Have you had a look too at this speech from Tony Blair's ex-minister Robin Cook:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859431.stm

explaining opposition to war? Britain is certainly to praise for the high level of her political debate, on either sides of the issue.

Why does it matter what Bush said in his speech vs. what Blair said in his. Are you saying that if Bush had given the same speech as Blair did, it would have swayed your opinion? If so, Bush and Blair are on the same side - did Blairs speech change your position?

I think the point he is trying to make is that your president can't speak very well. ;-)

Some in the US also know how to write a good speech:
http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_newsroom/byrd_news_feb/news_2003_february/news_2003_february_9.html

While Senator Byrd makes some valid points during the first third of his speech, its to bad he falls into partisan finger pointing in the last two thirds.

Senator Byrd make a good speech? Are you serious? Even if I agreed completely with his POV, the man is laughable when he gets up on the Senate floor and grandstands like he does. Although I'm sure he must have been a gas at the KKK meetings he attended back in the 50's.

The mans a shaky, sheet wearing democratic dinosaur. The republicans repudiated their crazy aunt (Trent Lott), I wonder why the democrats seems so reluctant to do the same with theirs (Byrd).

C'mon, the average American couldn't fit all those thoughts into their "9/11, 9/11, 9/11" filled brain, let alone U.S. having news outlets capable of consuming non-sound byte friendly content. Ari: "1.2 billion people support us." Yeah, right.

Cook suggests (http://www.observer.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,919988,00.html) Blair would have been better off aligning the U.K. with the rest of Europe instead of the U.S. and when that failed he resigned, on principle.

Interestingly, Powell still serves at the will of the president.

Vote Blair in 2004!

Seriously, I too have found myself agreeing with Blair more often than not. Maybe it's the accent. Maybe it's that his comments at least appear to take other points of view into consideration. Maybe it's that he's just not Bush, Ashcroft, or Rumsfeld.

For the record, Bush stumbled into this war in the most bumbling fashion seen this side of Gerald Ford, and quite possibly permanently damaged his country's position in the world stage. But, given that we're at war with an oppressive tyrant who has repeatedly defied agreements he has signed and who has shown as little regard for his own countrymen's lives as he has for his opponents', I find it hard to argue that the US or Britain should "stand down".

I just hope for the US's sake that we find some evidence of chemical weapons somewhere in the desert.

Gosh, wouldn't it be embarassing if we went to all this trouble to find out that Saddam had despite his very nature been telling the truth all along?

after reading those comments from the prime minister, i have completely changed my views on the war.

i'd always been completely against the idea that our government should be going to war and asked for the reasons of our engagement. never before have i gotten as complete and concise an answer as blair gave.

makes me want to be british...

This also gave me food for thought. I was most impressed that Blair hit the nail right on the head - why does Iraq's past history call for engagement now? Most liberals aren't against Sadam being gone - the man is dangerous - we just want to know why it's so important now, what with Afghanistan, North Korea, Kyoto, faltering economies, etc. I found Blair answered far more satisfactorily than anyone on this side of the Atlantic has been able to do.

Yet Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft still scare the heck out of me. Bush not as much, if only because he's not at devious and clever as they are...

I think people first need to think about why the war was caused, where it is at now, and what it means to the Iraqui people. Do you REALLY TRULLY know what the iraqi's think? I think not.

Hyatt points to some good reads (if you beleive them). Sure, war is not good, never, but when do you take a stand and apply force to those who break the law? What if our police couldn't enforce our laws (Mexico's). Life would be a caos.
Here in Mexico, the general stand is for PEACE, not war. But what kind of peace are they talking about? I'm sure my coutry's opinion, and yours about "peace" if very different from theirs. What would want if you were opressed. But wait, how would you know? Have you ever been in that situation.

I find it desgusting those who choose WAR or PEACE, black and white, without even taking a peak at who's in the grey or yellow.

""It is extraordinarily ironic that the anti-war protesters are marching to defend a government which stops its people exercising that freedom."""
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/03/23/do2305.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2003/03/23/ixop.html

Reality is not affected by our apprehension of it.

Being in the car rental profession I am searching for car blogs as I like to see what is new in cars. I wanted to see if car blogs actually discuss about cars as I had heard they did. I work at a Halifax car rental company and I enjoy all types of cars. At the car rental company where I work I get to drive the different cars and to me that is so cool. If you enjoy what I enjoy, leave a message here and I will be back and we can talk.
See you later
bye for now
Jimmy K. A Halifax Car Rental Employee