YES so don't use WW2 to argue France must support the war in Iraq etc...

""give back France to Germany"
I have never seen or heard this expression in my 40 years in America. Chamois, I would suggest you have a misrepresented view of America.

And remember, the cop who saves you, the plumber who fixes your pipes, the doctor who mends your bullet would, they are all doing it for a paycheck, so no need to thank them.

"YES so don't use WW2 to argue France must support the war in Iraq etc... "

Who argued that?

chamois: maybe I am wrong but I am pretty sure that no one here has tried to use france's history to justify them being in iraq.........

Sadly the world is almost entirely run by human greed, and there is very little we can do about it other than make sure we personally are not the same way.

greed comes after fear.

Fear is a primary emotion (if i'm allowed make up terms like primary emotions) It will over-ride almost any other to keep us alive.

Fear stops us from killing our neighbours over minor disputes. Fear keeps us from invading other countries, and fear stopped a nuclear war from destroying everything we have ever built; but if fear usually stops us from taking risks then greed encourages the actions we DO take.

@Reaver - Actually, the US was involved in the Battle of Britain well before the country as a whole was involved in D-Day. But the time of entry is not important...what is important is that, like it or not, the US saved Europe's collective hides from Hitler.

@orathaic @5:25 -- Uh, the American voters increasingly voting themselves the wealth of the nation (which is ZILCH, by the way, or "wealth is all in the form of DEBT to China) is in NO way intelligent. Let us not forget that what destroyed the Soviet Union was not military conflict, but financial ruin - the same financial ruin the US is RAPIDLY heading for. When the Euro becomes the global currency....or whatever China uses, the reign of the US will end. Of course, I look forward to the day when my brothers and sisters no longer are called upon to be the global police force. (And for those that sneer at that, WHO comprises the majority of the UN Military...er..."Peace Keeping"...Force? Who pays the majority of the dues?)

Ahhh...pointless arguments, I know. The world loves to poke at the winner and find faults without acknowledging the benefits....Bash away...

random statement: i always hear that France didn;t join in Iraq because of the large Muslim population. the chance of getting them all angry and what not. proabably no truth to that though right.

re Random Statement: Please!!! France didn't join in Iraq because they were making a FORTUNE selling weapons to Iraq AGAINST UN mandates. In fact, it was the hundreds of violations of UN decrees that gave the US the authority to go in the second time...something people purposely forget because it doesn't fit their preconceived notions and politically popular viewpoints. The simple-minded naive attacks on why the US went in are...well...simple minded and naive....

France also ruined the negotiating power of the allies by stating, repeatedly, we will NEVER authorize force by the UN. Once they said that, Saddam assumed he was safe from invasion.

No, the give France back to the Germans moment was when de Gaulle ordered US troops out of France and withdrew from NATO, which at the time was based in Paris. That is how NATO ended up in Belgium. Eisenhower's famous reply as a private citizen to de Gaulle's ordering all US soldiers out of France was, "Should we bring shovels?" (to dig them up)

The opinion I've heard expressed has primarily been, "Remind me again why we didn't give these jackasses to Stalin when we had the chance." Hitler quips are usually about the enthusiastic job the French did to round up Jews for the Nazis. Interestingly, Franco refused to help round up Jews and Mussolini was far less diligent about it than was Petain and the French.

As for Iraq, France has been systematically undermining our foreign policy since at least the Suez Crisis of '56. I did notice a French diplomat complained publicly that we were bossy during the post-Earthquake Haitian crisis by deploying an aircraft carrier immediately rather than coordinating with the Europeans (ie France) to make sure it was alright for us to do so. I think our UN delegate asked when we could expect the Charles de Gaulle to arrive in Port-a-Prince to relieve the US Navy of their intrusive unilateral mission.

I am glad there is not american soldiers in France anymore since they rape the children in Okinawa.

wow, i never heard that 'fact' before, i had heard that Saddam was planning to start selling oil in Euros (instead of Dollars which is what most oil deals are done in) which would of course have benifitted those Euro countries (Germany and France, cause they can print Euros to spend on that oil) at the expense of the US.

