One of my compatriot (patriot I don't know, con, certainly) who goes here under the name UnVillainFrançais and the e-mail address pasenmonnom@caramail.com ('not under my name' in French) left a nice message for me in the comments of the post about José Bove. A message in French (whether he cannot speak English or didn't have the balls to write it in English, or both, I don't know) .

Mr./Ms. UnVillainFrançais could have tried to just argue about how relevant my post was, something others do here. Something any civilized person, respectful of others would do.

But no. UnVillainFrançais, who accuses us of hatred, of racism, of warmongering, is apparently nostalgic of times that will cast a slur on France's honor for a long time. UnVillainFrançais posted a very clear message for me:

Ah yes, BTW and FYI, traitors are, in times of war, shot. Consequently, pray that uncle Jacques doesn't begin to drift into the nauseous warmongering of your little girlfriends...

I'd assume the word 'girlfriends' refers to Americans in general...

This is for freedom of speech in France. This is for their complete lack of hatred.

What about Voltaire's words: "I disagree completely with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it"? No, not for UnVillainFrançais.

Sadly, I realize that siding with the US today may be the same as siding with the US 60 years ago. Understand before the landing, before the liberation, of course. Which explains the desecrations. Which explains the torching of a Statue of Liberty. Which explains the breaking of 9/11 plaques in France. Which explains all the propaganda.

We are not from the same country UnVillainFrançais. I certainly wasn't born in the France you portrayed in your irrelevant comments.
But you do portray the France that foreigners (and not just Americans) loathe today. The France of intolerance, contempt, prejudice, pettiness and hypocrisy.
So stop saying you're defending your patrie, you are not representative of the majority of the French, thank God.

And next time you need my "girlfriends" to come save your ass, pray that they'll still "drift into the nauseous warmongering" you talk about. Or else you may end up speaking another language, and your patrie may even lose her name. But maybe that's just what you're longing for.

I am afraid your French friend lives in a land that can best be called Vichystan: it occupies that strange area where left and right comingle with the paranoia of a Boulangist (19th century money quote "Why did we lose to the Germans?"), a follower of French Action (20th century, money quote "Why did the Germans have to lose?), and a communist (why did the Germans have to lose to les Amis?).

The particulars of the compliaint, ideology employed, etc. is truly irrelevant: This is something out of Freud, a working out of rage, anger and dissapointment carried out on a national level. It is not a typical disease of most Frenchmen: pathological neurotics are USUALLY a minority of any population. Unfortunately a small, highly motivated or driven group can sieze control of a nation and have done so in the past. Nations with a discredited aristocracy (Russia) Nations with no tradition of liberal democracy in Defeat (Germany) or Nations that face the trauma of social change (Japan/Italy) have all succumbed in the past to the statist, hate driven form of Government known as socialism, whether it be in its national or international flavor. All that is needed is the passive acquiessence of most of the population.

A France that is a failure on the world stage, has created "Europe". Please note that this failure is their own judgement - not ruling the roost is a violation of "a certain idea of France" held by ENArchs and others of the establishment. This "Europe" is a new creature designed primarilly to magnify the French government's power beyond it's borders without haveing to do such inconvenient things as spend money, create an effective military, etc.

Unfortunately Europe's first challenge (Bosnia) was a complete fiasco. All the usual nations state players basically backed the same factions they had backed in 1914! Only the Americans could bail them out.

The second attempt at unity against an Iraq war was just as bad. Outside of Germany, Belgium and Luxemburg, no one supported them. Indeed, the French overplayed their hand and put the wind up a number of European Governments.Whether
"Europe" will work to France's advantage has yet to be seen. Odds are it will either fail, or be one more restriction on France's already limmited ability to manage its own affairs.

They did, however, do great damage: the natural atavism of a basically ignorant or pseudosophisticated "Eurpoean" population has developed a near psychotic dislike of the current American regime (as they call it). As the demographic disaster that is Western Europe begins to unfold, as the economies continue to falter (particullarly against those in Asia), this so called left wing, in fact reactionary xenophobic politics may well consume much of Europe and bring the World into even greater peril than it is now.

For example, few in Europe seem to understand that the greatest danger we face today is in North Korea. Sophisticated Europeans
seem not to notice, but for the US, China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan should be at least as important as Western Europe.

This danger is greater than one would think because most Europeans really do not understand the consequences. This was brought home to me over thirty years ago when a German instructor I had refused to believe that the Kennedy administration was close to war over Cuba - large capitalists would never permit it to disturb their exploitation of the poor(yes, he was one of those). Well, I hate to tell you this, but I was in NY, and we expected to die if fighting broke out. Any reading of the record shows that it was a close thing.

The point is that there are real consequences to a nation's actions and the conflicts that can result. This something that Europe in general and France in particullar has been sheltered from for the past 50 years. This was also true in the US, at least following the fall of the USSR. For many of our people 9/11 changed that. There is now a strong feeling that we will be avenged and that this will not be permitted to happen again. Please note that for the majority of the population this is the sine qua non of politics. Even among the Democrats, the arguments we have are not really about that we need to respond, but how to respond. The argument du jour of some is that the war in Iraq is wrong not becuase of the violence, bloodshed, etc. is wrong but because ift diverts our attention from the true enemies who are Al Quida, the Saudis, the Shriners or whatever silliness our Democratic leaders chose to think about.

The US will act, with or without Europe if it has to. When push comes to shove, "Europe" has best stay out of the way. This is not a jingoistic threat, but the way most US citizens feel, and should be taken into consideration when judgeing what the US may do.

The failure of "Europe" to understand the US and its own attraction towards fascistic, xenophobic politics, along with its decreasing importance to the US are the twin issues that "Europe" must face if it wishes to avoid serious consequences. To externalize "Europe"'s economic and demographic conflict is to find an external enemy to blame, in this case the US (along with the old standby the Jews or Israel). Well, at least the Freemasons have been left out of it for once.

