I'm angered by this news -- why should we seek a French role in post-war Iraq? Why should we consider the economic interests of France when mostly American and British coalition forces are the ones suffering casualties fighting against Saddam? I know this is emotive reasoning, but is it French mothers burdened by the fact their sons and daughters are POWs being humiliated and displayed on Iraqi TV, wondering if their child is hurt, desperately praying their child will make it out of Iraq alive? Are the French contributing to the $74.7 billion bill America is footing?

France has done nothing to warranty any consideration whatsoever, except maybe scorn. I'm only interested in hearing from the countries that have demonstrated any type of supported for America's leadership; we engaged the world with the Saddam issue with a pro-active attitude and France bowed out, which to a point I can respect. But if France is a recognized contributor in a post-Saddam regime and benefits economically in this new democracy, they would essentially be saying that war was indeed the correct action to take in dealing with Saddam. The French: "Well I don't agree with you and I'll veto any resolution you and your allies propose, but since you guys went ahead anyway and did all the dirty work, I think I'd like to 'help out'."

Up until the point where the French announced they would veto any UN resolution proposing war with Iraqi, I respected the French's opposition. In fact, I thought it childish of Americans to boycott French foods (calling french fries "patriot fries"?) because the majority of Americans disagree with the French position on war with Iraqi. However, when the French announced this unequivocal refusal, I thought this stance amounted to the equivalent of a 4-year old throwing a temper-tantrum ("no matter what you say or what you do, I will not agree with you - it's my way or no way").

We are blessed with the freedom to hold our own opinions, whether they are shared by the majority of citizens or not. I value the fact that we can have Americans still protesting the war, though I feel their efforts would serve better by supporting our troops instead. And although I've been been quite conflicted with my views of the war, begrudgeonly I support it; it's the right thing to do. In the past, America has responded to Global threats reactively, typically when we are directly affected by the menace (Pearl Harbor in WWII). Negate any preceived self-interest by the president: the fact that this president is the son of the last President who engaged Iraq in war. We're taking a pre-emptive approach that ultimately will save lives worldwide.