. There was a German that thought like that at the beginning of the last century, you're very open minded. I can tell.

Before you start posting illiterate and factually incorrect remarks, get your story straight.

It's interesting how our sport has changed. It's gone from a high IQ to an average IQ sport, sad but true.

Francois, there is not much I would add to your posts, great job!

I just wonder how it can happen that so different opinions form. Probably the media have a lot to do with it. It's funny that this seems so cristal clear to me and others think they do the world a favor by giving bombs.

Did you know that over 50% of Americans think, that SH had his hands in the 9/11 attack?

"I still believe that it is better to have SH destroying weapons because of a threat than having american soldiers (or other countries if there is eventually no alternative) risking their lives, and throwing bombs on iraqis (which is unlikely to decrease the number of terrorists who hate the us...)"

Francois, people seem to have gotten a little fired up and you are taking some nasty shots. Hang in there. I agree with you, but I want to ask where the above statement leads. I truly believe that the ONLY reason SH is doing anything is because 300,000 troops are ready to cross his border tomorrow, if need be. The US cannot keep 300,000 troops mobilized indefinitely. As soon as the UN agrees to replace these troops with their own, AND they convince me that there is still a credible threat of force, then I (the hypothetical U.S. President) would be willing to let the UN take over.

Short of that, I think the U.S. is backed into a corner and has to get this over with before the weather gets too hot so we can negotiate with N. Korea from a position of strength. With all due respect, notice that N.Korea isn't asking for one-on-one talks with the UN.

and 70% of New Yorkers agree to follow the UN and not go to war without UN's agreement..

as I said: learn from History...

I can only speak for myself as an Englishman when I say that I do not welcome war.But it is time that we support our forces in the Gulf in ridding Iraq of that despot who has been murdering his people for years. Had the metal been seized the first time and allowed the allied forces to remove SH many lives would have been spared.

---

"How bad can it be?" - SimpleS

Well, QR guy... I guess every village has one and needless to say this news group also has one also - QR guy.

Substance to opinion will add weight. More importantly, it will remove the voluntary misfortune called ignorance.

Joe Moya

"Whoever kindles the flames of intolerance ... is lighting a fire underneath his own home." H. E. Stassen

Gary,

If you want people to trust your opinions on foreign policy or, for that matter, trust your new web site - try to avoid misspelling "friends". Also I would avoid references to web sites with names like "frogweenies".

Or, as Homer Simpson says, "oh, look, a bird".

Peace,

---

TonyG

What is Enoch Root?