Debate
Free World: The book
Latest Commentary
Suggested Websites
Timothy Garton Ash

 Designed by Thomas Ash

What should we ask of Bush II.2?

When George W Bush was reelected President of the United States on 2 November 2004, much of the rest of the world let out a collective groan. What can we expect of his second administration? As important: what should we demand of it? See TGA's Guardian columns on this subject

Debate - Page 9/12

Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Michel Bastian, France

To Charles Warren:> And why should the nations of Asia, proud and strong, subject themselves to that kind of arrogance ? What gives Europe any right to sit in judgement of the rest of the world ? What do they have to justify to you ?
The answer to that is: nothing, not to me, not to Europe. However, some of them do have to justify things to the world in general. You´re still seeing the ICC as a kind of "european club". It´s not. It´s a UN "club" if you want to see it that way. However, this discussion is pointless since you obviously don´t want to come off your anti-european prejudices. So never mind.
> And if you think India and Japan are joining, you are living in a dream world.
Depends. If the US joined up, Japan and India would join quickly enough as well. As long as the US uses its muscle to sabotage the ICC (for purely nationalist reasons) I agree with you: Japan and India will probably take a while to join up. But that´s not due to any "european supremacy", it´s due to direct american strong-arming.
> China ? Forget it.
Like I said, China is a different case. The chinese leadership has too much to loose from joining up, so they won´t.

> European "multilateralism" is when five parasites go to dinner with a rich man and insist that the menu and who picks up the check be decided by democratic vote. Of course the parasites will democratically order the most expensive items on the menu and vote that the rich man foot the bill.
In any alliance I ever heard of the strongest power(s) decided the strategy. I am not aware of Mexico and Portugal having an equal say with FDR and Churchill over the timing of a Second Front, although that is the way European "multilateralism" would work in practice. In fact it was FDR who flatly told Churchill that they were landing in France in 1944, no more Aegean sideshows. It's not democratic, but without the leadership of the strongest power nothing gets done. We saw how European "multilateralism" worked in practice when the Bosnia war dragged on for eight years because no European nation would take the responsibility and exercise the leadership to form and execute a policy to impose order on the warring parties. The major powers of Europe were content to drift along with a "peacekeeper" policy that kept no peace.
Weeell, that view of the balkan wars is a little simplistic, but you do have a point there. The europeans have a problem in that they don´t have an efficient common defence and foreign policy, which severely limits our options. I agree we need to work on that. We would be thankful, though, if the US could stop disrupting the drive to a better european defence integration with their "divide and rule" tactics in NATO. They need to learn that we have to work together, and that means the europeans will get a say in NATO (which in turn means the americans won´t be big boss anymore as soon as the europeans manage to coordinate their efforts in the military sector). If the european member states build up a common military, they´ll work on an equal footing with the americans. And I suspect that´s what´s frightening the Bush administration.

> "Multilaterlism" killed the people of Sbrenica. The Bosnian Serbs correctly deduced the spinelessness of Europe and called it's "safe area" bluff.
So a single failure (Srebrenica, which was a UN mess, not a EU one, incidentally) serves as a justification for the US to dictate their policies to everybody else? Sound tactics: sabotage the UN wherever you can, then point your finger at it, screaming "see, it doesn´t work" and impose your own rule. Clever, I must admit.

> When the Twin Towers fell, we knew that we would never allow Europe to tie our hands with any "multilateralism" nonsense. In an alliance your say in the determination of strategy is proportional to your strength. And that is as it should be, for there can be no power without a willingness to shoulder the responsibilities. Since Western Europe aside from Britain is militarily thoroughly irresponsible, what entitles you to any say in our decisions ? Why should Europe have any say whatsoever about the circumstances under which American troops will fight and die ? Europe has allowed the strength disparity between it and America to become so yawning that all most European soldiers are fit for is to guard our airbases.
Ah, I presume you have worked in the Pentagon or in NATO HQ so you know what you´re talking about? No? Figures. If Europe only coordinated its efforts in the military sector better (and I´m not even talking about a unified european army here), they would be on an even footing with US military assets. At the moment it´s not a question of quality, it´s a question of quantity. The US spend much more on defence, and they don´t have to coordinate their spending with anybody. In Europe, you have 25 different states with 25 different defence budgets and 25 different armies. These armies have to be integrated and defence spending in Europe has to increase while defence projects have to be coordinated between the member states. There are already several examples of good european partnerships in defence projects. If the US stopped counteracting them, maybe it wouldn´t take ages for the EU militaries to integrate.
> America has not taken power from Europe. Europe freely surrendered it because you wanted 35 hour work weeks, eight weeks of vacation, and cradle to grave social welfare.
Please, Charles, don´t repeat this nonsense all the time. I´m getting tired of having to write the same responses over and over again.
> Parasites cannot choose the menu and there is no moral imperative whatsoever to allow America to be leeched off of by Europe.
America is being leeched off of by Europe? Ok, fair enough, we´ll stop leeching. We´ll just fold all our assets in the US and kick all US interests in Europe out, which will lead to an instant crash of the american economy. So much for european "leeching".

> And how is that possible when France has decided out of balance of power considerations to arm China ?
France hasn´t decided anything, the EU has (including Britain, incidentally). And they haven´t decided to "arm" China, they MIGHT decide to lift the arms embargo (which is far from certain yet). Also, this has nothing to do with "balance of power" considerations. It has everything to do with economics. The europeans want to lift the embargo so they can sell high tech to the chinese, and that would not mainly mean military high tech. Indeed, the embargo prevents a lot of technological items being sold to China which aren´t necessarily military in nature, so the risk isn´t really that China would get "armed" by the EU. The chinese are quite capable to arm themselves, believe me. The reason for the proposed lifting of the embargo is mainly civilian (not military) economics.
That said, I agree with you it doesn´t make lifting the embargo the right thing to do. I personally disagree with the lifting of the embargo because I think it is not justifiable from an ethical and political point of view. I don´t think the military risk is quite as big as the US make it out to be, but I think lifting the embargo now would send the completely wrong political signal to Beijing concerning such things as human rights abuses and Taiwan. Essentially, it would tell the chinese leadership "hey, we don´t like your politics, but we´re willing to turn a blind eye if you buy stuff from us". That is indeed wrong in my book. So lo and behold, I actually support the american position on that one, and I think congress is right in putting pressure on the EU to prevent the lifting of the embargo.
> How is that possible when France has decided that anti-americanism will be the unifying ideology (since the fall of communism there needs to be a new ideology of envy) to turn the EU into the Third French Empire ?
France hasn´t "decided" or even promoted anti-americanism. The US did that all by themselves. Before the Iraq war statistics indicated that 76% of frenchmen viewed America very favourably. The same kind of figures applied to Germany, Italy, Spain and Britain. Now, after the Iraq war and systematic and repeated abuse leveled at Europeans in general and France and Germany in particular by the american administration and media, things changed. Why are you surprised by that?
> In the Security Council vote two years ago, France did not just disagree with us. It campaigned to rally the world against us, precisely as the Soviet Union would have. With the Soviet Union it was never personal. It was just power rivalry. Business. But with France it clearly is personal because it is born of malice and entitlement-based envy, like an impoverished aristocratic family hatefully eyeing the nouveau riche throwing around money. France saw an opportunity to attack America and simply couldn't help itself. Chirac was so caught up in the joy of the moment that he did not realize the permanent damage he was doing to America's attitude towards France.
The US brought it upon themselves. They started an illegal and immoral war. France didn´t "campaign" against the US, incidentally. It didn´t have to. Russia and China agreed. The only member of the security council that supported the US in the Iraq war was Britain. Plus France had backing from Germany (which isn´t in the security council, but wields quite a lot of influence in the general assembly). As for your "envy" theory: why should France envy the US? Because of 9/11? Because of billions of dollars blown on and thousands of people killed in Iraq? Because the US are now the official target of choice of every suicide-bombing idiot in the world? Because the US are about as popular as a kick in the teeth in most parts of the world nowadays? Believe you me, we´re quite satisfied with our role in global politics without all that, thank you very much.
> And since when did DeGaulle ever ask for UN permission before toppling African government insufficiently deferrential to France ?
De Gaulle toppled an african government? That´s news to me. Which african government did he topple? I suppose you mean that France still had what amounted to colonies in Africa in the late fifties. That´s true, but de Gaulle didn´t have to topple any governments there. These colonies were effectively under french rule. There weren´t any national governments to topple. And for most of them, De Gaulle was actually the one to initiate the reforms necessary for decolonization and, ultimately, independence from France. You see, contrary to any myths you might have heard, some of the french colonies even wanted to stay french for various reasons (which was the case of Chad, for example). Only in the early sixties were they actually willing to form an independent state. De Gaulle was quite happy with that, because since the end of the war he had advocated a commonwealth of nations similar to the british commonwealth. But hey, never mind facts, all frenchmen are treacherous bastards, everybody knows that.

