I hate being right

Hey, if you guys are having a competition for bad governments, I'm sorry to have to burst your bubble but New Zealand reigns SUPREME. For example: Our dear Labour Government is so set on following the Kyoto Protocol about reducing greenhouse gases that they've introduced a "fart" tax on farm animals breaking wind (which, they claim, is a greenhouse gas and a danger to the ozone layer.) I jest not. You'll see it all over every New Zealand paper for months back.By the way: Frankly, I'm a supporter of the Iraq war. Even if there were no WMDs at this particular point in time, Saddam is well known as a despicable butcher who'd torture people speaking out against his regime, slaughter Kurds with mustard gas, was raising an army bent on murdering every last Jew in Israel, etc., etc. Despite the world having some knowledge of this, the only nations with any guts to take care of him were the good ol' USA and allies. God bless 'em! Yes, I know war is hell, but sometimes it's the only way. Look at Hitler - Prime Minister Chamberlain of Britain tried to calm him peacefully by giving him whatever he wanted, but force was the only way this guy would get the message. Loss of life is unavoidable in conflict. However, the Iraqis were much worse off under Saddam. They actually wanted the war in order to obtain freedom. One 'human shield' in Iraq got a shock when he found out that the common Iraqi roundly loathed Saddam and wanted war to take him out. With a hard-headed dictator, peace is precisely what they want, because it means they can continue their nefarious little regime without interference.So I say - hooray for the USA!By the way, I've seen lists of who sold weapons to Iraq recently and the largest suppliers are France, Russia and China - which protested the war. It would seem that those countries wanted Iraq's oil. France even sold Iraq a nuclear reactor. I believe they wanted to stop the war because they were afraid conflict might burn the oil wells, thus depriving them of that fuel source.

I realise that Saddam wasn't threatening any other country - yet. But there's also Saddam's population to consider. A human shield in Baghdad was surprised when one Iraqi taxi driver told him he wanted a war - because Saddam was about as bad as Hitler for a leader. Of course some will complain about the war, and rightly so - everything has a dark side to it. But staying under Saddam would have been far worse. The dictator wanted peace protests and human shields. Why? Because as long as everybody stayed safe at home and at peace, no one would disturb his comfy iron grip on Iraq.
If we're going to criticise a government, we should concentrate more on Saddam's Ba'ath party, or perhaps French President Chirac, who sol Iraq weapons and a nuclear reactor for oil.BTW: I am a defender of the Christian faith, and speak out for my Lord Jesus Christ.

Don't get me wrong. I'm merely criticising certain members of the French government. It's so easy to generalise in terms of an entire country - "France is anti-war" or "America is pro-war".
It was rather facetious of President Chirac to have sold many weapons to Iraq, not to mention a nuclear reactor no questions asked, and have used his own security agents to guard that reactor, and then threatened to veto Saddam's removal on what I believe were claimed to have been humanitarian reasons.
That reactor was viewed as such a threat that Israeli and Iranianpersonnel teamed up to try to pass the French security. Imagine that!!

Yasser Arafat isn't such a nice guy either, you know. He claims to the UN that all he wants is peace, for which he gets a Nobel Prize, but then is recorded on his own television preaching death and destruction to every last Israeli man, woman and child. Now he's been caught stealing $1.5 billion (NZ) from the Palestinian budget and putting it in his own account.As to the Iraq war, I merely suggest that the French, Chinese and Russians could have been a little more responsible by at least allowing the US to put forward a plan before threatening to veto it; perhaps they also should have considered helping to take out a tyrant whom they'd helped to support by selling him most of his weapons in past years and, in the case of France, a nuclear reactor no questions asked. All this business was, of course, in exchange for oil. It would seem their anti-war stance was not so much to protect civilians as to make sure their oil supplies didn't get burned.