In the long run this will not work, because it is not true. Giving in to this temptation - to blame the outsider - is the path to disaster.

Given the current trend in French demographics, it is becoming increasingly obvious that France will be adopting S'haria laws within the decade.

You will be forced to trade your Socialism for Islam...be prepared for "submission"

We will not lift a single finger to help, when the Islamonazis begin to destroy your cultural treasures and icons to attain accordance to the Q"uran.

Do not ask us to intervene.

When your women are forced to wear bourkas, or else be subject to "tournante"...

Don't bother asking for assistance.

When your great works of art and sculptures are being wantonly destroyed, in the coming Islamic purges...

Don't ask for intervention...

When your great cathedrals are torn down or converted to mosques...

Don't even hope for American assistance.

You French...You are on your own, No more American blood will ever be shed to save your pathetic asses.

France...Dhar il Islam

SAM, you are entirely right. This is not an American-European shouting match. Many Europeans know what's going on, but they are in a minority and losing. And they learn to keep their 'pro-American' views to themselves, because it won't make them any friends in the New Europe. They learn to shut up as Chirac would put it.

For example, few in Europe seem to understand that the greatest danger we face today is in North Korea.
Completely wrong.Everybody in Europe understand the Danger coming from North Korea. What nobody is able to understand in Europe, is why the US start a pre-emptive war in Iraq because this country is suppoosed to develop WMD(not yet proven), and why they only "negotiate" with North Korea, as this country shout loudly it develop nuclear WMD.....
Aren't the North Korean people prisoner of a terrible governement too ?The even don't have enough to eat.
Aren't they enough proof of their developping WMD ?
Isn't this country a self-declared "enemy" of USA, able to fund terrorist groups ?

Maybe there's no oil in North Korea... That could explain.

Marc Levis is again pretending to speak for all Europeans. He isn't.

There are Europeans who understand that in Iraq the choice had to be made between (1) continuing the post-Gulf War stalemate with Saddam Hussein (inspections, sanctions, military confrontations in the no fly zone, etc), (2) lifting the pressure and let Saddam Hussein and his psychotic heirs free to pursue their ambitions, (3)decisive military action to settle the issue once and for all. The French wanted (2), the Americans chose (3). Many Europeans agreed with America.

In the Pentagon's assessment North Korea has the ability and will to obliterate Seoul in case of an American attack, possibly with nuclear weapons. That virtually rules out the military option. So America is pursuing diplomacy. Multilateral diplomacy even. So what are you complaining about Marc Levis? Isn't that what the French wanted?

Oil has nothing to do with this again. That's typical leftwing European whining. It doesn't bring us any closer to a solution to this problem. North Korea is a nightmare. What do you propose should be done, Marc Levis?

The French aren't interested in real solutions to international conflicts to achieve lasting peace, only in scoring points against the Americans.

In the Pentagon's assessment North Korea has the ability and will to obliterate Seoul in case of an American attack, possibly with nuclear weapons. That virtually rules out the military option.
The "huge numbers of WMD in Iraq" (George Bush), that could be possibly used "within 45 minutes" ( Tony Blair)against Israel, should have ruled out also the military option in Iraq.....
So, why it wasn't ruled out ?

There's an incoherence there, don't you think ?

Oh, Marcie Marc,
You didn't answer Peter's question: What do you propose should be done, Marc Levis?
Quit trying to change the subject.

Yes, what DO you propose be done with N. Korea, Marc?

Too often one hears that the U.S. meedles in other countries' affairs, that the U.S. is trying to take over the world, that the U.S. blah blah blah blah blah. Yet, time after time after time these same critics demand to know why the U.S. doesn't do something about this problem or that problem in wherever. This is incredibly hypocritical, and it shows that many countries are prepared to look to the U.S. to solve the world's problems when they are unable to do so themselves.

Why don't these countries try to tackle the problem without the U.S.? If they want Big Brother U.S. to back out of their affairs then why don't they be proactive and do some negotiating and problem solving of their own? However, the fact of the matter is that it is much easier for a government (or Marc) to sit on the sidelines and criticize U.S. foreign policy when they'd rather not get involved.

The U.S. is working on the Iraq and Israel/Palestine problems, Marc, so you and your fellow Frenchmen should get the N.Korean issue. But then again, the French have never had a good success rate when allowed to take care of problems with dictators.

Calm down, guys.
I think the US approach is the right one for North Korea, no problem. Where did I say contrary ?

I simply relate some facts :
- Iraq and North Korea are considered to have developped WMD.
- North Korea is suspected to have ability and will to obliterate Seoul in case of an American attack. Iraq is (was) supsected to have the ability and will to obliterate Israel.

So, I wonder why in this case, the US coalition took the enormous risk to see Israel obliterated, destroyed by Iraqian WMD ?
US doesn't want to take a risk of a mass Destruction in North Korea 's case, but took it in Iraq's case...
Strange no ?

What nobody is able to understand in Europe, is why the US start a pre-emptive war in Iraq because this country is suppoosed to develop WMD(not yet proven), and why they only "negotiate" with North Korea, as this country shout loudly it develop nuclear WMD.....

Politics. North Korea's patron and protector is China. A large country with a large army with an authritarian government that was allowed to develop both nuclear weapons and a ballistic missile system capable of hitting the US.

In the US we wonder why we're condemned by Europe for acting on Iraq and yet European diplomats kept calling for the US to act alone on the question of North Korea.

Aren't the North Korean people prisoner of a terrible governement too ?The even don't have enough to eat.

