You Say You Want A Resolution? We’ve already had 18 of them

So please stop saying that a Second Resolution is needed prior to going into Iraq. There was a Second Resolution 16 Resolutions ago.

What has really happened here is the Administration has dropped the PR Football and allowed the left to recover. Even Blair is offering some sort of "Second Resolutions". So let’s look at what he’s thinking:

Allow unrestricted U-2 flight’s over Iraq. (DUH! Already have that by previous agreement. Didn’t last then, what makes you think it will another time?)

And there’s a couple of others that re-hash previous resolutions.

Let’s be real clear about what has happened here. If you read 1441, it says Sadaam has not complied with anything the UN has passed for over a decade and now he will be given a chance, a last chance, to comply. Pretty straight forward and simple.

Now by changing the tone of the resolution the lefties are acting like this is the FIRST time Sadaam has been called onto the carpet.

I somewhat understand Blair’s position seeing as he has to do business with the Euroweenies France and Germany, but why are those Euroweenies taking such a hard line against real actions?

Since the wine drinking, cheese sniffing, surrender monkeys of France get most of their oil, via illegal sales, from Iraq, it’s understandable that they don’t want the flow disturbed. After all, being sent illegally means they get to pay less for it I’m sure.

They also have been providing Iraq parts and equipment that may have some peaceful uses also can be used with weapons. No doubt that they don’t want arms turning up with "Made in France" stamped all over them.

Lastly, they can’t afford to pay their Army let alone deploy it. Well OK they do pay them, but one has to wonder what service they provide.

The Germans aren’t much better.

It cost the Germans more in retirement pay than it does to run the active military.

Like the French they can’t afford to send the military anywhere either, so what good is it?

Bottom line is that for 4 decades we’ve provided them both security at a cost to our taxpayers and allow them to spit in our face.

Personally I vote to keep the French around only for the off chance that we lose a War. They have much more experience in surrendering than we do.

I have no use for the Germans except they make better beer than we do, and we do have a couple of good ones that rival theirs, Sam Adams for example.

Once again, personally, I vote to pick up lock, stock and 144mm barrel, move every single troop, family member and equipment out of Germany. Give them back the land we RENT, at a huge cost to the taxpayer, and station them somewhere where they want us.

Removal of US Troops will have a devastating effect on the German economy. They are already in the hole due to social spending and taxation. Let’s hand them the shovel to fill the hole in and bury the lost socialism ideology.

Of course ANY Country that opposes us, and the UN, should receive the same treatment. "Can’t be with us? Then sorry your foreign aid is going to be used to pay and support our troops that are keeping you safe."

"You lose, but thanks for playing."

While we are at it, let’s tell the U.N. (United Nitwits), that they have six months to pack up and leave NYC.

Go find a Euroweenie Country to build you a nice place like you have here. I’m sure we could sell or rent out the building to a company that would actually do something and create jobs and profit.

And anyone that thinks that is harsh and rash, please tell me a single thing the U.N. has been able to accomplish, either diplomatically or with force, (military force), that hasn’t been mostly supplied by the U.S.

In fact, here’s a new idea. Let’s kick out the U.N. and take over the building and form the Allied Republics Coalition, (A.R.C.). To become a member you have to have, in place, a similar Constitutional Gov’t, with elected officials and a free trade economy.

It’s worth thinking about since former communist ruled countries have more in common with us now than do our former allies.