' "Are you including the cost of 9/11 in your computation"

Non sequitur. What does Iraq have to do with 9/11 and it price?'

That was reason given by the terrorists. Don't you think that's a better source then inventing your own reasons? Btw, what reasons did you have for most of the hijackers being from Saudi Arabian?

' "Are you including that fact that the US is left in the position of being blamed for the fate of poor people in Iraq?"

And do you think it will be cheaper to be blamed for the thousands that will soon die in Iraq, both in and out of uniform, in the next few months?'

I don't know what's total number of innocent babies we are "supposively" blamed for murdering for last 11+ years? And how many more decades are we suppose to continue sanctions- or is your position that we should have caved to French pressure earlier, and if that is the case, even using 20/20 hindsight when should we have lifted sanctions?
Btw, the only thing that I'm aware of as far as your position is you want to wait another 30 days. Care to explain what you do if you were President right now, or if President 6 month ago? Or 10 years ago?
You can't do "nothing", so what would you do?

' "Another really basic point; one I don't even you can understand: the US is paying these costs, don't you think that this gives the US a certain "right" to decide what alternative ways it acheive it's objective?"

Gbaikie, this is the first time you have gotten personal... I thought more of you.

But, to answer your (non)point:

Sure, it gives us a right. But do you honestly wish to say that it entitles us to take any action we desire? This makes no sense... by thias argument we could set up death camps and/or nuke Iraq back to the stone age. We of course are entilted to free action, but it does not give us free reign to anything we wan't- its the same basic constraints on freedom that differentiates it from anarchy and a hobbsian state of nature.'
Well, you didn't get my point. Let me put it another. Since we are doing most of the heavy lifting here, don't you think those who are unwilling to join us, should "respect" that fact that we are the ones who they "expect" to do it? To only provide a solution which clearly is leading nowhere is not a solution, but if France really believe in this, why not join in? Answer: they know damn well it won't work and that's exactly why they propose it as the only solution they support.

"It seems to me that if other countries wanted to be entitled a say in the matter they would be spending money to support it."

"I see, so the scores of Billions that they spent PAYING US BACK for the gulf war, or the piles of money they LOSE"

Now I like to see any evidence that France paid the US any money in regards to anything regarding Iraq. But as far as *losing* money- of course, and especially the deals with Saddam after Desert Storm. Of course, the French and Russian are eager to have the sanctions lifted so they can collect their *deserved reward* for helping Iraq- deal with the troublesome Americans. I'm struggling to fiqure out how this supports your argument.

"(France, Germany and Russia aside) from Iraq being an economic non-entity don't add up to a say? The billions of dollars they spend on charity programs to make sure Saddam does not use the sanctions to completely stamp out the Iraqi population? That amounts to no say?"

As far as I know Iraq oil is sold and this pays for food, how is this charity? And even if their were a huge French charity that I'm not aware of, I still don't see to point. American charity far exceed any other nation or combine nations, but again it's not really the point. But that's not surprising; I predicted you probably wouldn't understand what my point was. Then you claimed I was insulting you.

"Now even it they were spending money it wouldn't really alter the US right to do what it thought was in there security interest, but it would lend some creditable is these other countries objections."

'This argument verges on lunacy....'

You are continuing to miss the point.
<snip>

' "subvertively working against sanctions and taking "bribes" in term of taking Saddem sweet deals "

Okay, and we are offering no bribes, yes? 32 billion to turkey?'

This isn't a bribe. For instance if we were giving Turkey 32 billion so they would vote a certain way on the security council; you might have a comparsion. We said we wanted to use Turkey for miltary operations, they say that the Iraq conflict has caused Turkey (which borders Iraq) to suffer economically. We say we can offer aid packages which total about 6 billion and can be leveraged to higher amounts [perhaps as high as this 32 billion]. We were already giving aid to Turkey, the US gives aid to lots of countries- it's in our national interest. [Btw It certainly would have some corruption connected to it, like allowing certain US companies to service various contracts, etc so I do have a "problem" with these type of aid programs- as I do have a "problem" with the US govt spending so much money on the Defense program- and all kinds govt programs. But I live in a democracy and these kind of programs are supported by the voting public, and these aid programs encourage other countries make changes in which we think fits our national interest].
Reducing the danger in the world by doing things which would cause other countries to not engage in programs to create WMD is not something which only benefits the US. French action is undermining this effort. [As was their nuking the Pacific.]

' "Also some people are eager to point out that the US has *some* responsiblity for supporting the current Iraq regime, strangely they then flip around claiming the US has no responsibility towards Iraq. In other words they want to beat us with the responsiblity stick (blame us) then object to the US actually taking responsibility. "

Ahh, I see, so we have the obligation to make war on the dictators we placed in power and kill the people that those dictators are oppressing? I don't hear anyone taking responsibility for supporting this madman. Rumsfeld was even sent by a previous administration to give this man our good tidings. Likewise, I hear nearly NO ONE asking us to take reponsibility for getting this monster into power. (I personally don't think we are entirely responsible for his presence, just complicit at best)'

You are simply demonstrating a lack of understanding of how govts typically operate. Rumsfeld was simply doing his job, the only valid objection you could have, is that he did something illegal- which as far as I know, he didn't. The US govt right now has people in negotiation with N Korea. These people are serving our country. The fact that the leaders in N Korea are evil as humanly possible does not mean the US should not try to reach some common ground between our countries and work towards better relations.