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?
  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.
   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.
    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.

-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth H. Thiers
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 3/24/2003 7:18 AM
Subject: Re: America At War

Unlike Clinton, Bush's stated goal is the ouster of a recognized leader
of a
country.  Also, other countries don't like the we're going in there
whether
you want us to be or not stance of Bush and his people (notice how much
Colin Powell's stance has had to change over the past several months
from
one of diplomacy to the Bush line).
This torque's people off.  Bush has also rescinded many treaties that
Clinton made in an effort at diplomacy.  More of what other people will
discern as US strong arming.
Yep, it's a complicated war.

Beth T. the OT



Subject: Re: America At War


 clinton used 450 tomahawks to be pretty concise. used pretty much the
same
arguments that bush uses now. the difference now is only that the same
people that supported clintons action have did a 180 to oppose bush. i
think
the opposition now is more because of dislike of bush more than actually
being against military action. that is just my opinions and i know
everybody
has one.