I too share many, if not all of your views. Still, some other aspects scare me more.

What was the nationality of the man who designed, built, and ultimately handed over the work of art that we Americans so look to as a symbol of freedom, justice, and the “American-Way”? Me thinks many have forgotten who gave us the Statue of Liberty, and for the sole purpose of us celebrating our independance.

So, George-Bush-America is mad at France. This sux big time to me.

Man, they call all of us “Countries of the New Free World” for a reason. France is not a freakin 3rd world country, and we definately do NOT need to be turning our backs on them or be in any disagreement with them. Not now, not ever.

The thought of this scares the hell out of me.

France is an extremely civilized country, overflowing with art, culture, and classical ideas. They have a centralized government for christ sakes! It seriously scares me that our standard redneck-ideology is about to make a huge mistake of making enemies with an old friend…

-T-

I took a look at your webbsite, to see if you had expressed your views on the conflict in Iraq. I did, and I compliment you on a well thought out presentation.

Just some countering thoughts, my view on the situation. I also do not have strong feelings.

It was Sir Winston Churchill that said something like ‘Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat its past ‘. At the end of the First World War, the articles of surrender that the German government signed severely limited the size and strength of their military forces, to the point of specifying how many and what size of ships, planes, etc., and how many military personnel they could have. After Hitler took power in 1933, he violated those agreements, first secretly and then openly. No country in the world, including the US, took any steps to enforce the agreements.

In 1935, Hitler’s forces took over Czechoslovakia. The Prime minister of England, Neville Chamberlain, for the first time spoke openly and critically of Hitler’s violations. The result was a conference in Munich, attended by Hitler, Chamberlain, and other European leaders. At the conference, Hitler told them that Czechoslovakia was a part of the old Prussian empire that had been illegally taken from Germany, that the population was mostly ethnic Germans and politically favorable to German rule, so what’s the problem? In addition, Hitler promised no further acquisitions. Neville Chamberlain and the other leaders agreed to let Hitler keep Czechoslovakia, in return for his promise not to invade any other countries. Chamberlain returned to London, and before the movie cameras of the media services, declared that ‘we have achieved peace in our time’. I still see that clip from time to time on the History Channel.

When that peace did not last and war began in 1939, there was a huge anti-war sentiment in the US. One can still review the news films of those time, where the demonstrators are carrying signs saying ’stay out of Europe’s war’. That war resulted in 55,000,000 dead. The evil man that brought it on could have been stopped very early on. Hitler later wrote of the weakness of his military forces at that time, and his surprise at how easily he got away with it.

The world is a much smaller place these days. A hundred years ago, Saddam Hussein could have ruled in Iraq, and we would not know nor care. There was no fear of a ship floating into New York harbor and detonating explosives that could kill 3,000 people.

If George Bush had gone before the UN and the American people in the summer of 2001, and said that there were a bunch of guys in Afghanistan running around in the desert practicing for war, putting out threats against Americans, that the Taliban government of Afghanistan was supporting these guys, and that this situation was a grave threat to America, the world would have called George Bush a moron and a cowboy. And if he had gone before the UN and requested support for an effort to remove the Taliban and get rid of Bin Laden and his guys, the UN would have responded (after serveral months of debate) that Afghanistan was a sovereign nation, and we have to let them choose their own leaders, and certainly a bunch of desert rowdies like the Al Quada were no threat to anybody. France would have vetoed any preemptive action in Afghanistan.

My personal view is that Saddam Hussein is not a huge threat to the US. I think as long as he is allowed to strut around in Baghdad, and talk about how his Republican Guards (with some help from Allah, of course) can defeat any attempt to remove him, he is relatively harmless. I do however believe t is legitimate to ask him where the anthrax is, and where the nerve gas is, and not to accept an explanation that it has been destroyed, but no records of that destruction exist.

And I do believe that the world today should be taking notice of what are being called rogue nations, and should be attempting however possible to remove those regimes and bring the people of those countries into the mainstream of world politics and economics. I believe that is what George Bush is trying to do. I do not believe it has anything to do with oil. I fully support George Bush, he is the first world leader since Ronald Reagan (and prior to him, Winston Churchill) that has the backbone to call an regime evil, and be willing to do something about it. He does not believe, nor do I, that the world or the people of Iraq are better off with Saddam Hussein in power, and does not believe, nor do I, that Hans Blix is the answer to the problem. Remember, Hans and his guys are called ‘inspectors’, not ‘detectives’, they were supposed to sit back while Saddam and company presented the evidence that all weapons had been destroyed; they were never intended to rush around, trying to surprise the Iraqis and catch them with their weapons. Since they are not allowed by the Iraqi government to perform their mission as defined, why would we want to give them more time? So far, they have found some missles which exceed the allowed range by a matter of a few kilometers, how can I look at that and decide that ‘inspections are working’.

I believe George Bush’s basis for military action is not economic, as is France’s basis for a veto in the UN. I truly believe that with the evil that is present in the world today, not only in Iraq but other places also, that George Bush could not live with himself if another 9/11 occured in the US, and therefore he is commited to doing what he can to defend the US, and better the condition of the people of countries such as Iraq.

I have to conclude that those that do not agree with that position either 1) think Saddam Hussein is a good deal for the world and the Iraqi people; 2) think I should feel completely comfortable that Hans Blix will fix the problem (if indeed there is a problem); or 3) think Saddam Hussein is such a benevolent and responsible individual that I should have no discomfort with him having whatever weapons of whatever type (the ones Hans couldn’t find).

As for Jimmy Carter, he is a fine man but neither a world leader or a statesman, he proved that in his four years as president.

These are just my thoughts.