It's not a question of food. It's their government's desire to use food as a weapon of domestic policy that has been the problem. All that danegeld paid by the US didn't stop the North Korean government from becoming more belligerant (big duh on that, like tribute ever has) and didn't go to help their people much.

Kal

Being a sophisticated European, Marc has demonstrated the unfortunately usual "European" ignorance as to what power is and how to use it. (Please see WWI & WWII)

Whether Marc agrees or not the US faced five enemies after 911: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran and those Saudi elements that support terror. Generally one attacks the weakest first - both to gain a victory and to impress the others so that they may voluntarilly do what you wish WITHOUT having to fight them. For a sophisiticated European, please note that this is called strategic thinking - see Aristotle- please contrast with the results of "European" sophisticated political thinking in the Balkans. Also note that despite tales of the Afghan Winter, Khyber Pass Horrors, etc. the campaign was short and the Army of occupation from the US numbers about 8000 on the ground - say 40000 including support, logistics and other forces stateside.

By the way, is there oil in Afghanistan?

With one down there were four to go. Obviously, from this list the weakest is Iraq - that is the next to go. It also is the most vulnerable - material has been prepositioned against them for 10+ years.

Now we must admit that Marc is right it is about oil, but not in the way he means. At 2mm bbls a day, Iraq's total oil revenue equals about 8%
of the US defense budget. For the US this is a nice piece of change, but not critical. What this revenue did do was give the Iraqis enough money to bribe corrupt ("European"?) politicians and International groups (Oil for Food?). The Iraqi's were very clever - by 2001 the sanctions regime was about to be lifted: only American action (threats) got the UN to support a limited tightening of sanctions. The ambitions of the regime in Iraq, however, would not be curbed. It had to go, and did, despite the best rabble rousing efforts of its bought and paid for politicians.

Meanwhile, US forces are getting OUT of Saudi Arabia, and the Saudi regime is coming under increasing pressure to reform and suppress the Wahhabbi terrorists. Syria is between a rock and a hard place and Iran faces internal problems which we will make worse any way we can. All without firing a shot.

North Korea came into this as follows: this was an excellent time to shake down the World: thus the Dear Leader admitted they had conned Carter and Clinton and wanted a payoff. The US response has been to delay and regionalise the negotiations, while it redeploys its forces and prepares for war, should it be needed. The objective is to get what one wants WITHOUT fighting: only by isolating them completely, by facing them with force that they know will destroy them and by giving them examples that we have the will to do it can a negotiation be carried out successfully. This takes time: in the case of Iraq it took about a year. we are about 6 months into a probqbly longer process with North Korea. It is interesting to note that NK does not have money to buy off the NGO's and foriegn politicians and that ther is less support and condcern for their soveriegn rights against the US oppressor.

Marc engages in the usual rhetorical device of misdirection: B is worse than A so attack B instead of A. Indeed by attacking A you (the US) shows that you are not serious and have ulterior motives. Marc - power politics is not a parlor game and the failure of them results in bloodshed and horror: the kind I and my friends faced on 911 in New York. Armies take time to move, and things must be thought out carefully.

Revanchist or not, it will not be permitted to happen again without dire consequences as long as this Nation stands. We do not want to fight, but we will if our security is threatened. The Issue for France is how to respond. That is your business, not mine. If, however, your actions threaten us be very careful.

See the world as the dangerous place it is and recognize the challenges YOU face in France and take action. Don't blame others for your own problems or project your fear and hate onto others. Recognize that the consequences of mistakes made by the political elite of France will lead to its further diminishment, if not something worse. Already Jews are being attacked in the streets: it is later than you think.

Iraq is (was) supsected to have the ability and will to obliterate Israel.

I don't think anyone believed Iraq could obliterate Iraq. Had they attacked Iraq, and if the US couldn't keep Israel from retaliating there would have been serious war. All Arab and Muslim nations would have, in turn, attacked Israel and the Middle East would have become a major war zone. Millions of Arabs and Muslims would die and Israel would almost certainly survive anyway. The Arabs have a poor track record at waging war (especially against Israel) and their tactical theory hasn't changed. The worse part is that it would probably draw an extremely large number of Muslims in other countries into the whole fiasco.

You'll recall Iraq tried to do this in 1991 by attacking Israel. They had hoped to create solidarity among Muslims by utilizing the prevalent feelings of Jew-hatred among Arabs and Muslims. It failed only because Israel was convinced not to retalliate after being attacked numerous times by the Iraqis.

Kal

Had they attacked Iraq, and
oops. Had Iraq attacked Israel and....

I agree with Sam and everyone else.
European History (Something I know quite ALOT about) is to be studied and then used to show WHAT NOT TO DO when faced with a situation such as Iraq under Saddam, Afghanistan under the thumb of the Taliban etc.
If anyone here thinks that Bashar Assad doesn't go to sleep having nightmares about GIS cruising Damascus Streets in M1-ABRAMS tanks your sadly mistaken. The removal of Saddam was a heads up for the freaks, killers and sicko terrorist bastards in the world. Don't F with W, he will put a Texas sized boot on your butt and it won't be a pleasent experiance.
Hell there is an article today in the Washington Times about the Ayatollahs grandson saying the people of Iran would welcome US intervention. Of course we won't have to go there...but freaking Khomeni's grandson? Thats a HUGE step. HUGE! That would be like Hitlers grandson )(Had he had a grandson) embracing Winston Churchill!
People like Levishit would rather be complacent and dumb a 2 million dollar cruise missle on an asprin factory rather than go after the bad guys and deal them a harsh blow. Euro trash likes the Status Quo. Why upset the apple cart?
But as Uday Hussien himself said,
"Bush is not like Clinton. The Americans are serious. I think this is the end."
Now Uday the pervert prick is 6 feet under decaying......which where anyone should be should they seek the destruction of the USA and liberty...
Word to the wise,
Don't F with W! Its not healthy!