But when it comes to UN 'decrees' or resolutions as they are usually called - most are violated and the US refuses to recognise the international court of justice's decisions when it comes to US militrary personnel. Most violations are committed by Israel, Turkey (two US allies, so the US veto protects them from anything being done) though notably India and Pakistan have refused to cease the development of nuclear weapons - in this case the nuclear weapons offer a pretty good deterrent to any further action against India or Pakistan on this issue....

Also i can't find any evidence that your claim about france selling weapons to iraq is actually correct. Not since 1986, which is before US sponsored UN sanctions began. I would note that the US supported Saddam in his war against Iran because they wanted another dictator in the region to sell oil to the US. (after the Iranian revolution)

But please Krellin provide me with some evidence that what you have said is correct, I can't see it (what i can find is interesting: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/decision_makers_and_diplomacy/58568.stm )

And if Iraq war is so fair why not invade Iran and North Korea they are undemocratic as well and moe dangerous for the USA than Iraq was. "France also ruined the negotiating power" as if USA wanted to negociate. They knew Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction. That was just lies. Plus can you imagine a country like Iraq attacking the USA? Stop being brainwashed

"France didn't join in Iraq because they were making a FORTUNE selling weapons to Iraq AGAINST UN mandates" OMG!! You must watch Fox News. lol
Yes of course Iraq had many debts and USA we were forced to forget "a FORTUNE" because USA demand it. Speaking about weapons selling when you are american? LOL wash your own garden.

Most violations are committed by Israel? Ahhhhhh ha ha ha ha ha!!!! Did you get that off the Palestinian propaganda sheet? I guess when the Palestinians launch rockets in Israel, Israel is just supposed to take it and not defend themselves? Get a real argument...

Regarding weapons sales to Iraq from France - search your internet a little harder....but maybe look at something other than left-wing blogs. I could point you to the evidence and you would dismiss it anyway - but it included FRENCH WEAPONS found by US troops that Iraq was not supposed to have, for one. You clearly have a boner for dumping on the US - I've "discussed" issues with your kind before and find it's fairly pointless, as you will no doubt be impervious to facts. (Oh...and by the way, Iraq HAD and used WMD's on their own people - the Kurds, and US troops also found artillery shells with poison gas...WMD's in anybody else's hands, but the world and the press ignored these facts.)

Iraq violated the no fly zone multiple times on a daily basis, launching attacks on the UN aircraft patrolling the UN approved no-fly zone. He failed to allow weapons inspectors in...blah blah blah on and on. No point is reciting truth to the deaf, though. In your world, the US can do no right, I am sure. Sad...

Oh Bill O'Reilly said that. HOW GREAT and OBJECTIVE a journalist!!
btw :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbX-2X7_h-M

Israel has not right to be there anyway. It there didn't violently colonised Palestina, they would not be the target of rockets. And don't call me anti-semite.

Wow krellin, yes, UN resolutions bind Israel to the 1967 border - which Israel has ignored.

"I guess when the Palestinians launch rockets in Israel, Israel is just supposed to take it and not defend themselves?" - I didn't say that, did you think i said that? I said violating the border is against the UN security Resolution, I didn't say Israel was wrong to defend itself, just as i didn't say Iraq was wrong to try defending itself. In fact i haven't said a lot of things.

This is not propaganda, this was a resolution which the US supported and which Israel ignored. I'm not saying the resolutions were correct or are a useful tool in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but i'm able to read what the UN security council has ACTUALY resolved.

Thanks for refeing to 'my kind' i don't know who they are, but I do know Turkey (a NATO member) ignored UN security council resolutions over cyprus. Why? because they can, the fact is in this world guys who are 'on your side' are actually looking out for their own interests, whether they happen to be American, French, Turkish or Israeli.

And if they think they can get away with ignoring a UN resolution then they most likely will.

So 1 stop insulting my intelligence and putting words in my mouth.

and 2 listen to what i AM saying. I am correctly about UN resolution 242, and Israel, if i am wrong please provide some actual evidence.

As for french weapons sales, i didn't look at a single left-wing blog, I've never heard of the french militrary connection to iraq until you brought it up, and all i could find was description of the relationship which France shared with IRaq in the 70s and 80s.

If there is actual evidence i can't find it, the fact that you aren't willing to help me makes me question your assertion but i'll give you a second chance to provide a shred of evidence.

personally i think that Iraq did have nukes but that the y shipped them over to Syria or somewhere before they were found. And you can't say why not invade Iran and North Korea. Different President. Ask Obama about that. Those two countries weren't as nuclear active at the time of Bush. Not until maybe the very end of his term.

Are you serious? Because it is mad to invade other countries! Reasonable countries don't do that. It has been prooved that the governement lie about mass destruction weapon. And even if it was true, which country on earth would dare to directly attack the USA? (Don't tell me Bin Laden or Al Quaida, they are not a country).

"UN resolutions bind Israel to the 1967 border"

Well, not to start a different topic, but that is disputed.
"operative phrase calling for "secure and recognized boundaries" and note that the resolution calls for a withdrawal "from territories" rather than "from the territories" or "from all territories," as the Arabs and others proposed; the latter two terms were rejected from the final draft of Resolution 242.[69]"

"Are you serious? Because it is mad to invade other countries! Reasonable countries don't do that. "

This is a very simplistic and childish way of looking at the world. It was not unreasonable to invade Nazi Germany, it was no unreasonable to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, it would not be unreasonable for someone with some stones to invade Darfur. War isn't good, but its sometimes necessary. To deny that is irresponsible.

A great statesmen once said
" War is neither glamorous nor fun. There are no winners, only losers. There are no good wars, with the following exceptions: The American Revolution, World War II, and the Star Wars Trilogy."

(ok, maybe not a great statesman)

"the latter two terms were rejected from the final draft of Resolution 242.[69]" except in the french version which used the phrase "des territoires occupés" - But that isn't the point Israel calims it will withdraw as 'part of a negotiated peace deal' and that it doesn't have to withdraw until the Arabs actually agree to a negotiated peace deal. The Arabs claim it must withdraw to allow the negotiation of a peace deal.

But it is clear the Israel has not complied with the UN resolution (along with amny others)

Anyway, not to get side-tracked.
@DJEcc24 why do you think Iraq had nukes and sent them abroad? Did you notice as soon as North Korea started testing it's nuclear capability (and it must have been active for many years to get to the point where it now has nuclear weapons - even if they are basic crappy ones) The US suddenly changed it's tone and are now NOT planning to invade - because that would be very risky - whereas Iran doesn't have Nukes yet; and the US is threatening to invade because they still have a chance to stop nukes being developed. (but no spare troops, and no allies in the region capable of fighting a proxy war - Israel excepted.)

Pakistan is busy restoring it's nation and fighting al queda at home. Iraq (the last country the US used to invade Iran) is busy rebuilding itself, Turkey is the only ally in the region who can really be said to be safe and secure though they have signifigant trading ties with Iran including massive gas imports (and they have shared an unchanged and undisputed border for almost 500 years)

I doubt the US will be capable of invading Iran anytime soon and they know it.

"But that isn't the point Israel calims it will withdraw as 'part of a negotiated peace deal' and that it doesn't have to withdraw until the Arabs actually agree to a negotiated peace deal. The Arabs claim it must withdraw to allow the negotiation of a peace deal.

But it is clear the Israel has not complied with the UN resolution (along with amny others) "

I'm sorry, I'm not sure how that conclusion follows. "it is clear the Israel has not complied with the UN resolution" The resolution calls for 'secure' boundaries. If Israel withdrew to ANY boundaries, would they be secure at this point? If you say no, then 242 cannot be implemented and it would be irresponsible for one side of any agreement like this to implement knowing the other side hasn't.

it calls for Israel to withdraw from the territories occupied by the war and their right to live in peace within secure recognised boundaries (free from threats of acts of force)

In that case both sides have violated this resolution as neither has done it's part. So as i said it is CLEAR Israel has not lived up to it's end.

this is just a responce to "Ahhhhhh ha ha ha ha ha!!!! Did you get that off the Palestinian propaganda sheet?"