Charles, Warren, USA

Phil Karasick wrote...
"Instead, what the Japanese sought was a "negotiated settlement" that would have allowed them to "save face", that would have allowed them to keep some of their colonies and territorial conquests, and which have allowed them to claim to their own people that they "didn't really lose the war". This was (and still is) completely, totally, utterly unacceptable."
What the Japanese wanted was a 1918 peace where militarism could wash its hands of the consequences of its policies, set up a civilian government to do the dirty work of surrender, and survive intact on "backstab" myths. The Allies were quite clear in both Europe and Asia that this wasn't just a war to beat the Axis armies. It was a war to discredit and destroy the militarist far right as a political force.
Michel Bastian ludicrously wrote...
"> Are you seriously suggesting that the Kurds and Shi'ites who were murdered in the bombings would still somehow be alive if America hadn't intervened, in a country where Saddam and his Sunni Muslim / Tikrit tribal friends have been slaughtering Shi'ites and Kurds for DECADES?
Errm, lemme think.... YES! Indeed you got the point, Phil, congratulations. The Kurds, Shi´ites and other iraqi victims of terrorist acts would still be alive because the insurgency was directly caused by the war."
The Iraqi "insurgency" is not a patriotic resistance to invasion. It is an armed counterrevolution being waged against the Kurds and Shiites by the secret police and terror apparatus of the former Sunni Baathist state. The "insurgency" is terror out of power trying to get back in power. Had there been no invasion they would be happily filling mass graves and Uday's people shredder would be grinding away. Do you have the brains to comprehend that terror was the essence of your old ally Baathist Iraq ? Instead of carbombs there would be the usual disappearances, torture, and mass executions.

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> Ray Vickery (Anti-American Socialist in Soviet Canuckistan) ....
Wow, Phil, all you neo-con americans definitely have a knack for alienating your former friends and allies. "Anti-American socialist in Soviet Canuckistan", is it? Well, if the Canadians weren´t anti-american before, they sure will be now, and I can´t say I blame them. Heck, Bush even managed to make the ITALIANS angry at the US, for chrissakes! If he keeps going he´ll probably even manage to turn Tony Blair against the US (god knows he´s already not very popular with the bigger part of the british population). Perhaps I should explain the word "ally" to you: allies are people that you a. do not insult b. do not boss around and c. most definitely do NOT shoot! Better keep your insults and your bullets for your enemies, because you´re fast running out of said allies.
> Phil wrote: <...> I note that Ray Vickery is having difficulty distinguishing between the accidental and unfortunate killings of people in cross-fire (collateral damage)
Nice word, a bit like "friendly fire". Tell that to the families of the "collateral damage".
> and the deliberate and systematic mass killings of people by Saddam Hussein's regime. The former is an Accident. (That's why it's called an "Accident", and not an "On Purpose").
That´s why british troops don´t like to operate in the vicinity of US troops in Iraq anymore. Too many "accidents".
> The latter is a Crime. When the Former occurs (accidental death, that is), we duly express our regrets, and then everyone duly forgets about it and goes on with their lives.
Nope, YOU forget about it. The families of the victims will definitely not forget. And don´t be surprised if they don´t exactly worship americans in the future.
> When the Latter occurs (Murder, that is), we arrest the guilty party, put them on trial, present evidence, find them guilty if the evidence proves such, and imprison or execute the guilty party. Perhaps Mr. Vickery needs to take a first-year law course so that he can be educated to understand the difference between Accidental Death, and Murder. Death by accident, while regrettable, does not equate to and is not at all the same as Conscious and Deliberate Murder.
Well, no, Phil, Ray doesn´t need law courses, you do. When somebody runs over another person in a car, albeit by accident, he also gets booked and put in prison if he´s criminally negligent. And " criminal negligence" could well be the motto for most every aspect of the Iraq war.
> If it is not yet sufficiently clear that the US comes off as the better ruler, perhaps Mr. Vickery would like to explain why roughly 8 million Iraqis stepped forward and defied insurgent threats to vote in the first democratic elections (elections held, incidentally, under the auspices of American forces providing security) that Iraq has had in decades.
Perhaps you´d like to explain what difference the elections will make to the Sunnis, large parts of the Kurds and all the rest of the population that don´t like democracy and don´t want democracy for reasons that will be forever beyond your grasp since you don´t even make the slightest effort to understand their culture and mentality. When are you going to wake up, Phil: an election does not a democracy make, especially not if large parts of the population don´t want it, don´t like it and are inclined to throw a grenade at the next american GI that comes preaching "democracy" to them at gunpoint.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: " Please put your memory in "unselective" mode for once and remember we were talking about the Lancet study, not about the US being directly responsible for terrorist attacks."
Well, Michel, that's the problem. You see, "you" may be willing to stick to talking about the fatally flawed and biased Lancet study. But the Lancet study was essentially talking about terrorist attacks by Iraqi Sunni Muslim followers of Saddam Hussein being committed against Iraqi Kurds and Iraqi Shia Muslims, and lumping the death toll from those attacks (which weren't caused by "the war" at all) into their already-massively-flawed projected death toll. And that's a preposterous methodology. That's one reason why the study was so flawed.
Michel Bastian wrote: "Like I said time and again: the point is it´s a statistic taking into account all the effects of the war. Insurgency is one of these effects, and consequently, victims of terrorist attacks have been taken into account." No, Michel. NO. That's wrong and false. Let's put the blame where it actually belongs for a change, shall we? Insurgency is not "one of these effects" of the war. Insurgency was not "caused by the war". Insurgency is caused by Insurgents. Once the insurgents are killed, imprisoned or forced to surrender, that will be the end of the insurgency, and then life in Iraq can improve to its full potential, for everyone there.

I wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that the Kurds and Shi'ites who were murdered in the bombings would still somehow be alive if America hadn't intervened, in a country where Saddam and his Sunni Muslim / Tikrit tribal friends have been slaughtering Shi'ites and Kurds for DECADES?
Michel Bastian responded with: "Errm, lemme think.... YES! Indeed you got the point, Phil, congratulations. The Kurds, Shi´ites and other iraqi victims of terrorist acts would still be alive because the insurgency was directly caused by the war.
Well, to cut a long story short, it doesn´t really matter if 100,000 or 18,000 Iraqis were killed in the war. The point is they wouldn´t have been killed without the US military intervention (which was, do I have to say it again, illegal, unnecessary and generally wrong)."
Errm, lemme think.... NO!!! NO, Michel!! NO!!! I don't get any "point" from you at all.What I "get" from you is that your argument is utterly ridiculous in the extreme. It's rubbish, absolute outlandish rubbish. It's FantasyLand. It's an example of what i still continue to be a typical non-American and anti-American viewpoint, that of taking every unfortunate event that happens anywhere and practically twisting oneself into silly putty with moral gyrations in an attempt to pin "blame" for all those unfortunate events on America.
I realize that Europeans typically have a mind block against ever putting responsibility on Individuals for their actions, Michel, but please, for God's sake, try doing it just once for a change. To begin with, the insurgency was not "inevitable", and it was not and is not "directly caused by the war". The insurgency is caused by Insurgents. The obvious solution thus is not to repeal this Just and Noble war which has been the cause of so much Liberation for so many hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq who were so horrendously oppressed by Saddam Hussein. The obvious solution is to defeat the insurgency once and for all, and that is what the Iraqi government is increasingly doing.
Allow me to use a hypothetical but very realistic example, Michel, to illustrate to you the utter absurdity of your position. Let's say that we're back in the 1930s. The Nazi regime has already been slaughtering Jews, trade unionists, dissidents and others. The Holocaust is already well underway. Let's say that the U.S. invades Nazi Germany without a formal declaration of war and without a direct threat being posed to the U.S. by Germany. The U.S. forcibly installs a democratic government in Germany, against the wishes of the minority Nazis who resent being kicked out of power. Angered and disenfranchised, the Nazi supporters launch murderous terror attacks against Jews and kill hundreds.
Now, Michel, let's assume that (once again) you attempt to lay the blame for those deaths at America's door, claiming that those Jews, dissidents and others would "still be alive" if the U.S. had not launched an invasion and angered those members of the defeated party.
Let's look at the cold hard facts of the situation, Michel. The now-deposed Nazi (Saddamite Ba'athist) regime has a long, bloody and proven history of carrying out bloody, genocidal attacks against the Jews (Kurds, Shi'ites). Tens of thousands of Jews (Kurds, Shi'ites) have already been killed in the past in infamous and world-known attacks by the now-deposed regime.
Based on this track record, what can we conclude about the now-deposed regime? What conclusions can we draw? What actions or course of events can we reasonably predict with a high degree of probability?
Could we actually, seriously, with a straight face, claim as a "fact" or conclude that those Jews (Kurds, Shi'ites) who are now being killed in terror attacks by resentful members of the deposed Nazi (Saddamite) regime, would now still be alive if we had not invaded and liberated Germany (Iraq)? Not a chance. Absolutely not. Not in this lifetime, or any other lifetime. And why not? Because all the available evidence, all of the past experiences that the Jews (Kurds, Shi'ites) have suffered at the hands of the repressive and now-deposed regime, say otherwise. Because there is a richly brutal track record and history of persecution of the Jews (Kurds, Shi'ites) by the deposed regime and its now-resentful supporters.
Now, on the other hand, could we conclude with a very high degree of probability, if not outright certainty, that had we not invaded and liberated Germany (Iraq), those oppressed Jews (Kurds, Shi'ites) who are now being killed in terror attacks by resentful members of the deposed Nazi (Saddamite) regime, would now be dead if we had not invaded and liberated Germany (Iraq)? YES. ABSOLUTELY.
And how can we draw this inference, this conclusion? We can make this assumption with a very high degree of certainty because that is what the existing track record of evidence of the now-deposed regime's behavior indicates is what would have happened. We can make this conclusion because, as the old saying goes, "the leopard doesn't change his spots and become a lion". There is no evidence that the now-deposed regime or its supporters would have suddenly "gotten religion" and suddenly started respecting the lives of its Jews (Kurds, Shi'ites) if only we had simply left them alone and in power. There is no evidence to suggest that a criminally amoral and murderous regime such as Nazi Germany (Saddamite Iraq) would suddenly transform itself into a government that is respectful of human rights. And in fact, to even believe that such a thing would happen, strikes me as patently ludicrous. It's nonsensical. Remember -- the leopard doesn't change his spots. He is what he is. He cannot and will not change.
On the other hand, there is an ample and rich vein of evidence proving that the Nazi (Saddamite) regime has a history of committing atrocities against Jews (Kurds, Shi'ites); that it sees nothing wrong with committing such atrocities; that it does not repent, regret or atone for having committed such atrocities in the past; and that it therefore has every likelihood of repeating such behavior in the future if it is permitted by the outside world to do so. The track record speaks for itself. Again, Remember -- the leopard doesn't change his spots. He is what he is. He cannot and will not change.
And there is also a glaring error of omission which you are making within your faulty conclusion, namely: What is the opportunity-cost to the Jews (Kurds,Shi'ites) of our NOT taking action to overthrow the Nazi (Saddamite) regime? How many Jews (Kurds, Shi'ites) will die as a direct or indirect result of our NOT overthrowing a murderous regime that already has a track record of carrying out genocide? Well, in the case of the Jews who perished in the Shoah, that figure is already infamous and well-known: Six million.
And how many Kurds and Shi'ites are now still thankfully alive, who would otherwise have been slaughtered by the Saddamite regime? Well, what is the population of these two groups? The population of Iraq overall is approximately 27 million. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, 53% of the Iraqi population are Shiite Muslim and 42% are Sunni Muslim, both Arab and Kurd. 15-20% of the Iraqi population are Kurds, according to the CIA World Factbook. Therefore, by adding the Shia and Kurdish percentages of Iraq's population together, we can see that between 68% and 73% of Iraq's population (i.e. between 18,360,000 persons and 19,710,000 persons) out of Iraq's overall population, belong to population groups that were previously at severe risk of being subjected to genocide at the hands of the Saddamite regime, which blatantly favored (1) the minority Sunni Arab group and (2) the even tinier and miniscule minority Tikrit tribe to which Saddam belonged.
And while suicide/homicide bombings have killed hundreds of Iraqis, that is but a tiny fraction of the thousands of Kurds and Shi'ites who were slaughtered by the Saddamites, back when the now-deposed regime still had the heavy weapons (main battle tanks, attack helicopters, artillery, chemical weapons, etc.) and military capability to inflict staggering numbers of casualties.
The results are starkly clear -- hundreds have died, but hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Iraqis are now free from the risk of genocide at the hands of the Saddamites. Those people are now Free, Alive and (relatively) Safe. And they owe their condition to our Liberation of their homeland. Ours is truly a Just and Noble Cause.