Marc Sez "What nobody is able to understand in Europe, is why the US start a pre-emptive war in Iraq because this country is suppoosed to develop WMD(not yet proven), and why they only "negotiate" with North Korea, as this country shout loudly it develop nuclear WMD....."

WHY ARENT YOU ABLE TO UNDERSTAND ???

For christ sake its been explained to you many different ways. When faced with reasonable and logical explainations you keep repeating the same old tired bullshit. ARE YOU STUPID??? What part of "Different Political Situation" dont you understand. This isnt rocket science sparky.

For a sophisticated Euroweenie you sure dont seem to posses any social, cultural or political knowledge or insight. Why do you need to have the most obvious political strategy explained over and over. When asked what you would suggest for N Korea you reply with ........ silence and then repeat the "it about OIL" crap that has been disproved so many ways. Once again..ARE YOU STUPID???POORLY EDUCATED???JUST BEING AN OBTUSE DICK MAYBE.
I'm not going to go to the trouble to try and add to the already excellent comments on this thread and as a lurker I dont normally post but jesus man GET A CLUE, read a history book, hell watch National Geographic. Do something because your knowledge of the history of geopolitical confilct is pathetic.

My apologies to the rest of the board for this vent.

Sam wrote:
Being a sophisticated European, Marc has demonstrated the unfortunately usual "European" ignorance as to what power is and how to use it.
I'm sorry Sam, but I almost totally agree with you on your geostrategical considerations.
Afganishtan was a demonstration of power as well as an immediate revenge, and the war in Iraq is also a way to put a pressure on Saudi Arabia, which seems to let terrorist groups and financial structure grows on its ground .
That's why I "laugh" when I hear that this war was made to "free Iraqians", as Fox News for example sold it, or even George Bush.
It's a consequence of this war, but the reasons are somewhere else, and you described them Sam.

I dont agree with you, Kal. You describe why Iraq wouldn't have attacked Israel. Sure the consequence would have been huge, but it doens't impress I think the "Kamikaze" mind of these people.
It was an huge big risk that the collaping regime
would use its WMD just before dying. The US took this risk , why ?
My opininon is that US knew that there were no WMD, so they could risk a war there without in fact risking anything for their soldier, and for Israel. The WMD threat is a lie from the US administration. If Saddam really had them, he would have had used them. And it was crazyness to go in this case.

France considered the cataclysm in the region that described Kal as possible, and was reluctant to war partially for this reason.

To finish, I would say that France was not attacked on the 9-11. It's difficult to fell exactly the same as US citizens feels. By this way, it's difficult for France to be so engaged (with its army) as US in the fight for terrorism. However, as an ally we must do it.
France wants that the regulation of this world to be made by UN. It's a great will I think.
The problem is that the UN were not designed to support the actions that the US want to do (pre-emptive wars). Not only France, but the majority of the international community is not favorable to such concepts.
That's why in one way, if the US want to take this road it will have to take it alone (or with few allies). France only tell that it's dangerous way. Indeed, it's not the unilateral actions taken in order to free Ingrid betancourt that must be feared, but other "moves" from other nations. China can become a very worrying country...
We come back to one century ago. No rules, "law of Jungle". Any country can attack another because its own reasons are valid.
As an american, you may feel safe because your army is the strongest for the moment, but the rest of World prefer a regulated world order , by an enforced international organism, the United Nations.

C'mon Marc...Leave everything up to the U.N.? Seriously? You must be kidding...

What has the U.N. done to put an end to the atrocities committed in Chechnya? What has the U.N. done to end the atrocities committed in Sudan? In the Israeli/Palestine conflict? In Iraq in the last 20 years? In the African countries, one of which, Liberia, is now begging us to intervene?

The U.N. has consistently shown itself to be highly ineffective by issuing various resolutions condemning violence and atrocities throughout the world, and then failing uphold these same resolutions. You put an awful lot of faith in an organization that has done little to deserve it.

History has shown that the U.N. is not capable to confront many of the problems threatening the world community.

Once again Marc manages to miss the point.

No, I do not feel safe: it is my understanding or belief that the US will lose a city in the next fifty years. As a New Yorker who was in the World Trade Center teh first time it was bombed, and had to get my three year old daughter away from her daycare in lower Manhattan the second time, I am aware of the risks.

You cannot stop anything forever - the nature of technology is such that if a determined group will, given time, find a way. All we can guarantee is that when it comes, we will survive and someone will pay.

If the US felt safe it would not be fighting. If we are fighting just to sieze what we need we would take Canada, Venezuaela and the Yuccatan peninsula. I think you misunderstand what we are doing, and do so at your peril.

The UN is not set up to do anything - its actions are a function of the members' will. If the members are corrupt and the organization is corrupt the actions will be corrupt. Please note that if the USSR had not walked out in 1949, it wouldn't have authorized a defensive war in Korea. The idea that an organization cannot do certain things as simple as voting one way or anothere is an extension of the pseudo scientific Marxist / deterministic gibberrish that has been a bain on the West and the rest of the world for 90 years. It is also an excuse for not taking action.

No we didn't go to war soley to "free" the Iraqi's, but a free Iraq that truly doesn't want to aggrandize itself is in our interests.

I do not want to overstate the role of pure demcracy. A demcratic Saudi Arabia would probably vote for Jihad right now, but once the people understqand the consequences of their decision, and understand the consequences, the results may be different. It is called develpoment and civilization.

The point is that fallible or not the road to freedom, away from surfdom in its new state terrorist manifistation is the goal. A wise Briton once described democracy as NOT being a state where six people can tell five what to do. I would extend that to six dictatorships or corrupt oligarchies telling one democracy what to do.

