However, just like the Cincinnati Bengals, no one wants to be on Saddam's team. It's only a matter of how many will be on Bush's team and to his surprise, I'm thinking, some of these countries will be less decisive than Florida during a presidential election.

Some of these nations keep hoping that the U.N. can order Saddam into a peaceful agreement. However this ignore's one big fact: Saddam is a dictator. Dictators by their very definition don't take orders. If Saddam were a fast food worker his greeting would be "Hi, my name is Saddam, welcome to McDonalds, can you take my order?"

Stuart Altman

That's because Saddam has reached the status of "Evil Dictator." Then again have you ever heard of a nice dictator? To reach that status of evil dictator you must have started a war, invaded a country, or killed thousands of people. Saddam has reached the Joseph Stalin level of this club because he has managed to do all three and even killed his own relatives. (Maybe I'll cut him some slack on the killing relatives part, after all, I sometimes want to strangle a few of mine).

The problem with Saddam being an evil dictator is that he may get control of nuclear weapons. Just like with mixing Mike Tyson and women, bad things happen when nuclear weapons and evil dictators get together.

Therefore, this has forced President Bush's hand to act now and he has sought approval from the U.N. Security Council. If he does not get that approval he is willing to act alone.

I have news for President Bush: even if we get approval from the U.N., we still look silly. Take a look at some of the countries on the Security Council.

Mauritius: Who is Mauritius? The people of Mauritius can't even believe they're a country. I imagine this country is fifteen people on an island who filled out the U.N. application form and can't believe they were accepted.

Columbia: The only way Columbia can help us at war is to keep that white stuff away from our soldiers.

Mexico: How are they on the Security Council when they can't even secure their own border?

Norway and Iceland: Maybe they would be good for war if we were fighting on the North Pole.

Syria: Asking Syria to support us in the war against Terrorism is like asking Mussolini to take a moral stand against Hitler.

So, even if we do get the U.N.'s Security Council approval, we will be doing most of this fighting solo. But I should not mock these countries(even though I do) because they have been somewhat supportive of the U.S. initiative against Iraq while some of our "staunchest allies" have not. Here's that list:

France - With their recent history in wars, can you blame them for not wanting to fight? After all, this is the country that decided green camouflage uniforms were ugly and decided to dress they're army in red military uniforms. This got many of their soldiers killed but not before they won many fashion awards.

The funny part is we're practically begging them to join us. What we should be doing is telling then that not only do they not have to join but if they decided to fight for the other side we wouldn't be offended. I think it would increase our odds of winning this war quickly. 

Germany - This is like when you are celebrating an occasion with a friend who's an alcoholic and you ask him to have just one drink. While the friend wants to be respectful he's afraid of going on a bender. That's the same with Germany. Once they attack Iraq, that second drink, I mean country, looks better and better.

Who knows after they help us in Iraq, they may invade Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to take all the oil and declare themselves the Fourth Reich.

(In actuality, Germany doesn't even have an army for offensive purposes. So I can't understand what the problem is. If we win easy they can say they were with us, if we don't do as well they can say they were never there.)

Russia - Russia is hesitant because they're owed billions of dollars from Iraq. But Russian President Putin says it's not about money.

As we all know, anytime anyone says it's not about the money, it's about the money.

To top it off, Russia signed a new contract where Iraq will owe then more billions of dollars. I know Russia is new to capitalism but here's a helpful hint: If someone has not paid back the money previously owed, you don't give them more.

This is why I'm surprised Russia doesn't want to get rid of Saddam more than us because every time they ask for the money he tells them he's broke. Of course he tells them this from one of his eight royal palaces.

Canada - I can't understand what the holdout is. Are they still mad cause the NBA moved the Grizzlies from Vancouver? Here's one good reason for them to be with us: If Saddam has nuclear weapons and fires them at us, they're right next to us, and many of his scud missiles went off target during the Gulf War. 

Even if we don't get the support of these countries we have the support of Poland, Spain, Romania, and Bulgaria.

Sure that may be like going into a gang fight with one of Michael Jackson's dancing street gangs behind you but at least they are with us.

That number will increase the closer we get to winning the war 'cause everyone wants to be on the side of a winner.

I wouldn't even be surprised if the French joined us just to break their losing streak.

The whole point of asking these nations to choose our side and support us is not only to get their military support but to get them to realize that a maniac with potential nuclear weapons is not a U.S. problem but a world problem. Even if these countries don't have troops they can supply air bases, supplies, and information. Italy is with us and I'm sure it won't hurt them to send over a few pizzas for the troops. After all, Napoleon said, "An army marches on its stomach."

But then again, he was French -- so what would he know about war?

Search www.g21.net [ ] Our Link Partners the Web for