Michel Bastian wrote: "Much better to just put the terrorist bastards in prison or shoot them right away, eh Phil?"
Sounds good to me, Michel. Actually, what really sounds good to me would be to put them in prison, interrogate them, extract as much useful information from them as we can, and THEN shoot them. No point in letting them become a financial burden on the American taxpayers for the rest of the terrorists' natural lives, as has already occurred in the case of the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center the first time around, back in 1993. Those scum are already laughing at the American people. They aren't the least bit afraid of or deterred by prison. (One of them already stabbed an elderly American prison guard through the eye with a homemade knife, rendering him blind and permanently brain-damaged). They aren't afraid of death. And now they can look forward to decades of being kept alive and confortable, courtesy of the American taxpayers.
Michel Bastian wrote: "1500 years worth of blood and suffering down the drain."
It wasn't "our" blood or "our" suffering, Michel. The people who spilled our blood, who inflicted suffering on America, are the terrorists who gleefully cheated justice by leaping into Death on 9/11 in hijacked airliners.Michel Bastian wrote: "Interesting you mention relaxing rules of evidence. Weren´t you the one saying that the ICC couldn´t be trusted because the rules of evidence weren´t up to american standards? So you´re proposing to relax the rules if the defendant is supposed to be guilty by your book (because hey, he´s a terrorist, everybody can see that: he looks like a muslim and he wears a beard), and tightening them if the defendant is american (and thus can´t be guilty of anything anyway), aren´t you, Phil? Interesting judicial procedure you´re proposing there. Reminds me of soviet show trials."
False (again). Members of the US military are already subject to different and less lenient rules of evidence in military trials than are civilians. If such trials aregood enough for the US military's servicemen, they ought to be good enough for the terrorists.
Michel Bastian wrote: "You don´t seem know a lot about legal interrogation techniques, do you?". You don't seem to know a lot about Al-Qaida's legendary abilities toresist standard interrogation techniques, do you? When Pakistani security personnel interrogated captured Al-Qaeda, they were so amazed at the Al-Qaeda members' fierce devotion to their cause and their ability to reist questioning, they dubbed the Al-Qaeda "a new, previously undiscovered breed of Human".
Michel Bastian wrote: "It´s not ethical to torture people and it doesn´t produce results (which is why al Quaida hasn´t been dismantled yet)". It does produce results -- in the case of Al-Qaeda, very good results. If you had bothered to read the reference to the article I'd posted, you would have seen that the interrogators at Git'mo got a large amount of very useful information out of the Al-Qaeda there, but that their ability to continue to do so is now seriously hampered and impaired by legal restrictions on their methods of interrogation. Didn't bother to read it, did you? I didn't think so.
Welcome back to the middle ages. 1500 year´s worth of blood and suffering down the drain.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

text: Michel Bastian wrote: "Wrong Phil. Deterioration of infrastructure means bombing of power plants, of water purification plants, of hospitals, of schools, driving over roads with military equipment, thereby ruining them, destruction of bridges etc. etc. Saddam didn´t do that, the US military did that during the war".
Wrong, Michel. If Saddam hadn't ordered the unprovoked invasion of Kuwait, those infrastructure damages wouldn't have occurred in the first place. The ruining of roads by driving over them with military equipment was done by Saddam's forces -Twice. (The 1st time was when they headed "out of" Iraq to invade Kuwait, and the 2nd time was when they headed pell-mell back "into" Iraq after being driven out of Kuwait.
All of those infrastructure problems could easily have been fixed by the person whose reckless and brutal actions had caused them to be damaged in the first place -- Saddam Hussein. Saddam's regime sold billions of dollars worth of oil in the twelve years between 1991 (when Gulf War I ended) and 2003 (when he was deposed in Gulf War II). Those billions of dollars of oil revenues could easily have been used by Saddam's regime to repair damage to Iraq's infrastructure.
Of course, though, that would have required Saddam to actually "give a d@mn" about the plight of his own countrymen. (He didn't). It also would have required him to actually spend Iraq's oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people. And, of course, that was absolutely unacceptable to ol' Saddam. After all, if he'd actually spent Iraq's oil revenues responsibly, for the benefit of the Iraqi people (like you'd expect a "leader" to do) -- why, then, he wouldn't have had as much money to squander on those fifty-seven or so multi-million dollar palaces, now would he?
Michel Bastian wrote: "No, the insurgents aren´t just Saddamites, they´re mostly radical muslims, many of them foreigners from Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, and quite a few Al Quaida members". Wrong, Michel. That's what the US military originally believed. But the fact is that most of the insurgents (terrorists) are home-grown Iraqis -- almost exclusively Sunni Muslims, who were and are supporters of Saddam. There's a few foreign Islamic fanatics thrown into the mix. But they're not at all a "majority".

Michel Bastian wrote: "Well, to cut a long story short, it doesn´t really matter if 100.000 or 18.000 Iraqis were killed in the war. The point is they wouldn´t have been killed without the US military intervention (which was, do I have to say it again, illegal, unnecessary and generally wrong)".
Wrong again, Michel. The point is, they most assuredly would have been killed without the US military intervention. In fact Saddam's track record in having previously ordered his commanders to slaughter Kurds and Shi'ites in the 1980s and 1990s (both before AND after the 1990-1991 Gulf War) virtually guarantees that Saddam would have resumed murdering Kurds and Shi'ites as sopon as the opportunity presented itself. The leopard doesn't change his spots, Michel. Ever.
Michel Bastian wrote: "Eh? And what would the relationship between elections in Saudi Arabia and Iraq be?". Oh come on, Michel, surely you're not that obtuse. The blossoming of democracy in Iraq is creating ripple effects throughout the entire Middle East, and you know it. The Palestinians are demanding genuine democratic reforms and the ousting of crooked corrupt sleazy Arafat holdovers, and they're getting what they want. The Lebanese mobilized public protests and demonstrations that brought down a pro-Syrian puppet government. The Saudis organized and allowed the first democratic elections in their entire History --limited, municipal-level elections, but elections nonetheless. You can claim it's "all a coincidence of timing", that Bush and democracy in Iraq "have nothing to do with it", you can claim "the planets were all aligned" for all I care. It won't change the facts. Bush and the neo-cons got it right. Democracy is contagious. And the so-called "Arab Street" wants Democracy.
Michel Bastian wrote: "The problem is that a lot of the Saudi population is still traditionalist Muslim, so they tend to sympathize with Al Quaida rather than with their own government which they see as "pro western". After all Bin Laden himself is a Saudi. That should tell you something about Saudi Arabia". Not any longer, Michel. The Saudis are indeed very strict and conservative Wahhabiist Muslims. But they don't sympathize quite so much anymore with a Saudi Terrorist whose truck-bombs blew away Saudi civilians in their own country. That was a real eye-opener. And it did immense damage to Al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia.

Michel Bastian wrote: "Many groups (not just the Sunni Muslims) will not accept the elections. Actually, they won´t accept democracy as a whole (which is what the US have failed to understand since before the war)". That's just Too Darn Bad For Them, Michel. They'll have to accept democracy, whether they like it or not. They'll be forced to accept it. They won't have any choice. And that won't be America's doing, Michel. It's the Iraqi people themselves who have spoken. In case you were asleep and didn't see the news, about 8 million Iraqis defied terrorist threats and went to the polls to elect a government of their own choosing. The Terrorists aren't just opposing the U.S. military now, they're opposing the will of the Iraqi people and a sovereign, legitimized government of the Iraqi peoples' choosing. And the Terrorists and insurgents will Yield. If they don't Yield, they'll be steamrolled. They mistakenly thought they could derail the elections, that they could "discredit" the elections by refusing to participate, that the electoral process "couldn't happen" without "their" participation. They got the shock of their lives when the Iraqi people ignored them and elected their own Government without the Terrorists' "consent". And now the insurgents and Terrorists are between a rock and a hard place. They can join the political process and have a seat at the negotiating table. Or they can sit on the sidelines, continue to be shut out of power and the political process, and watch while the political process moves on and rolls over them.

Michel Bastian wrote: "Sure, the whole thing has nothing to do with religion. And Iraq´s a democracy now. And Elvis lives."
That's exactly right, Michel. That's correct. You're finally "getting it", at long last. The whole thing indeed has nothing to do with religion. And Iraq is indeed a democracy. It might be an embryonic democracy, but it's a Democracy nevertheless.
Michel Bastian wrote: "So there is no torture in Guantanamo? It´s all just a scam by Al Quaida?". Yup, that's exactly right, Michel. NOW you've got it. But by all means, don't take my word for it. Read what the Brits have to say about it.
REPORT: BRITISH AGENTS SAW LITTLE ABUSE. see http://seattlepi.nwsource.com

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

I previously wrote: False, again. The strengthening of the de-facto alliance between Iran and Syria is merely a continuation of an alliance that has been in place for decades.
Michel Bastian responded: "Nope, Phil. Syria is a mostly a secular regime, while Iran, as we all know, is run by a religious regime. Before the war, Syria and Iran didn´t have a lot in common. Now they have."
False, again. Michel, I really suggest that you take some time to do some research. I really think it would bolster your position.
Syria and Iran have had a great deal of common interests, for a very, very long time. Here is evidence of that fact:
"Collusion between these two terror states is nothing new. Iran and Syria have had a close cooperative relationship dating back more than twenty years with the advent of Iranian rule by fanatical cleric Ayatollah Khomeini and his establishment of the Hezbollah terror organization. Sure, Hezbollah has political and social service components operating in Syria, which are always underscored by European appeasers and Leftists. But Hezbollah clearly engages in vile terror activities as well. As scholar Michael Ledeen indicated in his book "The War Against the Terror Masters "Khomeini created one of the most dangerous international terrorist groups, Hezbollah, and Assad (Hafez al-Assad of Syria) supported it with many of the same favors". Both Iran and Syria continue to back Hezbollah terrorists that are surrogates for these rogue regimes."
See THE UNHOLY ALLIANCE BETWEEN IRAN AND SYRIA http://www.gopusa.com/ and SYRIA HELPS IRAN ARM HEZBOLLAH http://www.worldnetdaily.com

I wrote: The "Christian spirit" you refer to also says "An eye for an Eye". That's straight out of the Bible, BTW.
Michel Bastian responded: "Old Testament, actually. And there I go thinking that Christianism is mostly based on tenets of the new testament. Foolish old European ignorant liberal me."
That's exactly right. That was a bit foolish and ignorant of you. Especially since you've previously lived in the U.S., in the most religious part of the USA (the South), in a country in which a substantial part of the population does see and believe in the Ten Commandments as a literal blueprint for how to live our lives, and not just an interesting historical document.
I also stated: Oh wait, that's right, you guys over in Europe don't believe in the Bible anyway and don't think it should have anything to do with how you live your lives or conduct your government. Right.
Michel Bastian responded: "Hey, Phil, you actually got it. Good going." I always knew that, Michel. It wasn't exactly a secret. I've always known and recognized that Europeans are, in large measure and in many countries, totally ignorant about religion, if not outright scornful, derisive toward and viscerally opposed to religion. That's one of the biggest reasons why Americans dislike you guys on the other side of the Pond so much, Michel. We put a high regard on "moral values". And you Yur-up-Pee'uns not only don't appear to have any "morals", you also don't appear to have any "values", other than convincing yourselfs of how supposedly "superior" your societies are, especially when compared to America. You're not just "Immoral", you're totally Amoral. You appear to have no Core Belief system whatsoever.
And that's why the Islamo-Fascists and fanatics hate you so much. Let me let you in on a secret that you don't seem to grasp, Michel: When the Islamo-Fascists denounce "godless, decadent, immoral, indecent Western societies", they're not talking about America. We're the most God-fearing, religiously devout Western democracy that there is. They're talking about you guys, Michel.
I previously stated: If the insurgents (terrorists) murder people, then they deserve execution. Period. An Eye For An Eye, as the Bible says. Oh, that's right, you wouldn't understand about that, because you folks in Europe don't believe in the way of life of the Bible or its rules. That's why Capital Punishment is banned in Europe, but abortion on demand in Europe is a Way Of Life there. Slaughter the unborn innocents and zealously save the lives of murderers, it's the European Way, right?
Michel Bastian responded: "Running out of arguments again, Phil?"Nope, just stating a Fact. It's just more evidence of a near-total lack of moral values in Europe.

Michel Bastian wrote the following (and my responses follow each comment):
(a) "My logic says it´s better to prevent crime by gathering information and knowing who is planning what, than picking up body pieces all over the place and levelling a civilian building in retaliation."
We've got that covered. Already doing that (gathering information, learning who is planning what) in Iraq. More and more often, Iraqis are tipping off U.S. troops and Iraqi government forces to insurgents' activities.
(b) "It´s better to have undercover informants on the ground who know about what´s happening instead of going on wild goose chases with a marine platoon in civilian appartments at night, scaring the beejesus out of the tenants, not finding anything and afterwards telling them "Have a nice day ma´am" (in English, which the tenants don´t understand) in a rather comical and futile effort to win the hearts and minds of the population."
We've got that covered. Already doing that (recruiting undercover informants) in Iraq. Again - More and more often, Iraqis are tipping off U.S. troops and Iraqi government forces to insurgents' activities.
(c) "It´s better to know who is sympathizing with terrorists, where the funding and the weapons come from and how to stop the terrorists from even getting weapons and funding."
We're getting better at finding that out and acting on it. Hence the pressure on Syria to clamp down on and hand over fugitive Iraqi Ba'athist Party supporters who are funding the terrorists. You might have noticed that Syria just recently handed over Saddam Hussein's half-brother (a terrorist supporter, and a very "big fish"). This was after Syria spent months insiting they didn't know where he was.

(d) "It´s better to catch a terrorist building the IED instead of waiting for him to blow up a military convoy or a police station with it. You can always indict him for building a bomb and preparing a terrorist attack, which I´m sure isn´t legal even in Iraq. Or else you can tell the convoy to take another route or the policemen to evacuate the building."
So, in other words, you want us to pin our hopes on finding the one Mental Defective terrorist who is actually Stupid enough to be caught red-handed in the act of building an IED, in broad daylight in plain view of Coalition forces? Sounds like a variation of Darwin's Natural Selection theory -- "cull the herd", weed out the Stupid terrorists, and leave the smart ones.
With all due respect, there are roughly 27 million Iraqis and only about 120,000 Coalition troops in Iraq. We can't be everywhere in Iraq at once to spot attacks before they happen, Michel. But here's a theory that we're actually putting to good use in Iraq now: It's better to use a Predator drone RPV, equipped with long-range videocamera surveillance equipment, to catch a terrorist in the act of laying an IED ambush, and then use a Hellfire missile (fired from the Predator drone) to convey the terrorist over to the Next World.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

I previously stated... "We have brought the first flickering light of democracy and freedom to a tragic country that has known only brutal dictatorship for decades....." and "And we are Heroes for having done so.".
Mr. Bastian responded with: "Sound the "Star Spangled Banner", raise the flag and salute...." and "Add a teardrop in every American eye and sing along in a voice quivering with emotion".
Ladies and gentlemen... Normally, under most circumstances, if I posted a comment and was greeted with such caustic, scathing, scornful, derisive, smirking sarcasm as was posted in reply to me by Mr. Bastian, my response... well, my response would probably not be printable. Suffice it to say, it would be a furious and enraged burst of invective.
However, in this case, I can only shake my head in wonder and marvel at the irony of it all. Whether he intended to, or whether it was purely accidental, Mr. Bastian has succeeded, far more vividly than I could have aspired to, in demonstrating my point for me.
Yes, we Americans are an often-patriotic people. Yes, I get a lump in my throat when I hear the strains of "The Star-Spangled Banner". Yes, I feel a surge of emotion, and pride, when I watch the American flag being raised. And yes, I do put my hand over my heart, or salute, when the flag goes by. Yes, tears of emotion often do come to my eyes when I think of the freedoms that we in America all too often take for granted. And yes, my voice often does quiver with emotion when I think of the thousands of Americans who perished in battles to win those freedoms for me. Many of those Americans were boys at almost the beginning of life as they knew it... 18-year old kids, who should have lived to be old and wise men with families and grandkids of their own, boys who are now eternal teenagers, forever 18 years old, their lives cut short at far too young an age. And yes, I get emotional about that. And I don't particularly care what anybody thinks about that. I don't especially give a rat's patoot whether someone on the other side of the world regards that open admission and display of emotion as being "corny", "maudlin", "overwrought" or anything else. As an American, I'm not the least bit 'ashamed" or "embarassed" about being openly patriotic. I love my country.
And yes -- I'm pleased and proud that we've brought Democracy to Iraq. I'm especially proud that we've planted the first seeds of real democracy in the Arab nations of the Middle East, a region of the world filled with vipers' nests of murderous dictatorships, fanatical theocracies, and corrupt kleptocracies. I believe in Freedom. I believe wholeheartedly in Democracy. I believe we should spread democracy throughout the world.
And how does Mr. Bastian respond to this? How does he react to the first rays of freedom dawning upon a region that has known nothing but misery and oppression for decades?
Well, after all, Mr. Bastian is a European. In fact, he's French. So, while a prediction of a haughtily condescending response might normally seem stereotypical on my part, Mr. Bastian does not disappoint. In comments that fairly ooze with cynicism and drip with disdain, Mr. Bastian appears to mock and belittle not only an American public display of pride and patriotism; but furthermore, the newly nascent Arab-world democracy as well, and perhaps even the very concept of Democracy itself.
The greatest irony is that France, more than any other nation, was once the very cradle of democracy. It was France's revolutionary motto of "Libertie, Egalitie, Fraternitie" that inspired America's own fight for freedom. But that was a different century, and a different France, one that actually stood for something besides brie, cognac and cynicism; one that actually believed in lofty and noble ideals, like Freedom and Democracy. Sadly, that France of old appears to be gone, replaced by a smugly suave society in which Amoerality is celebrated, and lofty ideals are ridiculed.