All nations act or try to in their interests, and all blunder. The question we face is what do we want? I argue that the role of France and the French government has been to promote fascistic tendencies domestically and to impede freedom in the world. In other words to use demagogery for domestic advantage and international mischief.

I argue the opposit for the US.

Which side are you on? It is time to choose.

We all have choices - what are yours?

If we are fighting just to sieze what we need we would take Canada, Venezuaela and the Yuccatan peninsula. I think you misunderstand what we are doing.
I don't think US fight to "sieze". US want to replace some governements by others, in order that the countries concerned stop to act or favorize actions against the US (Iraq, Afganhistan) , or US want to set a pressure on some governmeent so that they act against terrorism in their own countries (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan..)

The UN is not set up to do anything
I engage you to visit the UN internet site. This organization has many roles in this world, not only to fight against the terrorim that hurted the US .
If you see the world through the prism of US interests, you'll miss the efficiency of this organism. US can't be everywhere, the UN is dedicated to handle every "international" problems, even the smallest one, even those in which US have no interests.
You think US doesn't need UN. I think that the world need UN. And I even think that the US need also the UN, because peace keeping forces are essential , and only United Nations can furnish the large amount of peace keeping force needed in this world. The Us can't make it alone.

- The UN actions are a function of the members' will. If the members are corrupt and the organization is corrupt the actions will be corrupt [...]I would extend that : six dictatorships or corrupt oligarchies telling one democracy what to do is NOT democracy.

Corrupted seems to be inaccurate for me.
Alliances are made or not at the UN security council. An alliance doesn't involve corruption.
As I remember for the Iraq case, were present at the council: Chili, Cameroun, Bulgaria, Syria, Angola, Mexique, Guinea.
Are these the six corrupted oligarchies you mentioned ? It's hard term, especially for Cameroun, Bulgaria and Mexico.
Additionally Bulgaria was pro US.
Nevermind the US seems to accept pretty well the rules of the UN when it is in its favor, but not when it is not. It's not very "fair-play".
Anyway, I understand the sense of your speech. The US feels in danger , and is upset that its actions to answer this danger may depend of the voting of few far countries.
I can understand that, but angerness is bad advisor. As a "citizen of the world", I prefer that the UN is respected, its rules improved, its power strenghtened .

"I argue that the role of France and the French government has been to to use demagogery for domestic advantage and international mischief.
I argue the opposit for the US."
Me, I argue the same for the US.
I have no doubt that French compromised itself in many stinking stories. Some of them stayed famous ( Bokassa jewelry given to President Giscard in 70's)
The French obsession to keep everything under UN control is also a way for France to keep its "power", since France has a Veto there and is a permanent member. There is demagogy in French speech , for sure.
But I won't treat the US differently. US administration is able to lie its own people also, to "suggest" to some countries that they would receive help or not depending of their vote, to organize or favorize "Putches", to also sell weapons to different dictatorships...

I really don't think that the US are the angels they pretend to be. They only defend their interests, using more or less legal methodes, and so does France. (and Britain, and Russia, and...)

our mission is to safeguard freedom - french freedom seems a pail dilute version but you havent voted it legal to beat women to death in honor killings yet so ...
we won't put you on the list. Stop your sniveling Frogboy and change your pants. America won't be toppling your Government (even though you really could use a makeover)

>I really don't think that the US are the angels >they pretend to be. They only defend their >interests, using more or less legal methodes, >and so does France. (and Britain, and Russia, >and...)

-Marc

I agree Marc! We are defending our interests! Whats wrong with that? I think your problem is that you live in a country that cannot protect its own interests. Is that my problem or yours?

Dont cry because we spend our money to create and maintain a first class military, whose number one purpose is the defense of our nation. We chose to work hard and create a life that we wanted. If you dont like your life, change it? Try working more than 35 hours a week: spend more money on your own defense: create a country that people want to live in and imulate: be brave, stand up for what you want and if you get hit, pick yourself up and do something about it.

Dont hate us because we are secure in who we are!

If you disagree with our position, create a viable alternative. Just remember, if you aid or abet our enemies, then you are our enemy. Dont cry, just be prepared to face our might.

God Bless the U.S.A.

I think that the world need UN.

Great news from the UN, just what the world needs:

Syria assumes presidency of United Nations Security Council

Just want to thank all the European bloggers who take time and money to let the world know not everyone in their country has fallen for the current crop of hate propaganda, this time targeting the US. I always wondered, as I studied WWII history, how it was possible for such learned and cultured people to be blinded by Hitler, and to a lesser degree, Marx and Stalin.

I'm witnessing something many of our ancestors went through and still find it hard to comprehend. I see the posters on this board parrot their anti-US slogans and be refuted by others with facts and references. Does this change what the parrots say? No. They hardly acknowledge their aguments are not based on facts, just slogans they've heard over and over.

We have the same parrots in the US, so I don't believe it's the US vs. Europe. It's a world wide ideological struggle (for lack of a better term) that's taking place. I don't think I would have been as aware of it as I am had it not been for Sept. 11. I knew it existed in the US, but I felt safe ignoring it as so many others here did. Now I don't ignore it in the US and many others don't either.

The non-religious ideology that hates the US has married the religious ideology of the Islamists. This has happened in the US and Europe. As I see it, I'll have to convert to their ways of thinking and acting or be killed. I don't intend to be killed, if I can help it.

Well, at least I can understand a little bit how the Jews must feel. I keep encountering all these sites that just spew vile hate at the US and parrot slogans. This is similar to what the Jews have gone through. It's difficult to defend against hatred that's got such a grip on people because the emotions blind them to any facts contrary to their feelings.

