RE: Surveillance, payed by the UN, would have cost 1,000 less than the war, payed mainly by the US. Paying the Inspections would be shared by the UN, and all the countries, even those opposed to the war.

The point was France was not paying for the surveillance or more importantly risking any lives so they had nothing at risk in the status quo. It's not about budgets or dollars spent, but about moral status. France trys to portray itself as being on the high moral ground when in fact it is not. They have over the past 12 years consistently undermined the effectiveness of the sanctions yet howl when the US gets tired of enforcing ineffective sanctions. While there is nothing wrong with France making money by making deals under the oil for food program there is something wrong with gaining those contracts by prostituting your policy on sanctions to the detriment of supposed allies to obtain them.

RE: 1) The US and many countries also have interest in Iraq. US was even importaing more oil from Iraq than France did (of course, the US, being much larger, it's normal. Saddam's trick was to involve many countries in his dealings, the SU, China as well as western countries.

& 2) I hear as argument that the war has nothing to do with oil. In that case, why insist about France's role in the country, which is obvioulsy oil related? It was oil and it is oil all the time, is it or is it not?

I hope I explained my objection to France's involvement better above. I can see how past statements may have been interpreted as France's economic involvement alone was wrong. It is not. It is the price in backstabbing allies that they were willing to pay to obtain and maintain those interests that is wrong.

RE: much of the rest

France's threats to potential EU members to keep their mouths' shut clearly indicates Chirac's hypocrisy in acting like France was simply doing a diplomatic duty of airing other opinions. If they truly interested in an open discussion all sides should be allowed to express their views. It also supports the view that France intends the EU to be Franco/German dominated. The irritation to a potential threat to that dominance supports the belief by many that France seeks international status by opposingt the US. It has done so routinely over the past decade when most other NATO allies supported US actions.

I have no problem with France expressing an honest disagreement with the US. I think Britain has done that a number of times. The whole GW issue is a case in point. I do have a problem when the disagreement is simply a means for self promotion rather than an attempt to deal with a real problem. I can see plenty of room for the Iraqi situation to have followed a different path, but France forced the path we are on by blocking any reasonably effective alternative.

RE: Pre-emptive war is simply wrong, wrong, wrong

See how you feel after a 911 style attack on your home and how that changes what you consider to be preemptive versus reactive. It is also innacurate to portray this as a new war. Saddam has violated the terms of his surrender in GW1 and there has been a continuous state of hostilities since then. I would have agreed with your statement in the past, but no longer becaus it violates my basic definition of appropriate action being to minimize human death and suffering. The basic lack of respect of terrorists for human life and their potential to obtain WMD from the likes of Saddam means choices are no longer so simple in determining what is a just war.

Regards,
Mark