‘Naive’? You are a victim of disinformation my friend if you believe that two of the worlds leading powers are so inclined to ‘lie’ in the face of democracy. The biggest threat to world peace is the WMD, otherwise known as despotism. In a country under such rule democracy is a filthy word; perhaps you think that Saddam should be given the right to claim his job back? Would like to live under that kind of regime? I for one would not. There are no easy answers to the problem. I honestly believe that the ‘WMD issue’, although important, is irrelative. If the world had enough guts it would support military action on all dictatorships that would not change direction; thus a magnanimous gesture for the sake of world peace, let alone human rights.

TIME WILL TELL MY FRIEND!

brolly2, Glad to hear your vision is in order. Do you see the mass graves in Iraq? What is your opinion of your friend, Saddam?

brolly3, What I mean is that countries in the Mideast which are friendly to Britain would in the future think twice about depending on you. Many of your friends in Europe will think twice also. They will always worry that the British might cut and run. They would be justified. Henry who?

brolly3, It is nice to talk to someone about a point of history. British and French politicians, as well as the vast majority of the British and French people, were relunctant to draw a line in the sand because they did not want to re-visit the horrors of WW1. Hitler survived four years in the trenches. He was not afraid. Hitler could size fear in people when he met them. and press home the advantage. He never met Churchill The West did cross its' fingers hoping that Hitler and Stalin would fight. That hardly means they loved the nazis. They were just hoping the nazis and the communists would kill each other. Even Stalin saw through this and decided to ally with the nazis instead. There was nothing notable about the left wing. They did whatever Stalin told them to do. When he wanted them to hate Hitler they did. When he signed the non-agression pact with Hitler, they praised Hitler. Nothing to admire. Saddam was never "adopted" or "the creature of" anyone. He came to power through the shadows of the Baath Party like his idol, Stalin. Saddam would have loved being "adopted" by him. If Hitler had been confronted in l936. The nazis would have folded like a paper napkin. 50 million people would have lived.

brolly3, One has only to look at records from Soviet archives to see that Stalin controlled the communist parties, but I didn't mean the Left in general. Did he control every member of every communist party? He didn't control Trotsky. He just had him killed. Were there some in Britain who thought of dictators as good people? Sure. It's a democracy. There are people in Britain today who think of dictators as great guys. Look at MP George Galloway. Old traditions die hard. Do they pre-dominate today? No. Did they pre-dominate then? No Perhaps what you see as support, others considered appeasement of Hitler. There is a difference. 1934? I didn't mean to say Stalin and Hitler got married in l934. They did so in l939. Communist parties then changed their tune about Hitler. You're right about Stalin's motives in l939. Supporting dictators? That's very Pollyana and very single-minded and an example of Imperialismus Americanus Phobius. Leadership of the Free World fell on the US by default after WW2. Britain and France were too exhausted to continue their roles. The US worked with what was in place at the time, apparently very well since our leadership resulted in the winning of the cold war without having to fight WW3. Did it come at a cost? Sure. How much is debatable. What was the alternative? Did everything go according to plan in the cold war? What does? Did the US have to support the enemies of their enemies to win. Sure, who wouldn't? Did the US support some dictators to fight communism? The communists countries WERE dictators. US policy, like Churchill's, was the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Britain as well as the US supported Stalin (The worst mass murderer in history) to fight Hitler. The US supported many forms of government, many times at a heavy cost. The US supported France after the war which meant supporting its' bid to hang onto the empire. The alternative would have been to support the independence movements at the expense of France's friendship. Helping France came at a high cost, no? The US helped many countries abandoned by Great Britain after the war. Greece was left in the lurch and needed US help. No one objected to that. Britain pulled out of Iran, Iraq and Palestine also. Those problems fell on the US. The US did not inherit a perfect world after WW2. Considering the devestation, the unrest, and the danger of communism it has done a remarkable job. Oil interests? Always a laffer. Doesn't anyone else have oil interests? If oil was our only goal, why didn't the US cut a deal with Saddam after the first Gulf War to leave him and his sons to their atrocities in exchange for oil concessions. Who was there to stop us? Saddam offered concessions to others countries to help end sanctions. The US government does not drill for oil. It is private US firms who do. You're confusing your own history with ours. When oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia in the 1930's. King Faud had offers from a British consortium and an American consortium for oil rights. The British offer was higher. He asked his English advisor who should he pick. The advisor (The father of one of the Cambridge Five) told him if he took the English bid, the English would also want to run the country. The Americans just wanted to do business and had no interest in running the country. King Faud took the American offer.

brolly3, Mossadeq? A good topic for debate. He could not have been overthrown without the Iranians. Rhetoric about the US doing it by remote control are overblown.