The following is material written by myself on February 12, 2003. Please do not post this anywhere.

Being a student at UF, I am frequently subjected to a very liberal mindset. They say that we shouldn't rush into a war with Iraq, that we should put in more inspectors and give Saddam a second chance to disarm. They say that was are rushing in and not looking into alternatives to war, and if we do go to war, we should only do so with the support of the UN, which means the support of France, Belgium, Germany, Russia, and China, which at present (2/12/03) are opposed to the United States attacking Iraq.

Why haven't we already attacked Iraq? Liberals say we are rushing into this, but I ask, what is taking so long? We aren't rushing into a war, the war is being delayed more and more. Thank God we actually have a president who is willing to pursue this against popular opinion. We have given the UN inspectors three months. There has been so much time spent already discussing the Iraqi situation. Even though this may start to sound cliché, it is up to Saddam to show us that he has disarmed, not for us to find his WMD. He has been playing hide the chemical warhead ever since a few days before we came. Powell presented overwhelming evidence why we should invade, such as trucks being loaded at his weapon manufacturing facilities, denial of U2 flights to assist inspectors, etc. He has had no explanation for this except the endless rhetoric of "America wants our oil", over and over and over. Bin Laden recently asked Iraq to attack the United States. Such action would without a doubt bring on the destruction of the Iraqi government within a few days, but that just shows the linkage between Saddam and Bin Laden. Saddam also gives money to the families of suicide bombers that blow themselves up in Israel. When liberals say Iraq has no ties to terrorism, please, tell me why suicide bombers are not terrorists. Saddam is clearly supporting terrorism. And is not what the whole thing the US is doing called "The War on Terrorism"?

Saddam cannot be trusted. In the 1990's Saddam said that Iraq did not have a biological weapons program, that the program was a fabrication of the CIA and British Intelligence. Soon after a relative of Saddam defected to Jordan and then said that Iraq did have a biological weapons program. (This means Saddam is a liar in addition to being a mass murderer) It wasn't until this happened that Saddam admitted to having a biological weapons program. Saddam's relative was later murdered on his return to Iraq.

For humanitarian reasons, it would be good for us to invade Iraq. Yes, liberals would hate that comment. But it is true. They say there will be loss of American life, that may be true, but I very much hope that there will be no American loses. Such a goal is achievable given the current state of military technology. However, many organizations plead: "Lift the sanctions on Iraq! You're starving their people." However, Saddam is doing more harm to his people than we ever could. First, if he didn't pursue WMD, assist terrorists, and attack other nations, there would not be sanctions. Second, if we invade Iraq, we would set up a just government. With that in place the sanctions will be lifted. Iraqis will not suffer from a severe lack of food or chemical weapons used on them by a madman. It is in the best interests of the Iraqi people that we eliminate their present government.

On France

France used to be one of my favorite nations. They were a good and very interesting country from it's formation to the French Revolution, with the the reign of King Louis XIV being what I consider the most glorious time for France. But after the French Revolution, they seemed to lose a bit of common sense. In both World War I & II, they seemed to of lost the ability to decide when to take decisive action to prevent a major war, even if that means making a preliminary strike. This is especially true in World War II, when they constantly agreed to appease Hitler's demands. France was so incredibly unprepared for his attack on them that they fell in less than two weeks. A first world nation. Two weeks. It seems France was totally oblivious to the idea that Germany may be dangerous. They thought that putting up a Ligne Maginot would protect them from an invasion, we all know that this was of great benefit to the French. Why don't we just put up one around Iraq? I'm sure that will prevent him from launching nukes at Israel. It seems to me that it is the exact same situation in Iraq. France does not realize the threat that Iraq poses to the free peoples of Earth. We had to come in and bail them out in the World Wars, so are we doing with the next war with Iraq. "By the blood of our people are your lands kept free." Even though this quote is from the Lord of the Rings, it seems very much to apply to our relationship with France.

France also has a motive to prevent war with Iraq other than humanitarian and the reasons they have stated. France recently signed a billion dollar trade agreement with Iraq for them to get more oil. If we invade Iraq and set up a government friendly to us, France's oil agreement may be nullified. France says Bush wants to invade because he wants Iraq's oil. I think France wants to prevent an invasion so they can keep the oil to themselves.

Some European nations support a US led war against Iraq such as Britain, Spain, Denmark, Portugal, and Italy. France cannot do anything about this. However, they have made threats to other European nations that want to support the US's position. Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic signed a letter with the aforementioned pro-US countries. However, these eastern European countries are trying to gain admittance into the European Union. French President Jacques Chirac said that this may jeopardize their chances on getting into the EU. "It was not really responsible behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet." said Chirac responding to their "dissent" of France's view on Iraq. These countries are doing what they believe to be right and in their best interests. These countries are much closer to Iraq than France and realize the threat that Saddam poses to peace. Ten more eastern European nations signed similar letters a few days after Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic signed theirs. Yes! It appears that France and Germany are becoming more and more alone in Europe. Romania and Bulgaria are presently negotiating to gain admittance into the EU in 2007. When France learned that they too have issued pro-US letters backing our position on Iraq, Chirac responded with: "Romania and Bulgaria were particularly irresponsible to [sign the letter] when their position is really delicate. If they wanted to diminish their chances of joining Europe they could not have found a better way... Be quiet! Or face even greater poverty". And France accuses the US of bullying smaller nations................

France also has said that they will not protect Turkey during our invasion. This is pretty much due to the fact that they do not want us to invade, they are trying to rub it in. I think it would be just if we protected Turkey instead of France when we invade. On that idea, why don't we declare France unable to protect itself (as seen in WWI and WWII) and we send troops to Paris during the invasion of Iraq? We could say it's for their own protection (See First Rule of Muslim Warfare below). They will despise it. It's only poetic justice. heh heh. On that note, the feelings in France really shouldn't concern us. They are an ally but frankly, irrelevant to the decision whether or not we go to war with Iraq. France can scream all they want how much we shouldn't invade. But what can they do about it? They are not going to attack us, they are not going to stop trade with us. The only thing they will do is be snobby to Americans, like that wasn't already the case.

And While We're making fun of France.......

The Complete Military History of France (the following submitted by David - www.skyofoctober.tk, edited and revised by myself, original author unknown)
* The Gallic Wars - -Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.
* The Hundred Years War -- Tied. Mostly lost, saved at last by female who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman." Eventually gained the land that they lost. England laughs when France executes it's only successful war leader.
* The Italian Wars -- Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.
* The Wars of Religion -- France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.
* The Thirty Years War -- France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Even though France is Catholic, they fight for the Protestants. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring France.
* The War of Devolution -- Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.
* The Dutch War -- Tied .
* War of the Augsburg League / King William's War / French and Indian War -- Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.
* The War of the Spanish Succession -- Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.
* The American Revolution -- In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."
* The French Revolution -- Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.
* The Napoleonic Wars -- Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.
* The Franco-Prussian War -- Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.
* World War I -- Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein."
* War in Indochina -- Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu.
* World War II -- France declares defeat in what may be the shortest time ever in warfare. Hitler sees the Eiffel Tower ahead of schedule, makes Operation Overlord very difficult, but America saves France once again.
* Algerian Rebellion -- Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare: "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Esquimaux.
* War on Terrorism -- France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's. The question for any country silly enough to count on the French should not be "Can we count on the French?", but rather, "How long until France collapses?" Or to quote LTC Kent Curstsinger / Donald Rumsfeld: "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion."