I have read your comments from france, I just want to say that if you attack Irak you will
increase the risks of the hole world which means billions of people .
You should think about your foreign policy because now France is really less isolated than the US. US used to be the defender of the world stability, but know it seems you just want to serve your own interests and fortunately one small country which is defended by an army of "scared cheese addicted monkeys" opposed to you. But never forget that France has invented "Human rights" ,things that US just want now to apply to their own citizen but not to the rest of the world. Don't forget that this small and old country is composed by the son of the pepole who for the first time in the world wrote that rights is the only way to preserve the world from beeing devasted by the darker sides of the human beeing. I hope that the american people will see the ligth of truth and reject the idea of a war. If you do not, It would have some very graves consequences to the principles that the western world tryed to save during some centuries of struggling. But It is not up to our small country, that's for sure, but just think that France is not anti-american but it just had the courage to say loudly what everybody was thinking silently. And soonly the hole world will be with us, and that is also for sure.

VIVE LA FRANCE!!!!!! (Don't forget Lafayette).

Nicholas,

Thank you for writing to me!

My dispute is not with the people of France, but rather with the government of Mssr. Chirac.

I have no dispute with you personally, but rather, the anti-American stance your government is taking. (Unlike you, I do not blame people for the actions that their governments take.) We *all* agreed and voted together on the UN resolution 1441, which stated Iraq should disarm or face serious consequences. Iraq has not disarmed by the stated time, nor given information about its weapons. So what do we do now?

France, Germany want to do nothing. Perhaps send more inspectors in for a while. Is that the right thing to do? What will that say about the UN if it can be ignored by people like Saddam? He is not disarming, he is not showing the weapons inspectors where his weapons are. So what does it mean to have a U.N. if everyone can get together, vote *unaninmously* on resolution 1441, and ignore it when Saddam does nothing about it? Saddam laughs at the U.N. now -- it has no power at all because it says one thing: "Disarm! Or you will have serious consequences!" But does another: "Too bad! Forget about it..."

Is the U.S. alone on this? You know the majority of European nations have supported millitary action against Saddam Hussein. But certainly the French and Germany governments are entitled to take the stance they take. But why? To what purpose? Its moral principle or just anti-Americanism?

To me, it does not look like moral principle. France has had no issue sending its army into other countries without U.N. approval (Ivory Coast in December, Algeria, etc.). The U.S. and France are no different in this regard. If you were against disarming Saddam, then why vote "Yes!" on resolution 1441? France should have voted "No!" But now it says one thing, and then does another.

And when you work to weaken the U.N., what good does that do? You are making the U.N. into a joke -- Saddam is laughing at you. The UN says: "Disarm!" Saddam says: "No!" And the the Chirac government, and thus the U.N. says: "Well, forget it then."

What is the moral principle? Does France say war is always wrong? They why does France use its own military? Why participate in Kosovo? Yugoslavia? The Gulf War? Why fight in Ivory Coast for a man who kills his own people? Is it strengthening the UN? Then why make the UN contradict itself? I do not see a consistent moral principle here.

Our case is easy to understand: All of us, all of us agreed we would stop the Gulf War if Saddam disarmed. He did not. All of us agreed (1441) he had a final chance to disarm. He has not. So what do we all do?

France and Germany: More inspectors, please U.S. keep your military there so we can tell you how to use it during the inspection process. Please continue to pay for that.
The U.S., England, Spain, Eastern Europe: We should use force to remove those weapons and Saddam.

So we have a difference of opinion. I can see why to use force. I cannot see why to let Saddam stay in power. He has broken his promises. You will let him? What message does that send?

Do you know what made Osama bin Laden brave to attack the US? He attacked because when we were in Somalia, we retreated. He said: "The US is a coward! They are afraid to fight!" And decided he could engage in more terrorism. When people are not afraid of the consequences, they will do terrible things. That is why we have international law.

So I think you are wrong: Terrorists do not attack us all because we are strong. They attack us because the believe we are weak. This is what the evidence seems to say.

Viva liberte!
- Tim

PS: Readers, note that Nicholas was not brave enough to use his actual e-mail address. I think he feared I would write back to him! Oh no!

I'm sorry Nicholas but Tim is right. And tim, you can write me back because Iincluded my email address. You can write back too Nicholas if you want. As much as Americans should not forget Lafayette, I urge the French not to forget the thousands of American lives lost and the the thousands of American families forever broken in order to preserve French freedom in TWO world wars. Freedom and democracy, that i s what we syand for. There are a lot of other misconceptions besides those mentioned by Tim. It is not a war for oil. If the US wanted the oil, we would have, could have, taken over that when we occupied Iraq for a brief period of time shortly after Desert Storm concluded. It is not about world domination either. If that is the only thing the US wants, we don't need French approval to do so. It appears to me that France is seeking to improve its image of having played second fiddle to Germany in european state of affairs, not to mention third fiddle behind the US in world affairs. I would love to have the opportunity to blame France for holding out due to its self-serving purpose and freeing saddam to use his chemical weapons on the world. But it's not worth it if the price is human lives; not just american, not just french, not just german...human lives devoid of nationality.

and two final notes...who sold saddam his nuclear reactors? oh, i'm sorry, it was the French government.
which foreign oil dpendent country buys it's buld of reserves from Iraq? oh, the French? I just hope you guys abide by the official UN sanctions on Iraqi oil. but judging by the way the French government has abided with UN Res 2441, it is highly doubtful.