The questions as I see them are : 1. If reasonable discussions fail (as has happened in Saddam's case) is going to war the sensible thing to do from the overall point of view of trying to keep weapons of mass destruction out of lunies' hands (if reasonable negotiations have failed) ? 2. Are France's leadership's actions twarthing such purpose ? (irrespective of whatever their motivation may be - I have my own cynical thoughts i.e. money is at the root of it all and has overridden all sensible reasons) 3. Is the idea of the US (plus any willing allies) going it alone justified because of the importance of the aim in question 1 ? 4. Would it serve a practical purpose of bringing home the point to the whole of the world by doing what the name of this thread appears to suggest i.e. teach France a serious lesson ? 5. Is the rule 'If you are not for us, you are against us' therefore a good rule to prevent some nations acting in a way so as to assist rogue nations or groups ? By the way all you heavies, nuking the Eifeltower isn't necessarily the way to bring the message home. A bombardment of the Eifeltower with tons of flour (or manure ?) would be an even more humiliating statement to make to the frogs (if they have any shame that is - which I doubt). freealways
Chirac Fortifies Antiwar Caucus 52 African Leaders Endorse French Stance Toward Iraq LONDON, Feb. 21 -- French President Jacques Chirac emerged today from a summit of 52 African countries -- including three that hold seats on the U.N. Security Council -- with a unanimous endorsement of France's opposition to U.S.-led military action against Iraq. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44702-2003Feb21.html