We seem caught up in our own little world on the subject when this may constitute the worlds first "Global Civil War" if we attack Iraq with specific official opposition from the UN.

In that vein here is one Australian's view of their role in furthering US policy.

It is long and somewhat nuanced but IMO worth a read, whether or not you agree with him.

I just got back from Ireland, and there is a lot of sentiment against any involvement in Iraq. There didn't seem to be any anti-American feelings, just that there was no justification to go into Iraq.

They were curious as to how the American public actually felt about it, and I could only tell them that most of the people I know are very leery of involvement also.

I'm just back from a couple of weeks in the UK, Spain and Germany. It was interesting that so many Europeans seem so much more engaged in the entire Iraq issue than we Americans are. The majority of the people that brought it up to me were against the US going it alone. In fact, it seemed like Tony Blair was the only Brit supporting possible action.

disarm bush!

The longer this goes on, the more I'm wondering what it is all about. I had strong feelings in support to start with. Now, it seems like son revenging his Daddy's loss.

I like the idea of just letting W. & Saddam duke it out in the ring. That would spare us the expense & the Iraqis the ravages of war. And it would be a fairer fight.

I had posted this article link earlier. It is from the London Times. It summarizes very well what I feel is happening around this whole issue. It would seem that our European allies are not in accord with us. Now France and Germany claim to be in allegiance (who would have ever guessed that) in the UN against allowing a war with Iraq.

Here is an excerpt from the linked article:

"The imminent war was planned years before bin Laden struck, but it was he who made it possible. Without bin Laden, the Bush junta would still be trying to explain such tricky matters as how it came to be elected in the first place; Enron; its shameless favouring of the already-too-rich; its reckless disregard for the world’s poor, the ecology and a raft of unilaterally abrogated international treaties. They might also have to be telling us why they support Israel in its continuing disregard for UN resolutions."

London Times Commentary on US Actions

Well, Germany and France have both come out against Bush's plans to sidestep the U.N. Security council. Both want more and thorough inspections.

An unnamed Russian official, however, has spilled the beans! The war is set to begin in mid-February, it will last a month, and it's for OIL, just as many critics have been saying since the news of the war first broke.
Yahoo! News Report

"The source said the main aim of a strike was not so much to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) as to secure U.S. control over Iraqi oilfields. Russia has a major commercial interest in Iraqi oil and has made clear its eagerness to exploit Iraq's huge reserves once U.N. sanctions are lifted. "

Oh my God, it's all out in the open now! These people are just obscene and they don't give a damn about what anyone thinks. It's always been about their lust for oil!

:mad:

U.S. Promises to Hold Iraqi Oil 'In Trust'

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) promised that a U.S. military occupation would hold Iraq's oilfields "in trust" for the Iraqi people.

In an interview with U.S. newspapers on Tuesday, released by the State Department on Wednesday, Powell said the Bush administration was studying different models for managing the Iraqi oil industry if the United States invades.

"If we are the occupying power, it will be held for the benefit of the Iraqi people and it will be operated for the benefit of the Iraqi people," he said.

"How will we operate it? How best to do that? We are studying different models. But the one thing I can assure you of is that it will be held in trust for the Iraqi people, to benefit the Iraqi people. That is a legal obligation that the occupying power will have," he added.

"Powell said the U.S. military would not want to run Iraq for long after a possible invasion but he declined to speculate how long U.S. troops would stay in the country. "
Yahoo! News Site

We've had experience. Replace "Iraqi" with "Indian". Ken Lay isn't busy right now; perhaps he could run the show.

I heard that it might be necessary for the occupation to last 10 to 15 years. I can't recall the source for that remark, but you can be sure it wasn't the White House.