The statement above was what you had to say about Powell's sudden change of heart. I have no idea what you mean by this. If Powell was just "enlightened" as to the situation in Iraq in the last couple weeks then we have a major incompetence issue before us. That statement seems seems a bit bizarre to tell you the truth Pat...like you're dabbling with a variety of chemicals and not sharing with the rest of the group here. I mean I'm guessing you're kidding with that one.

I missed only one point there Reg and that was the problem of Muslims in France. If France is concerned about this problem then they ought to solicit the help of the U.S. instead of alienating them. The other point Dale made was oil interest of the France in Iraq. I knew about that already

In your response to my post you gave no indication you had a clue as to what I was talking about. You seemed to just have the attitude that the French should be left on their own and expect no help from the United States in the future. Not a lot of thought on your part put into that response really. It also seemed to ignore the general theme of what I was saying. I'd call it a Bill O'Reilly response...totally vacant.

With that attitude we would have thought that Bin Laden would have never been a threat either.
Reg warfare has changed a little here. Can you imagine what one case of Biological warfare would do this country after a "little anthrax" scare brought us to our knees?

Again here with this response you seem to be on another planet. I've stated numerous times we've known about terrorists and the likelyhood that they would and will continue to attack us on our own soil. That was the problem I said we should be addressing. I'm not sure how you could have missed that but you got something right...Warfare has changed and we've changed it. There now no longer needs to be an attack on the United States by a country for us to attack them. We'll attack someone now for "the possibility that they may in the future be part of a terrorist action against our country". Do we need a crystal ball for these kind of predictions? We've yet to make a solid tie between Iraq and 9/11 but we're set to attack them anyway. Let's just be clear that 9/11 and the "WAR WITH IRAQ" are two totally unrelated subjects. We're attacking Iraq because we'd like a regime change. It's cut and dry. I believe Saddam should go but the timing is strange.

We need to send a message here Reg and the message is this. If the U.S. says they are going to do something like send in the military if you do not cooperate then you had better believe them. Iraq has been not cooperating and we know it. Now they suddenly want to "Cooperate". Why not before? Did they think we "were kidding"?

I'm not sure we're on the same page here again. See my point was we are sending a message but probably the wrong one. Hey, if Saddam gives up and we get out of this deal without firing a shot, then Bush will look like a brilliant strategist. Like he rattled the sabre and got his way. Seems unlikely though.

Providing that Bin Laden is alive. I personally think he is dead and this whole tape business is a hoax.

Interesting theory.

 You've got to kill the plant first and then go after the seeds otherwise you will be continually killing seeds

So Iraq is the "plant" in your opinion? Funny because Saddam and bin Laden pretty much stand for opposite things.

                                             
Stop acting like a Martyr. You made some good points. I just happen to disagree with all of them

I thought I was being funny...well, I do have a strange sense of humor. 

                                                        Reg