Here is a link for those who are concerned about WMD, praise the Old Glory and are found of commemoration

http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/NWview.cgi?/news/2000/08/06/hiroshima000806

A+

Très chère Carine,

Mais que d’honneurs ! Un post sur le tableau principal pour moi tout seul : je n’en demandais pas tant. Et puis que de virtuosité dans l’ignorance crasse et la vulgarité !
Tiens, par exemple, et pour bien commencer, cette citation, prétendument de Voltaire, citée à tout va dans tous les forums d’extrême droite et « libertaires » - comme par exemple the Dissident Frogman à propos de la fermeture de sites xénophobes et racistes – par des gens qui transpirent la tolérance et l’ouverture d’esprit, est de Béatrice Hall paraphrasant Voltaire dans son ouvrage « Les amis de Voltaire ». Et, non contente de d’attribuer à tort cette phrase à Voltaire, tu n’es même pas capable d’en respecter la lettre : « I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ». Béatrice Hall. Imbécile !
A l’avenir, je t’enjoins à faire usage de citations d’avantage à ta portée et en mesure de mieux illustrer ton propos. La fameuse « … » de Marcel Marceau me paraît être idoine.
« La culture, c’est comme un parachute : quand on en a pas, on s’écrase ! ».
Pierre Desproges
Bon, je ne m’appesantirai pas trop sur le jeu de mot éculé fait à partir du mot compatriote : il exprime fidèlement ton indigence intellectuelle. Je me réjouis en revanche d’avance sur le sort que tu réserves à « éculé » : la finesse de tes propos laisse envisager une bonne crise de franche rigolade.
Non, je ne suis pas un de tes compatriotes, car décidément nous n’appartenons à la même France. Ta France est la France des compromissions et des trahisons, la France de Varennes, de Laval et de Guy Milliere. La France des tondues qui couchent avec l’ennemi.
Ma France est la France éternelle, la France de l’Abbé Grégoire, de Clemenceau et de De Gaulle. La France de ceux qui n’attenteraient pas à la vie de leur président.
J’ignore quelles peuvent être tes motivations pour salir de la sorte ton pays, mais je ne doute pas une seule seconde qu’une haine aveugle des français d’origine arabe et/ou nord-africaine soit la pierre d’achoppement de ces dernières.
Couarde, tu ne manqueras pas de nous expliquer que tu n’es pas raciste, qu’en fait c’est l’intégrisme musulman que tu combats et que de toute façon tu ne peux pas être raciste puisqu’il s’agit d’une religion et non d’une race – comme d’autres réfuteront leur anti-sémitisme en se parant du caractère sémite de leurs origines…
Sournoise, tu te réclameras d’une fidélité indéfectible à ceux qui nous ont libérés de l’occupant allemand et protégés du communisme, d’une compassion à l’égard du peuple Irakien victime d’un dictateur sanguinaire.
Manipulatrice, tu ne manqueras de travestir les faits, de monter en épingle certains faits divers et chiens écrasés, de faire d’exceptions des règles.
Le cul bien au chaud derrière ton ordinateur, disposant du temps nécessaire pour donner libre court à tes divagations paranoïaques, tu te paies le luxe de salir l’image de notre peuple et notre patrie, car la simple évocation des conséquences du boycott te remplit d’aise. Non contente d’être coupable de parricide à l’égard d’un pays qui nous a tout donné, tu es totalement insensible aux conséquences du boycott que tu promeus. Pas une seule pensée pour ceux qui triment comme des damnés pour un salaire de misère dans les chaînes de montage, qui peinent à joindre les deux bouts à la fin du mois et qui n’ont pas eu la chance comme toi d’être bien-nés. Pas une once de compassion pour les enfants français de ceux qui se feront virer dans un an, victimes de ce boycott que tu nourris, qui ne partiront pas en vacances.
Tu peux jouer les effarouchées, mais non, j’appelle un chat un chat. Tu n’es qu’une pauvre idiote raciste et vicieuse qui place tes médiocres fantasmes au delà de l’intérêt de ta nation. Tu n’es qu’une traître, une ingrate, une vendue, une scélérate et une lâche.
La liberté d’expression existe en France et nul ne t’empêche de l’exercer. En revanche, oser crier à l’atteinte à la liberté d’expression lorsqu’on n’accepte pas de te voir peindre à l’étranger notre pays aux couleurs de la calomnie et de la mauvaise foi relève de la sinistre farce.
Pour ma part, je n’ai pas de leçon à recevoir en terme de patriotisme de la part d’une pisseuse exhalant la haine de son pays. Lorsque tu auras, comme moi, servi sous les drapeaux, on pourra éventuellement réévaluer les choses. En attendant, j’ai rencontré à cette occasion plus d’ « Arabo-Musulmans » prêts à servir leur patrie, que de « Christine ».
Ah ! Mais bien sûr, j’oubliais : tu combats du côté des américains – les « libérateurs ».
Libérateurs de mes deux ! Combien de vies innocentes sacrifiées sur l’autel du Dollar par les bouchers des complexes Militaro-Petrolo-Industriels ?
Ces libérateurs ont tenté d’abuser pendant plus d’un an un monde qui est resté incrédule malgré les menaces, les manipulations et les mensonges. Où sont les Armes de Destruction Massive ? Où sont-elles ? Ah, mais non, il s’agissait en fait de Programmes de Destruction Massive ! Mais je ne me fais pas trop de soucis, on va bien finir par trouver un petit baril d’Anthrax qui à lui seul justifiera à n’en pas douter les milliers de tonnes de bombes lâchées sur des civils…
Ah ! Mais non, en fait il s’agissait de libérer le peuple Irakien de Saddam Hussein. Ce même Saddam Hussein, créature américaine, à qui Donald Rummsfeld n’hésitait pas à serrer la main dans les années 80 lorsqu’il s’agissait de fournir toute la logistique pour gazer les iraniens…
Ah, mais non, ils s’agissait en fait de faire cesser les massacres dont témoignent les charniers récemment mis à jour. Oui, ces massacres perpétrés par Hussein à l’issue des incitations du père de Dubya à se soulever, avant de lâchement les abandonner aux zélotes du parti Baath.
Mais ne parlons pas des « quelques » 500 000 enfants victimes du blocus américain durant les années 90 et de ceux victimes des conséquences de l’emploi de munition à uranium appauvri. Ne parlons pas des victimes civiles des bombardements incessants, et ce, 12 ans durant.
Non ! Non ! Que nenni ! Cette administration dont 80% des membres ont des intérêts dans l’armement, le pétrole ou les travaux publics est mue par une profonde et sincère charité chrétienne.
Bien sûr, si quelque gamin inconscient et probablement bourré et/ou stone a la connerie de profaner un cimetière : c’est tout un pays qui doit être sur la sellette.
Evidemment, les quelques actes anti-sémites ne se sont pas fait sans l’assentiment silencieux et coupable du pays tout entier. Car voyez-vous, Madame, le français moyen est par nature lâche et anti-sémite !
Cette persistance a rappeler que la France a livré des juifs à une mort certaine nous ferait presque penser, qu’en fait, si les allemands ont bien effectué la basse besogne, ils n’ont fait que répondre aux doléances françaises.
Qu’importe le fait que la France est le pays d’Europe occupé qui a préservé le plus de juifs, qu’importe le fait que de nombreux hommes et femmes aient risqué leur vie pour les sauver : la France est un pays profondément antisémite et chaque français se doit de posséder les œuvres complètes de Gobineau chez lui. Qu’importe si les juifs polonais furent émancipés grâce à Napoléon, qu’importe l’importance du mouvement Dreyfusard, qu’importe les justes et les 80 % de juifs sauvés.
Mais comment expliquer alors le masochisme de ces quelques 600 000 juifs de France – deuxième communauté mondiale hors Israël – qui persistent à vivre dans le foyer mondial de l’antisémitisme ?
Non, décidément, tu es vraiment trop stupide… Et pour cette raison, n’attends pas l’once d’un pico gramme de respect de ma part. Tu peux garder tes mauvaises habitudes : en ce qui me concerne, je ne couche pas avec l’ennemi.
Pour conclure, et en réponse à tes allégations, j’ai un taux de testostérone conforme à la norme. S’il te prend l’envie de tester live, je suis à ton entière disposition. En attendant, je te conseille de ne pas te sentir trop à l’abri derrière ton écran, tu pourrais avoir de mauvaises surprises :
http://www.transfert.net/a9154
Cordialement,
UnVilainFrançais.

Did(n't) you like my previous link ?
Try this one then:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030806/wl_afp/japan_hiroshima_us_030806071816

Ah. Nothing like a bit of revisionist history about Japan. Using the bombs we used in Japan saved lives. Allied lives and Japanese lives.

Just so happens the New York Times, hardly a proponent of war, had a piece about this very thing. Seems the Japanese, who lived through those times believe lives were saved as well.

In a perfect world, there would be a better alternative than the bombs dropped on Japan. Those alternatives would save more lives. We don't live in a perfect world. The people living then believed we had no choice because if we did not use the bombs *many more* lives would have been lost.

Don't know if any who condemn this action had relatives in that theater of the war? For those who did and whose relatives were alive after WWII, be they allied or Japanese, you may have those bombs to thank they came home alive.

I will never view the necessity for using the bombs as something to be happy about, neither will I apologize for their use or feel the US should feel ashamed. It was necessary. It was done. Faced with the *exact same* situation today, I hope we have the courage to do something very difficult if more lives are saved in the long run.

The New York Times only allows articles to be accessed for a week for free. After that, you must pay. So, I'm providing the URL plus the article itself.

URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/05/opinion/05KRIS.html

Article:
-----------------------------------

August 5, 2003
Blood on Our Hands?
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Tomorrow will mark the anniversary of one of the most morally contentious events of the 20th century, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. And after 58 years, there's an emerging consensus: we Americans have blood on our hands.

There has been a chorus here and abroad that the U.S. has little moral standing on the issue of weapons of mass destruction because we were the first to use the atomic bomb. As Nelson Mandela said of Americans in a speech on Jan. 31, "Because they decided to kill innocent people in Japan, who are still suffering from that, who are they now to pretend that they are the policeman of the world?"

The traditional American position, that our intention in dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and then Nagasaki was to end the war early and save lives, has been poked full of holes. Revisionist historians like Gar Alperovitz argue persuasively that Washington believed the bombing militarily unnecessary (except to establish American primacy in the postwar order) because, as the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey put it in 1946, "in all probability" Japan would have surrendered even without the atomic bombs.

Yet this emerging consensus is, I think, profoundly mistaken.

While American scholarship has undercut the U.S. moral position, Japanese historical research has bolstered it. The Japanese scholarship, by historians like Sadao Asada of Doshisha University in Kyoto, notes that Japanese wartime leaders who favored surrender saw their salvation in the atomic bombing. The Japanese military was steadfastly refusing to give up, so the peace faction seized upon the bombing as a new argument to force surrender.

"We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war," Koichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest aides, said later.

Wartime records and memoirs show that the emperor and some of his aides wanted to end the war by summer 1945. But they were vacillating and couldn't prevail over a military that was determined to keep going even if that meant, as a navy official urged at one meeting, "sacrificing 20 million Japanese lives."

The atomic bombings broke this political stalemate and were thus described by Mitsumasa Yonai, the navy minister at the time, as a "gift from heaven."

Without the atomic bombings, Japan would have continued fighting by inertia. This would have meant more firebombing of Japanese cities and a ground invasion, planned for November 1945, of the main Japanese islands. The fighting over the small, sparsely populated islands of Okinawa had killed 14,000 Americans and 200,000 Japanese, and in the main islands the toll would have run into the millions.

