[Kip Lange]

But now that we want the French and Europe in general to go along with our plans to dominate the middle East we get angry that they don't support us?

Yeah. We could always ditch our plans to "dominate the Middle East" and do what the noble French do -- pay Saddam billions for oil, which in turn goes to fund state-sponsored terrorism.

PUH-leeze! :p

P.S. All this French-bashing is *fun* :-) (frog DOES taste like chicken!)

[Burkeman1]

Iraq is not a major sponser of state funded terrorism- less so than our "noble ally" the Saudis. But let's just go ahead anyway- full speed ahead and damn the consequences. No exit plan at all, no clear objective. How long will we be there? Will Iraq be used to launch another war? Will the taking out of Sadaam reduce or increase the chances of further 9/11's on American soil in the future? Have one of these questions been answered? Will my son be serving in a base in Iraq 20 years from now? Or will it be Saudi Arabia or Iran or Syria? Will the chances of a suitcase nuke being let off in New York be more or less likely after a war with Iraq? Can Rumsfeld tell me no, it won't happen if we take Iraq? Can Powell? Can National Review or the Weekly Standard? Why have we done next to nothing to stop immigration much less illegal immigration into this country? Why are 80 year old grandmothers from Wisconsin being searched at our airports while Muhammed and friends go right by? When this nation is first serious about protecting it's citizens then maybe I will take seriously these calls for "regime changes" all over the middle east.