BUFDRVR wrote:
Both of those outcomes would have had a direct and significant
impact on US
National Security objectives. This is not even close to compareable with French
actions last winter-spring.

First, why the US should prevent other countries for preserving their
interests in the world just to serve their interests ? Seems to you that
UKs & France's interests don't count in this case. I find that quite
surprising. Besides there could have been an interest for the US in
preventing Egypt to take over the canal, as in the UK-French ruled canal
area could have provided some vital space to Israel (which eventually it
took on it's own).

Second : if France really had trade interests with SH, as some people
assert, then why do you blame France for protecting its interests ?
Wouldn't the US have done the same thing ? I think they would have by
any means deemed necessary. Just as happens all the time. Like happened
with the Kyoto pact.

Finally, all of the world is still waiting for the connection between
Iraq & world terrorism to be established. As of this moment, it seems
Iraq didn't pose such a big threat regarding terrorism, as it was
supposed to be. Same goes for WMDs. So what major impact had SH on
national security matters ? The US kept enough troops in the area since
'91 to prevent him from even farting too loud..

--
Guy Wastiaux
aka FauCon PoiLu
visit me @ http://guy.4002.org/
mail me @ faucon.Wastiaux @ laposte.net