I recently explained the following to Mr. Michel Bastian in France: "The Saudis just recently held their first-ever municipal elections, giving their citizens at long last a taste of democracy. You don't seriously think that's an "accident"or that it's unrelated to what's going on in Iraq, where the citizenry just elected their first democratic government?"
Mr. Bastian replied with: "Eh? And what would the relationship between elections in Saudi Arabia and Iraq be?"
Now, I would have thought the answer to that would have been obvious. But since it apparently isn't obvious to Mr. Bastian, I'm happy to provide reference material to explain it to him.
See DEMOCRACY IN ARAB WORLD: WHO DESERVES CREDIT? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7130386/

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

I wrote: I note that Ray Vickery is having difficulty distinguishing between the accidental and unfortunate killings of people in cross-fire (collateral damage).
Michel Bastian responded: "Nice word, a bit like 'friendly fire'. Tell that to the families of the 'collateral damage'."
I am quite willing to do that, Michel. How about you?
I wrote: The latter is a Crime. When the Former occurs (accidental death, that is), we duly express our regrets, and then everyone duly forgets about it and goes on with their lives.
Michel Bastian responded: "Nope, YOU forget about it. The families of the victims will definitely not forget. And don´t be surprised if they don´t exactly worship Americans in the future." I don't expect them to 'worship Americans in the future', but I do think I can reasonably expect them to understand the difference between Accidental Death and Deliberate Murder, just as I think I can reasonably expect you to understand that difference, too.
I wrote: When the Former occurs (accidental death, that is), we duly express our regrets, and then everyone duly forgets about it and goes on with their lives. When the Latter occurs (Murder, that is), we arrest the guilty party, put them on trial, present evidence, find them guilty if the evidence proves such, and imprison or execute the guilty party. Perhaps Mr. Vickery needs to take a first-year law course so that he can be educated to understand the difference between Accidental Death, and Murder. Death by accident, while regrettable, does not equate to and is not at all the same as Conscious and Deliberate Murder.
Michel Bastian wrote: "Well, no, Phil, Ray doesn´t need law courses, you do. When somebody runs over another person in a car, albeit by accident, he also gets booked and put in prison if he´s criminally negligent. And 'criminal negligence' could well be the motto for most every aspect of the Iraq war."
Well, No, Michel, Ray does need law classes, and so do you. When somebody runs over another person in a car, albeit by accident, he DOESN'T get booked. He DOESN'T get put in prison. Generally, the most he'll face as a penalty is a ticket, unless he was intoxicated at the time. But even if there was negligence involved, it's irrelevent to the larger matter of behavior by the military in Wartime.
Put quite simply, Michel, servicemen and women who are risking or potentially risking their lives on behalf of the nation, are rightly and correctly accorded more leeway than ordinary civilians whose lives are seldom, if ever, at risk. And behavior that occurs in Wartime, when fighting men are at constant risk of death or injury and have to make instantaneous kill-or-be-killed decisions, is correctly not treated the same as behavior in Peacetime where the constant risk of death or injury is not present and where people are not under the same life-or-death stresses.
As an example of this, during the first Gulf War (1990-1991), the worst air-to-ground "friendly fire" incident of the war occurred when two US A-10 pilots, confident they were over the Iraqi armored column they were to attack, fired Maverick missiles against what turned out to be thirty-seven British Warrior armored vehicles parked in the Iraqi desert. The daylight attack killed nine British soldiers and wounded eleven.
A five-month British inquiry attributed "no blame or responsibility" to British forces and "did not establish" whether the US pilots "were at fault ." The US investigation established that the pilots believed they were in "the right place" while the ground forces believed the pilots "knew where they were." No charges were ever brought by any military court against the U.S. pilots who mistakenly fired on the British vehicles. The deaths of the British soldiers were indeed a tragedy, and a tragic accident. However, such things happen in the "fog of war", and can be expected to unfortunately continue to happen.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "Many groups (not just the Sunni muslims) will not accept the elections. Actually, they won´t accept democracy as a whole (which is what the US have failed to understand since before the war)"...... and also: "Perhaps you´d like to explain what difference the elections will make to the Sunnis, large parts of the Kurds and all the rest of the population that don´t like democracy and don´t want democracy for reasons that will be forever beyond your grasp since you don´t even make the slightest effort to understand their culture and mentality."
Now, those were some interesting and eyebrow-raising comments by Michel. And frankly I'd like Michel to explain himself a bit.
(a) To begin with, Michel: Just precisely how do you "know" that the Sunnis "will not accept the elections"? Furthermore, just precisely how do you "know" that "they won´t accept democracy as a whole"? What special insight or "connection" to the Sunnis do you possess that makes you so self-assured in proclaiming that democracy in Iraq is "doomed" to failure?
After all, several Sunni Muslim parties did, in fact, run for office in the Iraqi elections. And they did receive some votes. Which, I might add, clearly indicates that some Sunni Muslims did, in fact, vote.
In fact, about the only things that I think you can say with any certainty about the Sunnis' participation in elections, are
(1) Some Sunni Muslim parties did run for office and did participate in elections.
(2) Some Sunni Muslims did vote.
(3) Some Sunni Muslims did not vote because due to the threat of violence, polling places never opened in their areas.
(4) Some Sunni Muslims did not vote because due to the threat of violence, polling stations in their areas did open but closed early.
(5) Some Sunni Muslims did not vote because due to the threat of violence, they were afraid to venture to the polling places for fear of being targeted or attacked.
(6) Some Sunni Muslims did not vote, even though they wanted to, because they are waiting for their local religious leader(s) to say it's okay for them to vote.
and finally...
(7) Some Sunni Muslims did not vote because they don't believe in democracy.
(b) Just precisely how do you "know", Michel, that there are "large parts of the Kurds and all the rest of the population that don´t like democracy and don´t want democracy"? Kurdish political parties did in fact participate in elections and swept the northern regions of Iraq.
(c) If you seriously believe that I "don´t even make the slightest effort to understand their culture and mentality", then what qualifies you to presume to speak as an 'expert'on "their culture and mentality"?
(d) If you actually believe that you are qualified to speak as an 'expert' with regard to the Sunnis' "culture and mentality", perhaps you'd like to explain what that 'culture and mentality" is, and why it would supposedly "preclude" them from accepting democracy?
(e) And finally.... Since you seem to consider yourself to be something of an 'expert' on everything that we in America are supposedly doing 'wrong' in Iraq, and since you seem to claim expertise in stating that the Sunnis don't want and will not accept Democracy.... perhaps, then, you will deign to enlighten us with your proposed "solution" for Iraq?
I am particularly interested in reading your proposed 'solution' for satisfying the "culture and mentality" of Iraqi Sunni community.
And I am especially curious to see if your proposed "solution" amounts to saying "Let's just repeal the whole thing; let's just give the Sunnis back their 'leader' Dictator; let's let Saddam out of jail and put him back in charge; and above all, let's assure the Sunnis that they'll soon be able to get back to dominating everyone else in Iraq, as they always did when Saddam was in power".
Last but not least... Michel Bastian wrote: "It´ll take a lot of time for democratic principles to catch on in Iraq.".
My response is: It'll take an especially long time if we allow ourselves to be so deceived and taken in by supposed "experts" claiming that Iraqis "don't really want democracy", that we do not even "start" planting the roots of those democratic principles.

