>Putting aside how it all came to pass (there are many arguments on many sides on that issue), what do you see as the best path to take as far as the Iraqi citizens go?

I think that letting kurds, and any other sections of the community that want it, have their own governing state would be best. sort of like in the UK where scotland has it own elections and dail and can make it own laws to a certain extent. Major policy issues are still made in London but local power couns for a lot and with the divisions within Iraq i think that although this would not be a perfect solution it would be better than nothing


What will benefit them the most now and in the future?

Self regulation and determination. Controling their own destiny's, having the un write a constitution for them is all very well but only the poeple of iraq can truely know their values and how they want to reflected in society.

Will the answer to that also benefit the neighboring nations?

reassurance that they are not next on gw's hit list, i think that it really is anything to get reelected. stability while iraq is getting on its feet would be good and also a guarentee that western values and ways of life will not be forced upon them.

What about the Islamic world? What about the non-Islamic states?
>
>I'm afraid that if the UN does not participate, the old argument that 'Bush acting unilaterally without the UN invalidates the UN' will arise again. If the UN does not step in and participate in building Iraq, there is no incentive for the U.S. to participate in the UN in the future. It could be the continuation of the downfall of the UN.

this is vey true, but without reform of the un this may be the case anyway. it really is a case of being caught between a rock and a hard place. if UN assists it gives US a free rain to do this again knowing that the UN is always there to pick up the pieces if they go it alone again, if the UN says its your problem fix it the people of iraq will suffer and the US will probably not bother with the UN in future. the problem is that any country can now say that a preemptive strike is to wipe out terrorism without UN backing or proof and there is no one there with enough clout to say no that wrong, certainly the US have for the time being removed them selves from this position.
~M

>
>
>>To be honest i don't know why the french pulled out of Panama but Vietnam was a colony of the french at the time and they got kicked out. as i under stand it american interests were served in beating the commie's back out of vietnam. as we all know this was a disaster of epic proportions and we would hope something that should not be repeated again. France should not have to bail america out of this mess in iraq because the us went in without a un mandate and to this day offer no concessions. this had ceased to be a matter of humanitarian issues for the bushy administration but is now about reelection and if thousands of iraqy civilians have to die to get him reelected i doubt that he will lose sleep over it.
>>
>>>There are two incidents within the last hundred years or so that involved France and the United States. France failed at building the Panama Cannel and the United States took over the project. The second item involves the war fought by France against Vietnam, and financed (85%) by the United States, which the French left and the United States took up.
>>>
>>>The term “Turn about is fair play” seems appropriate. Now it is France’s turn to bail us out! I suggest we leave Iraq and let France take over. Let the French pay for everything – money and bodies included.