Carol C: your last post illuminates your prejudice against Israel, right?

Jed: It is too much to expect that those who are so opposed to disarming Saddam, and bringing about a change in leadership in Iraq, thereby freeing the Iraqi people from one of the most repressive regimes in history, would expend the time necessary to hear the evidence presented to the UN Security Council today.

I think you are being kind when you say to kat, and others, that they are not supporting Saddam after the evidence was presented by our Secretary of State today to the UN Security Council.

Who are they supporting? Not the the U. S.! Not the people of Iraq (or perhaps they do not accept the fact that the people there are repressed!). Is it fair to say they are supporting Germany and France? I would assume so.

I heard today on Fox News Network that fifty countries have signed on to support the U. S. position on Iraq. So the US is not alone in it's effort to rid the world of the threat Saddam presents to the world.

If the UN doesn't enforce it's own rules, why does it make them? If they don't enforce their own rules, why have a UN?

Perhaps the best course of action for the U.S. would be for us to completely withdraw from the situation. Bring our troops back home, and let Germany, France, and those few nations that do not see Saddam as a threat handle the situation.

Would my friends on the Mudcat find that a more acceptable role for the U. S.? I look forward to your replies.

DougR