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

THERE HAS BEEN only TWO TIMES THAT THE U.N.  has ratified a war, korea in
1950's, gulf war in 1991. there have been many. i'd think the u.s. would
quit going to this inpetent organization. it should go the way of the league
of nations imho. but my opinion is just that, i know every one has an
opinion.

>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.

the sixty billion is in oil i think(the contracts are with saddam and pretty
much backed by a close friendship of the french president. on the face of
things the oil would go to the french companies. can't argue with you
there), but one french built reactor has been taken out by isreal in 1988 i
think, (don't hold me to the date). i think we'll find that the french have
been trying to help iraq rebuild it. and we'll find that the germans have
helped with the materials that goes into the chemical weapons. but, we shall
see for sure when this is over.



>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 treaty required that the u.s. would have to meet requirements that no
other country in world would have to meet. i call that anti american. i
think the fact is that we are not the worst polluters. but, i doubt that i
shall change any minds. i will just leave it here.
i'll stand by my opinion of this, just as you certainly will stand by yours.
makes for an interesting debate.

>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!!

i am not aware of stockpiling more, i am aware that the u.s. is replacing
old obsolete ones, but, the numbers have remained constant. i would thing
that the british government is doing the same. the russians would do it if
their ecconomy would allow. if replacing the old with new was not done, we'd
be fighting with spears, but, that might not be all that bad when i think of
it.


>Cheers

>Deri

cheers indeed deri, it is good to see you posting some more. i have missed
you lately.