On Wednesday 26 Mar 2003 1:18 am, you wrote:
>  well, there is at last count 52 countries involved with this war on our
> side and in one way or the other. so i would think that the other countries
> does not incle those. if you are talking about france, i'll just quote
> general patton, "i'd rather have a german division in front of me than a
> french division behind me." WWI took out the kiser and WWII would have
> resulted in hitler being took out if he had not committed suicide. clinton
> did not even take osoma when the sudan was willing to hand him over in
> cuffs. but, to clintons credit, he did take out slovaden milosevic (sorry
> about the spelling). i will point out that the peacenics did not march nor
> even did we hear a peep from them. so clinton was involved in taking out a
> reconized leader of another country who was committing atrocities. no
> difference here. could it be that they just don't like bush?

Or, accept a military option when ratified by the UN.

>   as to powell, the french did not give him anywhere to go but back to bush
> and war. they were vowing to veto anything that came to the un. we will
> find that france and germany have been knee deep in helping iraq build
> weapons that the u.n. prohibited in the 1991 cease fire. russia and china
> have already been implicated in supplying iraq with prohibited equipment.
> seems to me that france is torqued off to the tune of about 60 billion
> dollars in contracts with iraq.

I rather think the French/German relationship with Iraq was more commercial
than military. 60 billion $ of weapons is unrealistic, most of this trade
would be with Iraqi companies not with Saddam's government.

>    now, the environmental treaty at kyoto was sighned by clinton, but, the
> senate never ratified it. and i am thankful that bush never sent it back to
> the senate for a second try. it was aimed at the american ecconomy.

I believe it was aimed at protecting the environment. The fact that
implementing it will add a slight percentage to the cost  of US goods seems
to high a price for the US people to accept. This is a shame. It means that
other countries are paying for the clean up whilst the largest polluter (with
the richest population) politely says "stuff you - we're OK".

>     the ABM treaty with the USSR was logically not something that could be
> held onto since the USSR no longer exists. that would be like trying to
> have a treaty with theroman empire. sound logic would indicate that a
> treaty with a country that has ceased to exist is not exactly the right
> thing to try. if there are more, just email them, i'd like to be complete
> on my statements. yesssiree! a complicated war indeed. more sides than the
> pentagon.

If the USA wants to limit the proliferation of Nuclear weapons, what sort of
message does it give to the world if the USA seems to want to stockpile even
more missiles,  strange logic indeed!!

Cheers

Deri