If you are going to judge nation states by your own principles it is probably not a good idea for you to go into politics,you’ll get eaten alive.

Please stop this juvenile googling of information,I’ve read it before.

Here is a list of companies and people – and their nationalities who benefitted from the bribes in the Oil-for-Food scandal. Germany isn’t even on it — while France and Russia are, so are Spain, the UK, and… the US. So having companies or individuals from your country on the list is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain opposition to invasion.

Yesterday’s NY Times had a 2-full-page article outlining the intelligence, and reporting of it to the White House, related to the infamous aluminum tubes. The article makes it clear that even after the White House knew the claims that the tubes were for nukes were very very weak, they went ahead pressing their case anyway. The most of the rest of world knew the case was weak, and were not buying into the Saddam-is-close-to-having nukes story.

My point in bringing that up is that I believe that countries that oppposed the war in Iraq looked at the evidence and did NOT see an imminent threat – and “imminent threat” is the global test for acceptable pre-eminent invasion of another country. Their opposition was not based solely on national interest (which is much more complex than some pay-offs from Iraq), but on careful weighing of the evidence.

It was made plain at Suez that France and the UK for that matter were no longer world powers

Mr. Kerry, terrorists and rogue states do not develop nuclear weapons because we develop nuclear bunker buster bombs; we develop nuclear bunker buster bombs because terrorists and rogue states attempt to develop nuclear weapons and other forms of WMD.

Kerry does not flip-flop. That is a big Republican lie, that they have repeated over and over and over and now everyone believes it. The Republican strategy has been to try to focus the electorate on “values” and “character,” rather than the issues. They went after Clinton’s character (granted he left himself wide open) because his 3rd way scared the pants off them. Bush touted himself as a “compassionate conservative,” and in fact turned out to be a radical conservative. Now they are going after Kerry’s character with this whole flip-flop thing, which is so easy to do with a 20 year Senate record to pick over. That’s why senators have such a hard time running for president – their opponents can pick whatever they want out of the record, out of context, and make all kinds of attacks that are just plain stupid if you scratch the surface.

PeterUK – And you are not sticking to the Republican script? The US has done many of the exact things you accuse France of doing, and similar things to the rest. France did oppose the war, that is a no-brainer. Kerry’s argument is that he can get them and Germany to help fix the problem, as it is in their interest to do so — especially if they can get a cut of the reconstruction money, which Bush has barred them from. My comment about the “strange world view” was denying that France was a major power under deGaulle and even after words, and that “seeking support” is the same thing as ‘asking permission.’

And Roberts, I would be happy to test my knowledge of the events leading up to the war against you anytime. I know what I am talking about, too. The Bush administration made a half-assed effort to gain consensus – Colin Powell had a beastly time trying to hold back the dogs of war, and the best he could get to bring to our allies was, “Well, we’re going to do this whether or not you come with us, BUT, if you can get your weasely, selfish, cowardly asses moving on our time table, and will agree to put your troops under our control, and follow our war and post-war plans, sure.. you can come along.” That kind of uncompromising approach was barely worthy of our allies’ consideration. Which is why most of them told us “no.”

Bruce, is there a reason you wanted to come here and post stuff that demonstrated that you have almost zero knowledge of events with respect to the Iraq War?

I’m curious because your statements basically have zero relation to the reality of recent history. The Bush administration worked extraordinarily hard to put together the support for UN resolution 1441. And worked very hard to put together the international support – both diplomatic and logistical – that got the Iraq invasion staged in record time and accomplished. But you come here with this silly “barely tried” nonsense?

Which allies? France who strong armed and bribed former colonies to subvert the UN vote,who dangled EU entry before Turkey to deny US troops transit,who authored fake documents from Niger,who was providing arms to Iraq,who was busting sanctions,who had a deal to develop new oilfields,who was owed billions by Iraq,who refused overflight,that ally? If ever there was a case of throwing egg in an allies face the actions of France epitomise it.

Or the German ally who made anti- Americanism a plank of his election.

Belgium,who refused to supply ammunition for the the first Gulf War.

It is a historical fact that when the coalition went to the UN, France Russia and Germany did everything in their power to keeep it out of Iraq.

It is also fact that the same nations were working to have sanctions lifted.the no fly zones could not have been maintained indefinitely,planes were being fired on and it was only a matter of time before one got shot down.

Look at the figures,NATO,hasn’t got the troop numbers,the US probably constitutes 90% there as well.

World view? Bosnia provides a sad picture what allies could achieve in Iraq.

It is no use conjuring phantom armies out of thin air and straining your ears for the allied relief column that will never come,what you see is what there is.

Congratulations for sticking to the script they gave you,but it really is very standard.

At least Bush does not change his principles with the polls which is more than can be said for the Democrats. After all they were the ones that made removal of Saddam from power our national policy.

How soon they forget.

As for allies I heard that the French president referred to the Iraqi insurgents who are killing our troops as France’s best allies.

The UN had been fleecing the people of Iraq for years and if Kerry had his way they would still be doing it. I would not vote for the man if you gave me a million dollars in Iraqi oil vouchers.

First, Kennedy had his man go to France in the 1960′s – that is far after 1939.

Second, you and the Bushies seem to think the “global test” is about asking permission. It is more about letting your allies know what the heck you are doing, so you don’t left them with egg on their face, keep their support, etc. As with the cuban missle situation, we were getting ready to invade cuba or deploy our nukes, possibly causing the next world war. That would be the kind of thing you want your allies on board with.

While we are no longer in the cold war, and the invasion of iraq was not likely to set off a world war (which is the key reason Bush is not waving the army at NK), it is plain ole common sense diplomacy that you want your allies with you when you do something as HUGE as invading another country.

But bull-headed John Wayne Bush couldn’t get the international community with him – barely tried – and, more imporantly, led us into a war that vast numbers of Americans did not support. The home-front piece of the Powell Doctrine was don’t go into a war that your people are not behind.

The result — we are 90% of the troops, 90% of the casualites, 90% of the money in Iraq, and our nation is terribly divided on the issue. Great leadership.

The whole ‘talking to other countries’ thing is not about “permission,” which is how the nationalistic folks want to portray it — it is about consensus, about having firm a firm base of support so that you can finish what you start, and have your alliances intact for the next challenge.

Bush is having trouble with the first, and is going to be in a heck of a lot of trouble if he wins and has to try to deal with a real crisis (as opposed to the one in Iraq, which he created).

Again, before we invaded, Saddam was contained by the no-fly zone, by the sanctions, and by the inspectors. America is in a more dangerous position now than we were before we invaded.