Michel Bastian, France

To Charles Warren:
> The Iraqi "insurgency" is not a patriotic resistance to invasion.
"Patriotic", no. Not the way you or I would understand patriotic. Resistance to invasion/liberation/whatever you want to call it? Well, I´d have to say yes. The insurgency wouldn´t be there if there weren´t any US troops in Iraq.
> It is an armed counterrevolution
Interesting. You´re starting to use communist rethoric now. Getting your politics mixed up, Charles?
> being waged against the Kurds and Shiites by the secret police and terror apparatus of the former Sunni Baathist state. The "insurgency" is terror out of power trying to get back in power.
Not even the Bush administration believes this anymore. Yes, there are ba´athist elements in the insurgents, but they´re not the driving force at all. The driving force are muslim fanatics, both Shi´ites and Sunni, partly supported by al Quaida, and many of them non-Iraqis.
> Had there been no invasion they would be happily filling mass graves and Uday's people shredder would be grinding away.
*Sigh*. Yes, true, but does that justify the invasions? No, it doesn´t. See all the above posts.
> Do you have the brains to comprehend that terror was the essence of your old ally Baathist Iraq ?
I was allied with Ba´athist Iraq? Oh, I get it, you mean the french were allied with Ba´athist Iraq. Sorry, you´re a bit difficult to understand at times for poor old me, what with no brains and all.
Well, it depends on what timeframe you´re talking about and how you define "ally". In the eighties, there were ties between France and Iraq. There were also ties between the US and Iraq, as there were ties between many other countries and Iraq. I don´t deny that and neither should you. Was it ok to have ties with Iraq at that time? No, probably not because western support was one of the reasons Saddam could stay in power as long as he did. The reasons for dealing with Saddam at that time were mostly economic (yes, oil, mainly) and, for the US, anti-iran politics. If however you´re looking at a more recent timeframe (starting witht the gulf war) the french were anything but "allied" with Iraq. They were part of Desert storm and they were part of the UN security council who took all the sanctions against Iraq afterwards (no-fly zone, embargo etc.). Incidentally, the french were the only ones besides the US and Britain to enforce the no-fly zone and to get shot at by iraqi triple A and missiles. Just so you can´t claim the heroic US were alone again in defending the west.
Nobody was allied to Saddam at that time, not even Iran or taliban Afghanistan, because Saddam had a profound and probably well founded distrust of muslim leaders who could and would have toppled his regime if they´d been given half a chance. That, incidentally, was the reason for the massacres against the shi´ites. Another group rightly perceived as enemies by Saddam were the Kurds, who also threatened his totalitarian rule. Again, he reacted as many totalitarian leaders do: with mass murders. So if you´re inferring that France (or anybody else) was an "ally" of Iraq at that time you´re perpetuating the dream reality you seem to be wallowing in, with the US as Superman and France as Lex Luthor.
> Instead of carbombs there would be the usual disappearances, torture, and mass executions.
Probably. I ask again: did that justify invasion? The answer, as always, is no. It didn´t.

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> Well, Michel, that's the problem. You see, "you" may be willing to stick to talking about the fatally flawed and biased Lancet study. But the Lancet study was essentially talking about terrorist attacks by Iraqi Sunni Muslim followers of Saddam Hussein being committed against Iraqi Kurds and Iraqi Shia Muslims, and lumping the death toll from those attacks (which weren't caused by "the war" at all) into their already-massively-flawed projected death toll. And that's a preposterous methodology. That's one reason why the study was so flawed.We´re turning around in circles here. You´re trying to deflect the blame for the insurgency in Iraq from the US, and I´m not even putting the direct blame on them. What I´m saying, however, is that one of the effects of this misbegotten idea by George Bush (or rather by the "brains" behind him, i.e. Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz et alt.) is that a lot more people got killed (by suicide bombings and other causes) than you or the Bush administration are willing to admit. I am fully aware that US troops didn´t commit the bombings. That´s not the point. The point is they should have stayed out of Iraq in the first place, then there wouldn´t have been any bombings, there wouldn´t have been any Fallujah, there wouldn´t have been any dead american soldiers or civilian war casualties, there wouldn´t have been death by disease and hunger due to failing infrastructure etc. etc. > No, Michel. NO. That's wrong and false. Let's put the blame where it actually belongs for a change, shall we? Insurgency is not "one of these effects" of the war. Insurgency was not "caused by the war". Insurgency is caused by Insurgents.Yes, so most of the blame should be placed on them, that´s perfectly allright. You´re missing the point.> Once the insurgents are killed, imprisoned or forced to surrender, that will be the end of the insurgency, and then life in Iraq can improve to its full potential, for everyone there.Hopefully, yes. But if it does, it´ll take a lot of time, much more than you or the Bush administration think. > Errm, lemme think.... NO!!! NO, Michel!! NO!!! I don't get any "point" from you at all.
True enough :-). > What I "get" from you is that your argument is utterly ridiculous in the extreme. It's rubbish, absolute outlandish rubbish. It's FantasyLand. It's an example of what i still continue to be a typical non-American and anti-American viewpoint, that of taking every unfortunate event that happens anywhere and practically twisting oneself into silly putty with moral gyrations in an attempt to pin "blame" for all those unfortunate events on America.On America? No, Phil, unlike many of my compatriots I´m not putting the blame on America. I´m putting the blame on the Bush administration for starting an unnecessary war. And I don´t need "moral gyrations" for that. BTW, you started the "moral gyrations" (as the length of your posts indicates), so don´t blame me for responding.
You want to justify the war? The problem with that, Phil, is that you can´t justify it. It was just plain wrong. Is that simple enough for you? > I realize that Europeans typically have a mind block against ever putting responsibility on Individuals for their actions, Michel, but please, for God's sake, try doing it just once for a change.There you go again, when somebody with a european passport doesn´t share your point of view, you start blaming a "european mindset". To put it simply and without any moral gyrations: there is no such thing as a european mindset. > To begin with, the insurgency was not "inevitable", and it was not and is not "directly caused by the war".Ah, so there would have been an insurgency against the US even if the US hadn´t invaded? "Moral gyrations" indeed. > The insurgency is caused by Insurgents. The obvious solution thus is not to repeal this Just and Noble war which has been the cause of so much Liberation for so many hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq who were so horrendously oppressed by Saddam Hussein.Repeal the war? How should that be done? By pulling out the troops? Bad idea. The effects of the war are there, and they would lead to an instant civil war if the US pulled out. You can´t "uninvade" Iraq, and you can´t do anything about the insurgency except trying to ferret out the persons responsible for it and buying time for the people to get used to a democratic system. If the US fail to do that it´ll be Vietnam all over again, except not only the US but also Europe is going to take the fallout. > The obvious solution is to defeat the insurgency once and for all, and that is what the Iraqi government is increasingly doing.Like I said, I sure hope so, though my optimism is pretty limited in that respect.> Allow me to use a hypothetical but very realistic example, Michel, to illustrate to you the utter absurdity of your position. Let's say that we're back in the 1930s. The Nazi regime has already been slaughtering Jews, trade unionists, dissidents and others. The Holocaust is already well underway. Let's say that the U.S. invades Nazi Germany without a formal declaration of war and without a direct threat being posed to the U.S. by Germany. The U.S. forcibly installs a democratic government in Germany, against the wishes of the minority Nazis who resent being kicked out of power. Angered and disenfranchised, the Nazi supporters launch murderous terror attacks against Jews and kill hundreds.This example isn´t as hypothetical as you think, except it doesn´t bear any kind of relationship to Iraq. In post-war Germany, there were so-called "Werewolves", Nazi terrorists who tried to disrupt the allies. But they didn´t have anywhere near the support in the population and from foreign agents the insurgents in Iraq have nowadays. Consequently, they didn´t operate on the scale the iraqi insurgents do. And that´s just one of the differences between post-war Germany and Iraq. You´re comparing apples and oranges. > Now, Michel, let's assume that (once again) you attempt to lay the blame for those deaths at America's door, claiming that those Jews, dissidents and others would "still be alive" if the U.S. had not launched an invasion and angered those members of the defeated party.
> Let's look at the cold hard facts of the situation, Michel. <....> Boy, you´re morally gyrating all over the place, Phil. In fact, your argument is so complicated I fail to see the relationship to both the situation in post-war Germany AND the current situation in Iraq. Perhaps you could help my poor twisted european brain and explain it to me in simple terms (you know, just a paragraph instead of a whole book). > Michel Bastian wrote: "Much better to just put the terrorist bastards in prison or shoot them right away, eh Phil?"
Sounds good to me, Michel. Actually, what really sounds good to me would be to put them in prison, interrogate them, extract as much useful information from them as we can, and THEN shoot them. No point in letting them become a financial burden on the American taxpayers for the rest of the terrorists' natural lives, as has already occurred in the case of the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center the first time around, back in 1993. Those scum are already laughing at the American people. They aren't the least bit afraid of or deterred by prison. (One of them already stabbed an elderly American prison guard through the eye with a homemade knife, rendering him blind and permanently brain-damaged). They aren't afraid of death. And now they can look forward to decades of being kept alive and confortable, courtesy of the American taxpayers.QED. What you´re describing is oppressive totalitarianism, soviet style, pure and simple. That´s the "american way"? That´s democracy? If that´s so, what did the US fight the cold war for? > Michel Bastian wrote: "1500 years worth of blood and suffering down the drain."
It wasn't "our" blood or "our" suffering, Michel.
The people who spilled our blood, who inflicted suffering on America, are the terrorists who gleefully cheated justice by leaping into Death on 9/11 in hijacked airliners.And they sure made a pretty good job of disrupting America, didn´t they? Should the US turn into an oppressive regime because of 9/11? I´ll let the 49% blue state americans answer that one. > False (again). Members of the US military are already subject to different and less lenient rules of evidence in military trials than are civilians. If such trials aregood enough for the US military's servicemen, they ought to be good enough for the terrorists.But the Guantanamo inmates aren´t given even the benefit of court martial rules. They have no access to a lawyer while getting interrogated, they are driven to depositions under torture (or "stress inducing methods", if you prefer), they are detained for years on end without charge or trial and I could go on endlessly with all the breaches of procedure. Look who´s "morally gyrating" now.

> You don't seem to know a lot about Al-Qaida's legendary abilities toresist standard interrogation techniques, do you?"Legendary" is right indeed. > When Pakistani security personnel interrogated captured Al-Qaeda, they were so amazed at the Al-Qaeda members' fierce devotion to their cause and their ability to reist questioning, they dubbed the Al-Qaeda "a new, previously undiscovered breed of Human".Yeah, right, "homo fanaticus". Superman with a beard and a turban. I´ve got news for you, Phil: any human being will break under torture and say anything just to be left alone. You would, I would, even trained intelligence agents would.> It does produce results -- in the case of Al-Qaeda, very good results. If you had bothered to read the reference to the article I'd posted, you would have seen that the interrogators at Git'mo got a large amount of very useful information out of the Al-Qaeda there, but that their ability to continue to do so is now seriously hampered and impaired by legal restrictions on their methods of interrogation. Didn't bother to read it, did you? Oh, so I presume Bin Laden has been caught and Al Quaida dismantled?

