I hate being right

Except that Saddam's treatment of his people wasn't the reason we went to war. You can't retroactively re-justify your decision when your initial justification appears to be looking sickly.I agree that things will probably be better in the long run in Iraq without Saddam in charge, although I could be wrong we don't know how bad things are going to get there after all. But this war wasn't fought for the humanitarian interests of the Iraqi people, it was ostensibly fought to reduce the danger of rogue or terrorist actions against America and its allies and especially to reduce the risk of WMDs getting into the hands of terrorists or being deployed by Iraq. It seems doubtful whether it has done any of these things apart from reducing the risk of Iraq, as a sovereign state, deploying whatever WMDs are or were in the country which there is no evidence they would have done anyway given Saddam's pragmatic attitude to pretty much anything that would keep him in power such as appearing to obey the UN when it suited him.P.S. Don't pick on the French, its like shooting fish in a barrel.

The next year, after Pearl Harbour?

I wasn't suggesting that criticising the French was like shooting fish in a barrel because the French were a particularly easy target for criticism, but because they are so generally prone to the humbuggery attitude that you yourself admit to. Consequently because they are so generally criticised people do not think twice before levelling a variety of fairly unjustified criticisms at them which are frequently accepted at face value and not critically evaluated. I was suggesting that just blaming the French was a cop out diversionary tactic, not that the french were obviously culpable.[This message has been edited by Wounded King, 09-15-2003]