But comparing with Iraq, i'm sure they did violate UN security resolutions, and i'm sure Saddam would* claim he did it to protect his nation - just as the Israelis do.

*except he's already been executed.

The point is i'm not just making stuff up and listening to Palestinian propaganda. Looks at security council resolution 517.

I suppose I can accept your point Orathaic, when you put caveats in it. But to just say 'israel is in violation of 242' is grossly unfair. It would be like if you came up and punched me in the head, and in the process of defending myself, I punched you, 'Clearly DJones punched Orathaic in the head'. Technically true, but a grossly unfair characterization. And your statement '"UN resolutions bind Israel to the 1967 border" was just wrong.

ok, DBJ, and i'm trying to get back off the Israeli topic, the UN resolution says you can't take territory by force, and that is what Israel did in the 1967 war.

Now they haven't managed to resolve the fight but since then Israel has allowed settlers build homes in that territory, and is in the process of building a wall around these 'stolen' territories.

If they want to build a wall and ensure their security then why are they not respecting the borders in the UN resolution? There is no reason why this wall couldn't be on their 1967 border unless they don't intend to ever withdraw from the occupied territories.

I'm not saying they were provoked, or everything they do is wrong. The six-day war (being the militrary action in question) was started by Israel but they claim it was a pre-emptive strike and blame the Egyptian buildup of troops.

NOW Israel is not worried about Egyptian troops because those two countries have since improved diplomatic relations, and Egypt has recognised the state of Israel.

So while crossing the border to kill militants, and bomb weapons convoy could be seen as a fair defence, building houses and walls to protect residents is not.

Its funny Orathaic, you saying you are trying to get off the Israel topic, yet posting a dozen reasons you think Israel is wrong. I was trying to point out your flawed logic regarding saying, in a vaccuum, 'Israel is in violation of 242', and in response you seem to want to expand that topic, yet at the same time claiming you don't want to expand that topic. My responses to your previous post will follow as soon as my conference call is over.

How did this go from what do American's think of foreigners and what do foreigners think of Americans to Israel? I'll just pose one question: Imagine that the Palestinians behaved toward any other country in the Middle East as they do toward Israel. Feel free to replace Palestinian with Kurd, Berber, Armenian, Azeri, Druze, etc. Is there any other Middle Eastern country where such behavior would not result in genocidal extermination? I guess I'm just a not terribly open hearted person, but I just don't give a shit about the Palestinians. They were welcomed into Jordan and they tried to overthrow the government. They were welcomed into Lebanon and they started a civil war. We could not pay the Egyptians to take Gaza back today.

The funniest thing to me about Israel is the expulsion of the Jews in '48. Israel lost 10% of it's Jewish population during the "Catastrophe" and should have ceased to exist right then. It only survived because the Arab League expelled their respective Jewish populations. People forget that Baghdad was a Jewish city at the time (and Catholics were the second largest group in Baghdad). If the Arab League had actually believed their own rhetoric that Israel was a European Post-Colonial invasion and an assault against Arabs divorced religion, they would not have discriminated against their own Jewish Arab populations. I'm unaware of there having been a great flow of Sephardim to Israel form Iraq or Morocco before they were forced out of their homes. But without the over a million Sephardic Jews, Israel would have had a very tough time surviving the first couple of years. It is my impression that the Sephardim are generally the most anti-Arab Israelis, after several thousand years of living among them. I'm unaware of any Arab country offering to give back any of the property taken from their Jewish populations in the late 40s.

My academic adviser as an undergrad was one of those people invited on TV shows whenever some random Muslim did something crazy. He was the Today Show's main guest on September 12th. I remember asking him once, "When did Israel get nuclear weapons?" And his response was, "When did the Arab League endorse UN Resolution 242? Subtract 30 minutes." One should never approach this debate as though the Arabs embraced UN legalities as a first, second or even third response.