As always, I enjoy and benefit from you perspective.

Actually I don't blame any European government or citizen for deciding following Bush's lead in 2003 wasn't in their national interest. My object was only to the 'moral' posturing. <s>

Militarily, of course, it didn't matter. But it did require a lot of silliness at the UN (the international silliness forum). Wish our folks had spent less time there and more time figuring out if it was really a good idea to go in *before* we had figured out what to do when we got there. <s>

Probably should have just waited for Merkel and Sarkozy.

>>>>But of course international 'authorization' - like God - is on the side of the most artillery <s>
>>>>
>
>This is much more in line with what I expect of you regarding "lawfulness" <bg>.

Lawfulness in the Code Napoleon certainly <bg>

As far as 'financing' goes, I agree. Should have made it clear up front that this time the war would be funded by Iraq. (might have generated more European support if it was guarenteed up front that on the cessation of hostilities Iraqi oil would be $10 a barrel. <s>)


>>>
>>>In this case it wasn't. France and Germany (most prominently) would not go along with UN authorization unless and until WMDs were found. When they were not found soon enough to suit the Bush administration, the U.S. invaded unilaterally.
>>>
>>>In hindsight -- which of course is always easy -- I think the "go slow" nations were proven wise.
>>
>>The 'go slow' nations were taking the stand that there was more money to be made in corruption of the "Oil for food" program and if push came to shove they always had the US and Israeli military to protect them from the consequences of Saddam really going off the rails.
>
>This fails to take into account many issues in the local situation over here back then, it could be called misdirection - but not really at a high level. The election in 2002 here probably was not high on your priority list, but detatching himself from the Bush war scenario helped a *lot* to get Schröder the few percentages needed to win. Not necessarily directly influencing voters, but also to a high degree by taking the spotlight from other topics where the then and again ruling coalition was weak.
>
>I think the way the war was started and "financed" shows US administration already beleived there was no strong backing for the war in the US public necessary for a tax hike/an elongated conflict. The situation over here is much worse: you start with at least twice as much of the populatian against sending armed soldiers to fight in this area and also a much higher percentage not believing that starting a war might be a wiser course of action.
>
>*Any* german chancelor at that time would have been foolish to take part in the invasion of Iraq as it happened. *Even* a chancelor supportive of planned conflict would needed to "react" to a more clearly visible misconduct of Saddam. One of the avenues availabe would have been "armed inspections" against Saddam's wishes - calling the (in hindsight clear, but as seen over here more probable) bluff by raising the pot. In case of attack on the armed inspection team at least starting motivation (and probably enduring acceptance for longer engagement) would have been at a level not disrupting too many levels over here. Keeping casualties to zilch in the first days works against motivation as body count rises now. Risking 100 people be killed or taken hostage (the real danger in this TV world) would have been the better choice of action to force the issue.
>
>my 20000.00 Eur (anybody doing mind games at chancelor level can pay from tax money<g>)
>
>thomas