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> Wrong, Michel. If Saddam hadn't ordered the unprovoked invasion of Kuwait, those infrastructure damages wouldn't have occurred in the first place. The ruining of roads by driving over them with military equipment was done by Saddam's forces -Twice. (The 1st time was when they headed "out of" Iraq to invade Kuwait, and the 2nd time was when they headed pell-mell back "into" Iraq after being driven out of Kuwait.
I wasn´t talking about the Gulf war. I was talking about George jr.´s war.
> All of those infrastructure problems could easily have been <...> he wouldn't have had as much money to squander on those fifty-seven or so multi-million dollar palaces, now would he?
Again, I´m not talking about problems that were there before the war. I´m talking about problems that were created during and after the war.
> Michel Bastian wrote: "No, the insurgents aren´t just Saddamites, they´re mostly radical muslims, many of them foreigners from Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, and quite a few Al Quaida members". Wrong, Michel. That's what the US military originally believed. But the fact is that most of the insurgents (terrorists) are home-grown Iraqis -- almost exclusively Sunni Muslims, who were and are supporters of Saddam. There's a few foreign Islamic fanatics thrown into the mix. But they're not at all a "majority".
Ok, cf. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_insurgency.htm for info on the purported composition and numbers of the insurgency. Interesting article, btw. It suggests the number of insurgents has increased from 2000 in 2003 to about 20000 to 40000 thousand. Yet another beneficial effect of the George´s war.
> Wrong again, Michel. The point is, they most assuredly would have been killed without the US military intervention. In fact Saddam's track record in having previously ordered his commanders to slaughter Kurds and Shi'ites in the 1980s and 1990s (both before AND after the 1990-1991 Gulf War) virtually guarantees that Saddam would have resumed murdering Kurds and Shi'ites as sopon as the opportunity presented itself. The leopard doesn't change his spots, Michel. Ever.
Didn´t say that. He was a mass murderer, but he didn´t commit mass murder on the scale of the Kurd or Shi´ite massacres every day, you know. Also, since you´re so fond of citing american deaths as a reason to go to war: Saddam would have been very hard put to kill over 1.000 american GIs.
> Oh come on, Michel, surely you're not that obtuse. The blossoming of democracy in Iraq is creating ripple effects throughout the entire Middle East, and you know it.
It´s creating ripples allright. Ripples that even someone as obtuse as I am can see. Ripples of panarabism. Ripples of muslim fanaticism.
> The Palestinians are demanding genuine democratic reforms and the ousting of crooked corrupt sleazy Arafat holdovers, and they're getting what they want. The Lebanese mobilized public protests and demonstrations that brought down a pro-Syrian puppet government. The Saudis organized and allowed the first democratic elections in their entire History --limited, municipal-level elections, but elections nonetheless. You can claim it's "all a coincidence of timing", that Bush and democracy in Iraq "have nothing to do with it", you can claim "the planets were all aligned" for all I care.
Good, because I do claim that indeed. The Lebanese didn´t need Bush to tell them they wanted the Syrians out of Lebanon. Bush just rode the wave on that one. The Palestinians were lucky in that Arafat died. Now the Israelis talk to them again, and they can talk to the Israelis. Nothing to do with Iraq. As for the "democratic" elections in Saudi-Arabia, they were neither democratic (next to no women voters turned out due to traditionalist views in saudi society) nor were they a result of the Iraq war.
> It won't change the facts. Bush and the neo-cons got it right.
That´s not a fact, that´s an opinion. A wrong opinion, in my view.
> Democracy is contagious. And the so-called "Arab Street" wants Democracy.
Does it? Most Middle-East scholars contest that, but hey, Bush says so, so it has to be right. < Not any longer, Michel. The Saudis are indeed very strict and conservative Wahhabiist Muslims. But they don't sympathize quite so much anymore with a Saudi Terrorist whose truck-bombs blew away Saudi civilians in their own country. That was a real eye-opener. And it did immense damage to Al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia.
True, but again, that´s not thanks to the Iraq war.
> That's just Too Darn Bad For Them, Michel. They'll have to accept democracy, whether they like it or not. They'll be forced to accept it. They won't have any choice. And that won't be America's doing, Michel.
Indeed, if it happens (against all odds), it won´t be America´s doing, you´re right about that.
> It's the Iraqi people themselves who have spoken. In case you were asleep and didn't see the news, about 8 million Iraqis defied terrorist threats and went to the polls to elect a government of their own choosing.
I wasn´t asleep. Nor did I see any "government" being elected. I saw a provisional government being elected that has to work out the basics of an Iraqi constitution. Let´s see how the different factions react to that. > The Terrorists aren't just opposing the U.S. military now, they're opposing the will of the Iraqi people and a sovereign, legitimized government of the Iraqi peoples' choosing. <....>
See the article above. If they´re so unpopular, how come their numbers have grown to enormous proportions since 2003?
> That's exactly right, Michel. That's correct. You're finally "getting it", at long last. The whole thing indeed has nothing to do with religion. And Iraq is indeed a democracy. It might be an embryonic democracy, but it's a Democracy nevertheless.
And The King is still alive? Heck, I need to get to Graceland on the double.
> Michel Bastian wrote: "So there is no torture in Guantanamo? It´s all just a scam by Al Quaida?". Yup, that's exactly right, Michel. NOW you've got it. But by all means, don't take my word for it. Read what the Brits have to say about it.
REPORT: BRITISH AGENTS SAW LITTLE ABUSE. see http://seattlepi.nwsource.com
Sorry, they seem to have moved the link. Not my fault, so don´t complain that I didn´t read the article again. I won´t give you any counter-links, because that´d swamp the board.

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:> Syria and Iran have had a great deal of common interests, for a very, very long time. Here is evidence of that fact:
"Collusion between these two terror states is nothing new. Iran and Syria have had a close cooperative relationship dating back more than twenty years with the advent of Iranian rule by fanatical cleric Ayatollah Khomeini and his establishment of the Hezbollah terror organization. Sure, Hezbollah has political and social service components operating in Syria, which are always underscored by European appeasers and Leftists. But Hezbollah clearly engages in vile terror activities as well. As scholar Michael Ledeen indicated in his book "The War Against the Terror Masters "Khomeini created one of the most dangerous international terrorist groups, Hezbollah, and Assad (Hafez al-Assad of Syria) supported it with many of the same favors". Both Iran and Syria continue to back Hezbollah terrorists that are surrogates for these rogue regimes."
See THE UNHOLY ALLIANCE BETWEEN IRAN AND SYRIA http://www.gopusa.com/ and SYRIA HELPS IRAN ARM HEZBOLLAH http://www.worldnetdaily.com
Half right, actually: Syria supported Iran in its war on Iraq, but that was as far as it went. Actually during the Iran/Iraq war, it turned out that Syria didn´t want a clerical muslim regime installed in Baghdad and consequently, Assad fell out with Iran. So perhaps one should say the relationship was a "pragmatic" working relationship as long as there was a common enemy: Iraq. Now the common enemy is the US.
> That's exactly right. That was a bit foolish and ignorant of you. Especially since you've previously lived in the U.S., in the most religious part of the USA (the South), in a country in which a substantial part of the population does see and believe in the Ten Commandments as a literal blueprint for how to live our lives, and not just an interesting historical document.
I also stated: Oh wait, that's right, you guys over in Europe don't believe in the Bible anyway and don't think it should have anything to do with how you live your lives or conduct your government. Right.
Michel Bastian responded: "Hey, Phil, you actually got it. Good going." I always knew that, Michel. It wasn't exactly a secret. I've always known and recognized that Europeans are, in large measure and in many countries, totally ignorant about religion, if not outright scornful, derisive toward and viscerally opposed to religion. That's one of the biggest reasons why Americans dislike you guys on the other side of the Pond so much, Michel. We put a high regard on "moral values". And you Yur-up-Pee'uns not only don't appear to have any "morals", you also don't appear to have any "values", other than convincing yourselfs of how supposedly "superior" your societies are, especially when compared to America. You're not just "Immoral", you're totally Amoral. You appear to have no Core Belief system whatsoever.
Oh, here goes the "values" rant again. Read the myriad of posts on this board, Phil. Now, do you have anything else you want to talk about, because this is starting to get boring.
> And that's why the Islamo-Fascists and fanatics hate you so much. Let me let you in on a secret that you don't seem to grasp, Michel: When the Islamo-Fascists denounce "godless, decadent, immoral, indecent Western societies", they're not talking about America. We're the most God-fearing, religiously devout Western democracy that there is.
Very interesting argument Phil. 2+2=150.
> They're talking about you guys, Michel.
They are, actually. They´re talking about us as well. And thanks to George´s little Iraq adventure, the odds of a terrorist attack happening in Europe have increased about tenfold. Thanks a lot, guys.

