Remember everyone---"Anger is the wind,that blows out the
light of the mind!"Can't everyone just agree to disagree?
Irish
P.S.That change in the barometric pressure,in New England,
yesterday,was caused by the collective sigh,from Canadians,
when their P.M. said that Canada would REFRAIN from participating!

Gives Irish a thumbs-up

Steph, In re "his actions are going to cause long-term damage to world peace.": permit me to replace George Bush with Saddam Hussein as the "his", using these examples.

[On September 22, 1980, formations of Iraqi MiG-23s and MiG21s attacked Iran's air bases at Mehrabad and Doshen-Tappen (both near Tehran), as well as Tabriz, Bakhtaran, Ahvaz, Dezful, Urmia (sometimes cited as Urumiyeh), Hamadan, Sanandaj, and Abadan. Their aim was to destroy the Iranian air force on the ground…]

"Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)", Federation of American Scientists, http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/iran-iraq.htm

and

[At 0200 2 August 1990, the Iraqi Hammurabi Armored and Tawakalna Mechanized Divisions supported by Iraqi Special Forces and the Median Armored Division invaded their neighbor to the southeast, the sovereign nation of Kuwait… At 0530 the battle for Kuwait City began. By 1400, the Iraqis had captured the capital.]

"Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm: Chronology and Fact Book", John H. Admire, Kevin Don Hutchison; Greenwood Press, 1995

How long a term are you using when you refer to this world peace?

In an attempt to bring some brevity to this thread:

"Overheard this morning at coffee: All the Walmarts in Baghdad will close effective on March 17, 2003, at which time they will become Targets." :D

Please keep speaking up! Everyone! It's the only way things get worked out.

To express my opinion on this subject, I believe the current administration has chosen to ignore and defy the vast majority opinion of the world, and strong opinion here in the US.

Possible mid-range outcome:

• Chirac becomes defacto leader and spokesperson for the EU, making them a superpower to rival the US.
  
  This war spawns ten times the terrorists we have now, planting seeds for future terrorism that will make 9/11 seem like childsplay.
  
  China will assume Soveriegn Authority to invade Taiwan.
  
  Russia will assume Soveriegn Authority to level Chechnya.
  
  Instead of rendering the UN irrelevant, the world will render the US less relevant.
  
  Hussein and his sons will escape at the last minute to one of his few refuges (Libya? Cuba?) and will continue to be an angry wasp spewing hatred into the world. I think it was irresponsible of Bush to offer this option.
  
  Bin Laden is laughing at us. He is our enemy, and we haven't been able to figure out how to find him (maybe at the last minute, these 150,000 troops will all of a sudden turn up on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border and cream everything in sight until Osama is found).
  
  Israel is under UN resolution sanction to pull out of occupied territory. Why don't we invade them unilaterally for defying a UN resolution?
  
  Nobody thinks Hussein has nuclear weapons, or any means to deliver these or other weapons to US targets, so he doesn't post an active threat to our security. It is proper to defend the weak against a bully, and it may be proper to defend a people against their corrupt leader, but this is not in our self-defense interests.
  
  The best way to save and support our men and women in the service is to not send them into war.
  
  If we attack tomorrow, and Saddam kills tens of thousands of his own with chemical or biological weapons, the blood will be on our hands, too. These deaths would not have occurred if we would not have attacked, at least not at this time.

I put two columns on a page and wrote down pros and cons about this war. Other than "Saddam is bad", I couldn't come up with a reason to support this action; I remain morally and spiritually opposed to this.

Get real about Isreal being invaded. The States supplies them with weapons and supporting equipment. There is a lot of money from the States that floods into Isreal. Sad case. You are right, they are in UN violation for having settlements on that territory.

I remember some crazy stuff when I was in Kosovo (not as a peace keeper). Let's just say that it was a very nervous experience being one of the few people there without a weapon. Great memories of spending wayyyyy too much money at John's Kukri Bar near the Grande Hotel. When you are in a place like that you need a bit o' booze to help numb yourself. There was nothing else to do there anyway.

As a final note for one of Seriousfun's comment: God help us all if Chirac becomes leader of the EU. Everytime I hear his name I think of Bugs Bunny cartoons and that frenchman Black Jacques Chirac!

seriousfun---How could Saddam kill so many people,with
biological or chemical weapons?He said that they had been
destroyed.You don't suppose that he would stretch the truth.
The French said today,that they would help also,if he uses
biological or chemical weapons.Sounds to me as if people don't
think that he's telling the truth! Irish
P.S.Different Strokes,for different folks!

Horseman12, If we can remain decent in how we express ourselves, I think this is an excellent place to air our opinions. We all have the absolute power to not visit this thread if it becomes unsavory.

I hope to read opinions other than mine made by people whose comments on other subjects (often about sex) I have read many times before. I like to believe that I can disagree with someone about WMDs and at the same time agree that Lilith’s a… ah, administrative ability is second to none!

IMO he's lying! I agree! Every country on earth lies about their military capability; it's called National Security. If we had to attack every country on earth with WMDs, lying or not, we'd have to strike at Russia and China first, then turn the knife on us.

Lying is not a capitol offense; in Saddam's case, it would be a breach of the UN resolutions, but the UN inspectors have not found conclusive proof. We'll only prove that he has these weapons if we go to war and either he uses them, or we win and we find them.

Re: France: either they are confident that no WMDs will be used so their statement is an easy one to make, or they are making a reational commitment and want their detractors to take a chill pill.

And what if the news media is wrong and the Bush Administration is right about WMD in Iraq. Also the silent majority is not called silent for a reason, what they have to say is not news worthy. God bless the American, British and Australian troops about to engage in war.

Messrs. Chirac & Schroder will now be assessing the Iraq situation from the sidelines. A choice to which they are entitled, but one which limits France's & Gemany's effectiveness.

uhhhhhhh News Media wrong...it seems they are in lockstep with the administration to me, but at any rate, it's another US freedom. It's the rest of the world that doesn't see eye-to-eye with our administration. Any media can report any facts not born out by evidence if they want, but there is no specific evidence that Iraq has WMDs. As I said above, we'll see.

I don't know if you are old enough to remember or not, but we already went through the "silent majority" thing in the '60s, and in retrospect the vast majority of us in the US agree that Vietnam was a bad place for us to be.

Of course, you will find us united in supporting the safe return of our service personnel.

Well, the French should not be taken seriously, sometimes: they like Jerry Lewis and make bad rock 'n roll.

They have the food and sex things down, though :D

:p HA....HA....HA....

seriousfun I was in the military in the late '60s and early '70s.