Thanks, tracer. I appreciate that.

One thing I'd like to point out is that France and Russia have the most to lose over oil. After the Persian Gulf war, Iraqi law states that Iraqi oil can not be sold to the US (and maybe the UK?). So, it all gets sold to Russia and France first. France also just invested several billion into Iraqi's oil industry. So, while I can see how some people think that the US is acting so that it can secure oil supplies (I disagree) I think a stronger point can be made that France and Russia are acting because they want to secure their investments in Iraq. France has also stated that more than anything, they want "a say" in matters. The US governments initial path of taking action w/o asking the UN how they feel about it probably didn't help matters. That's why France is getting so involved in Africa right now - it's the last place where they can get involved and be an influence. And I think most Americans are pissed at France because we feel more American boys died liberating France than French soldiers. Then France wouldn't allow our planes to use French bases or even fly over France for the attacks on Libya (which helped bring the end to official state-sponsored terrorism around the world.)

You have some good points here (except that more than half of meager Iraqi oil exports do end up in USA - I can't find the source, but it was something like CNN a day or two ago). Franch foreign policy often displays symptoms of 'pathetic former power' syndrome (though I am not sure for this particular case). However, see here for another interesting view on France.

As far as Germany goes, I kinda see them like Japan. They have some demons haunting them over their history and because of this will not support any military action for any reason other than to defend an all-out attack.

Again, you are probably right. I think Germany is the least likely place in the world to hatch another militaristic or totalitarian regime. Besides, Germans have figured out early that plundering a country's bauxite, bananas or oil makes poor economic sense; it is much better to sell them VWs, BMWs and Merces (even when it means helping them develop their own economy - rich customer is good customer).

Oh yeah, to get back on topic: WHOEVER DISAGREE'S WITH ME: SHUT YOUR COCK-HOSTLER!!

Sorry, my English is not good enough to stay faithfully on-topic

Seriously, with the UN's lack of action in Bosnia, what good are they? I can see how this Iraq thing isn't flying with them, but trying to stop genecide in Bosnia with sanctions?!?

Sadly, true again. Massacre in Vukovar or bombing of Dubrovnik was also being 'contained' by arms embargo to both attacker and victim. Also remember that Kosovo campaign was conducted without explicit UN support (Russia threatened veto in Security Council). (BTW, I think that was a case of 'too late, so that it hardly matters whether it is too little or too much', so to speak: a few A-10 sorties against tank columns around Vukovar at the very beginning would probably nip the whole Milosevic's cleansed 'Greater Serbia' affair in its bud.)

Which all does not mean that Gulf War II makes any rational sense. As somebody around here said, threatening military presence to make inspections more enforcable, yes, but unprovoked war at any cost?