>>Actually, it sounds like we pretty much agree on the facts. I agree that Bush was pretty clear he was going to war with Iraq. I just don't think his decision was based on duplicity ( and certainly was not done in as dishonest a fashion as FDR employed to get us into WWII. Sometimes you have to get people to do the right thing even if it is for the wrong reasons. )
>
>Yupp, we do agree. My "quesy stomach" comes from the ease such manouvering is possible even in the US where the press/TV was "de-moralizing the war spirit" in latest longer running campaigns whereas earlier (WWII and before) I think the media were much more in line with the government they were living under. The situation is not so very far from the easy way some islamic states can produce pictures of "enraged masses protesting before embassies" as we like to believe.
>
>
>>The antiwar movement here definitely warned of mass casualties from WMD ( but developed amnesia on the issue after the war - though certainly not the occupation - was a rousing success. It is kind of fun to watch people who are doing the Bush Lied thing try to deny stuff they actually wrote about WMD in Iraq before the war )
>
>Ok - your antiwar movement is able to stomach more illogic than ours showed.
>
>>I think if we would have had more support from Europe the American people may have stopped it before it started. But once it became an issue of "The President wants to knock off Saddam but France and Germany say we can't and the UN won't let us" then it was a done deal. ( though actually I think a poll would have shown most folks would have accepted France as a substitute - pretty women, better food, nice climate, good roads, and it would only take a couple days before they surrendered <g> Personally I was pushing for Canada - they have oil, you could come home on weekends, the dollar goes further than in France and you can still get American TV shows. And given the weather we would have come home before it got cold. )
>
>Yust when we were agreeing so much I have to tell you you missed my guess for best target by 180 degrees.
>

Mexico has oil,
>they are coming to you anyway (*not* to get you, but that is just a semantic issue easily lost in translation)
>skin and hair tone is a better match for the middle east (no cost in retraining those helped by pictures in the manual)
>climate and territory is also similar to middle east - you could sell it as training campaign
>occupation duty could be partially outsourced to tourist industry (Uncle Sam wants you for Cancun!, but hindsight again)

>
>regards
>
>thomas

Funny you should mention the Second Mexican War. That actually had been my first choice, and something I recommended ten years ago, but I thought my latest Modest Proposal might get a rise out of the resident Canadians here on UT ( but I think they fear the jackboot of the Mounties too much and dread to hear them outside at night shouting "Eh"? ) <bg> (Kidding, folks. I love Canada, really like Canadians, and don't want to have to occupy a country that requires language-challenged Americans to abuse prisoners in both English and French. )

The Mexican War was truly our most successful war. We stole California and a good chunk of the Southwest, eventually got Texas ( ok, a mixed blessing but some really good basketball and the Austin music scene comes with it ) and it only took 18 months. And today you could bribe your way in for the price of a day at the beach in Iraq.

And you gotta love a place that elects a guy named Fox ! ( who I also thinks gets point for just being one of the coolest looking presidents on the international scene. )