Now for something entirely different. Perhpas some freepers should stop to consider how it is that Bush II is having such a tough time getting a real coalition together to attack Iraq when his father didn't seem to have half the problems? Is it the simple minded notion presented here, ad nauseum, that Europeons are just cowardly weenies, "traitors", "backstabbers", and ungrateful? Or could it actually be that attacking Iraq when it hasn't actually attacked anyone else is a leap they don't want to take? Perhaps it is not in their interest to do so. By treaty they are certainly not obligated to attack Iraq (even for violating UN resolutions.) Perhaps the Europeons had enough of unprovoked wars when Clinton bombed Kosovo for 78 days and Europe was racked with protests and NATO nearly faultered?
What is the difference between Gulf War I and the enthusiastic participation of Europe to today's circumstances?