> Michel Bastian wrote the following (and my responses follow each comment):
(a) "My logic says it´s better to prevent crime by gathering information and knowing who is planning what, than picking up body pieces all over the place and levelling a civilian building in retaliation."
We've got that covered. Already doing that (gathering information, learning who is planning what) in Iraq. More and more often, Iraqis are tipping off U.S. troops and Iraqi government forces to insurgents' activities.
(b) "It´s better to have undercover informants on the ground who know about what´s happening instead of going on wild goose chases with a marine platoon in civilian appartments at night, scaring the beejesus out of the tenants, not finding anything and afterwards telling them "Have a nice day ma´am" (in English, which the tenants don´t understand) in a rather comical and futile effort to win the hearts and minds of the population."
We've got that covered. Already doing that (recruiting undercover informants) in Iraq. Again - More and more often, Iraqis are tipping off U.S. troops and Iraqi government forces to insurgents' activities.
Very good. Even the US military is starting to learn, then.
> (c) "It´s better to know who is sympathizing with terrorists, where the funding and the weapons come from and how to stop the terrorists from even getting weapons and funding."
We're getting better at finding that out and acting on it. Hence the pressure on Syria to clamp down on and hand over fugitive Iraqi Ba'athist Party supporters who are funding the terrorists. You might have noticed that Syria just recently handed over Saddam Hussein's half-brother (a terrorist supporter, and a very "big fish"). This was after Syria spent months insiting they didn't know where he was.
Again, good. Carry on like that and we might actually get out of this Iraq mess. Incidentally: the French are working together with the US on Syria and Lebanon, so there actually seems to be some sense to the whole operation.
> (d) "It´s better to catch a terrorist building the IED instead of waiting for him to blow up a military convoy or a police station with it. You can always indict him for building a bomb and preparing a terrorist attack, which I´m sure isn´t legal even in Iraq. Or else you can tell the convoy to take another route or the policemen to evacuate the building."
So, in other words, you want us to pin our hopes on finding the one Mental Defective terrorist who is actually Stupid enough to be caught red-handed in the act of building an IED, in broad daylight in plain view of Coalition forces? Sounds like a variation of Darwin's Natural Selection theory -- "cull the herd", weed out the Stupid terrorists, and leave the smart ones.
Not worth a comment.
> With all due respect, there are roughly 27 million Iraqis and only about 120,000 Coalition troops in Iraq. We can't be everywhere in Iraq at once to spot attacks before they happen, Michel.Thank god, you´re learning: the military alone can´t control a whole country. Now if only Bush had gotten that BEFORE he started the war.

> But here's a theory that we're actually putting to good use in Iraq now: It's better to use a Predator drone RPV, equipped with long-range videocamera surveillance equipment, to catch a terrorist in the act of laying an IED ambush, and then use a Hellfire missile (fired from the Predator drone) to convey the terrorist over to the Next World.Typical. The Vietnam ricefield syndrome again. You don´t need to blow up the whole neighbourhood. Just identify the bugger, send a marine platoon, arrest him and defuse the bomb. Or better still, put some surveillance on him and get all his buddies as well.

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> Mr. Bastian responded with: "Sound the "Star Spangled Banner", raise the flag and salute...." and "Add a teardrop in every American eye and sing along in a voice quivering with emotion".
Ladies and gentlemen... Normally, under most circumstances, if I posted a comment and was greeted with such caustic, scathing, scornful, derisive, smirking sarcasm as was posted in reply to me by Mr. Bastian, my response... well, my response would probably not be printable. Suffice it to say, it would be a furious and enraged burst of invective.
Well, Phil, like you so aptly pointed out in one of your other posts: if you can´t take the heat get out of the kitchen. If you don´t want to be flamed, don´t provoke me. Haven´t seen you apologize for insulting people on this board, so take it like a man.
> However, in this case, I can only shake my head in wonder and marvel at the irony of it all. Whether he intended to, or whether it was purely accidental, Mr. Bastian has succeeded, far more vividly than I could have aspired to, in demonstrating my point for me.

Yeah, well, if I´d waited for you to make your point, we´d all still be here by christmas :-).
> Yes, we Americans are an often-patriotic people. Yes, I get a lump in my throat when I hear the strains of "The Star-Spangled Banner". Yes, I feel a surge of emotion, and pride, when I watch the American flag being raised. And yes, I do put my hand over my heart, or salute, when the flag goes by. Yes, tears of emotion often do come to my eyes when I think of the freedoms that we in America all too often take for granted. And yes, my voice often does quiver with emotion when I think of the thousands of Americans who perished in battles to win those freedoms for me. Many of those Americans were boys at almost the beginning of life as they knew it... 18-year old kids, who should have lived to be old and wise men with families and grandkids of their own, boys who are now eternal teenagers, forever 18 years old, their lives cut short at far too young an age. And yes, I get emotional about that. And I don't particularly care what anybody thinks about that. I don't especially give a rat's patoot whether someone on the other side of the world regards that open admission and display of emotion as being "corny", "maudlin", "overwrought" or anything else. As an American, I'm not the least bit 'ashamed" or "embarassed" about being openly patriotic. I love my country.Well, forgive me if I´m very wary of that kind of uncritical, hollywood-style "patriotism". We´ve had that in central Europe for centuries, and believe you me, "my country right or wrong" has a tendency to get misused for the worst kinds of motives, as demonstrated by nazi Germany. Don´t misunderstand me, I do respect the US as a country, very much actually. What I don´t respect is unthinking, uncritical "salute-the-flag" patriotism as displayed by you, and more prominently by George W. Bush jr. I have more respect for somebody who has the brains to see when his country´s leaders are wrong, who has the guts to stand up to them, and who maybe even takes a personal risk in doing so than for somebody who just follows suit because "hey, my country is the best in the world". Incidentally, I tend to react the same way if a frenchman or german displays that kind of dim nationalism.

> And yes -- I'm pleased and proud that we've brought Democracy to Iraq. I'm especially proud that we've planted the first seeds of real democracy in the Arab nations of the Middle East, a region of the world filled with vipers' nests of murderous dictatorships, fanatical theocracies, and corrupt kleptocracies. I believe in Freedom. I believe wholeheartedly in Democracy. I believe we should spread democracy throughout the world.
And how does Mr. Bastian respond to this? How does he react to the first rays of freedom dawning upon a region that has known nothing but misery and oppression for decades?
Well, after all, Mr. Bastian is a European. In fact, he's French.
Actually, I´m Satan in person. I must be because I´m agnostic, liberal, european, half french and, god help us, half german. Does the word "prejudice" mean anything to you, Phil?
> So, while a prediction of a haughtily condescending response might normally seem stereotypical on my part,
Nope, your responses aren´t haughtily condescending. That would imply a certain degree of sophistication. Generally, your responses are just plain rude, so come off it, Phil.
> Mr. Bastian does not disappoint.
Thank you. Just trying to do my level best :-).
> In comments that fairly ooze with cynicism and drip with disdain, Mr. Bastian appears to mock and belittle not only an American public display of pride and patriotism; but furthermore, the newly nascent Arab-world democracy as well, and perhaps even the very concept of Democracy itself.
Ah, yes I don´t agree with you or the Bush administration so I´m a. anti-american b. anti-democratic and c. generally evil. Newsflash, Phil: I don´t mock and belittle America or its symbols. I mocked and belittled you and the Bush administration for betraying and misusing the very ideals America and its flag stands for. Enormous difference.
> The greatest irony is that France, more than any other nation, was once the very cradle of democracy. It was France's revolutionary motto of "Libertie, Egalitie, Fraternitie" that inspired America's own fight for freedom.
*Sigh*: Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité, Phil.
> But that was a different century, and a different France, one that actually stood for something besides brie, cognac and cynicism; one that actually believed in lofty and noble ideals, like Freedom and Democracy. Sadly, that France of old appears to be gone, replaced by a smugly suave society in which Amoerality is celebrated, and lofty ideals are ridiculed.
Well, at the moment France (like Germany, Britain, Spain, Italy, Denmark etc.) stands for one very important new ideal, actually: the European Union. Since you´re so into mottoes and symbols, here´s one for you: United in Diversity.
> I recently explained the following to Mr. Michel Bastian in France: "The Saudis just recently held their first-ever municipal elections, giving their citizens at long last a taste of democracy. You don't seriously think that's an "accident"or that it's unrelated to what's going on in Iraq, where the citizenry just elected their first democratic government?"
Mr. Bastian replied with: "Eh? And what would the relationship between elections in Saudi Arabia and Iraq be?"
Now, I would have thought the answer to that would have been obvious. But since it apparently isn't obvious to Mr. Bastian, I'm happy to provide reference material to explain it to him.
See DEMOCRACY IN ARAB WORLD: WHO DESERVES CREDIT? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7130386/
Yes, well, may I quote from this article (I did read it, Phil, don´t worry):
"Other experts say the Middle East was poised to move toward freedom and Bush just got lucky, most notably from Yasser Arafat's death last November, which led to new Palestinian leadership and peace talks with Israel.
And skeptics say Lebanon's divided opposition only came together because of the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
"There was tremendous momentum before the Iraq war toward reform in the Arab world," says Shibley Telhami, a Middle East expert with The Brookings Institution."

Tom, Poland/US

Charles Warren, USA
"That is why your government has shown more wisdom than you in supporting America over the delusion of a pacifist, united Europe. The average Pole understands that only an American security guarantee, only the physical presence of American troops in Poland will be any guarantee of your independence ten years from now. The patterns of Polish history are what they always were and will not change."
The government showed no wisdom. When Poles tried to revolt from communism in mid 19th century, American stood by doing nothing. Poles had their government in excile that should have retaken power. Instead, Soviets created a goverment because of Americas lack of determination to finish their job in Europe. If US had invaded Russia, as it was an enemy in many ways to American ideas, there would have been no cold war, and life might have been better. If a comflict with Russia were to take place, Americans would not risk total distruction by Nuclear Weapons to rescue Poland. On the other hand, other European countries being much closer, would have to deal with the threat somehow even if it means new stone age.
Oh and you dont seem to know alot about Polish History. Through much of Polish history, Poland was more powerful then its neighbors. Only in recent history, Germans and Russians have aquired more power.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Please see FOUNDER OF IRAQ ANTI-WAR GROUP CHANGES MIND http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1498194,00.html

Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Page 9/12