"The atomic bomb was a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war," Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief cabinet secretary in 1945, said later.

Some argue that the U.S. could have demonstrated the bomb on an uninhabited island, or could have encouraged surrender by promising that Japan could keep its emperor. Yes, perhaps, and we should have tried. We could also have waited longer before dropping the second bomb, on Nagasaki.

But, sadly, the record suggests that restraint would not have worked. The Japanese military ferociously resisted surrender even after two atomic bombings on major cities, even after Soviet entry into the war, even when it expected another atomic bomb — on Tokyo.

One of the great tales of World War II concerns an American fighter pilot named Marcus McDilda who was shot down on Aug. 8 and brutally interrogated about the atomic bombs. He knew nothing, but under torture he "confessed" that the U.S. had 100 more nuclear weapons and planned to destroy Tokyo "in the next few days." The war minister informed the cabinet of this grim news — but still adamantly opposed surrender. In the aftermath of the atomic bombing, the emperor and peace faction finally insisted on surrender and were able to prevail.

It feels unseemly to defend the vaporizing of two cities, events that are regarded in some quarters as among the most monstrous acts of the 20th century. But we owe it to history to appreciate that the greatest tragedy of Hiroshima was not that so many people were incinerated in an instant, but that in a complex and brutal world, the alternatives were worse.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top

Hi Chris,

Ah. Nothing like a bit of revisionist history about Japan. Using the bombs we used in Japan saved lives. Allied lives and Japanese lives.

This article and your summary looks solid but:
It is rather too easy to call "revisionism" any history report or analysis which does not fit with the axiome "America is always right".

Revisionism is denegation of proven FACTS. Main subject : Holocaust. This denegation, aims to throw doubts in the minds in such a way the victims are supposed to become suspects. This is why revisionism is highly condemnable.

58 years ago, USA droped the two first atomic bommbs on two japanese cities. This is a proven fact. No revisionism here.

What is told after is just bet and theory.
"it saved lives" is just the more commonly and loudly claimed to justify any kind of mass murdering operation. If any day Saddam has to justify his murders on kurdish and on the shiite people in a trial, what do you think he will claim ? "It was necessary to save more Iraqui people" and if he is a good actor he may drop some crocodile's tears sobbing "how difficult it was for him to take this terrible but necessary decision". We have little chance to watch this comedy, due to all what he knows, can tell and prove embarassing for the whole occidental world, a suicide or accident will more likely happend before.

Back to Hiroshima, You are sincerly convinced that lives where saved by this, and may be you are right. But it is just an apreciation. Then someone who is convinced that it costed lives and points that it was an attack targeting civilians may be wrong but no "revisionism" here. just a conviction which does not match your's. Like the good country guys from Normandy, I would tell "P'têt' ben qu'oui mais p'têt' ben qu'non"

Revisionist historians like Gar Alperovitz argue persuasively that Washington believed the bombing militarily unnecessary (except to establish American primacy in the postwar order)

There is also this ("revisionist" off course) theory telling that this nuking was done to give Staline "serious arguments" to keep quiet.
Unproven too but why denying it so frantically ? after all, keeping Staline quiet had big chance to save lives too ?

We don't know who will press the button next time and where will the bomb explode. But probably, this guy will thanks God, Allah or the Revolution to give him the "courage" to save lives with this so terrible decision.

Any way these A and H bombs are huge success, widely spread now all over the world and efficient. No country having nukes has been openly attacked until now.

What is Saddam thinking about today ? sometimes it might be something like "Bloody hell ! should I really had these fucking nukes, I would still be today in a comfortable palace, negociating with very kind polites Americans representants..."

A+

The WMD threat is a lie from the US administration. If Saddam really had them, he would have had used them. And it was crazyness to go in this case.

I think you mean that in your opinion the WMD threat was a lie from the US, France, Britain, the UN, Germany, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, since all those countries stated Iraq had WMDs. Well, at least until the US voted to enforce the UN's own resolutions regarding Iraq.

It seems a lot of people have forgotten that the US wasn't alone in saying Iraq had WMDs. Almost the entire world agreed on that single fact. It was what to do about it that they disagreed on.

Kal

Nevermind the US seems to accept pretty well the rules of the UN when it is in its favor, but not when it is not.

Marc, don't forget that it was to enforce 1441 and the treaty (I think it was 934 but I don't remember) that called for unconditional cooperation by Iraq or threatened it with the resumption of hostilities. That was the nature of the agreement Iraq made and that Iraq promptly broke. With that in consideration I would say that the rules of the UN, in this matter, were ignored more by Mexico (a country that is pretty hostile to the US) France, et al, than by the coalition.

Regardless of what anyone thought of the war, the coalition enforced the UN's rules and proclamation. And yes, it was in our best interest to follow UN rules in this, just like it was in the best interest of France and Russia to oppose it.

Kal

Great news from the UN, just what the world needs:

Syria assumes presidency of United Nations Security Council

Don't forget the UN also assigned Iraq to the body responsible for inspections and Cuba to the Human Rights council and Syria has also been on the Human Rights council.

In other news it's time for Taiwan's 11th annual application to the UN and time for China's (and her allies) 11th annual torpedoing of their application.

Kal

UnVilainFrançais,

Kefe mai mua, no ka mea, e po'o uli ia'u a me make lolo ia'u.

'Auwe no ho`i e pilau po'o lemu. Ho'o hana ma`i i kou makuahine e UnVilainFrançais.

Kal

PS: 'Ai ko'u 'ule e pua'a pilau.

Just so happens the New York Times, hardly a proponent of war, had a piece about this very thing. Seems the Japanese, who lived through those times believe lives were saved as well.

I'd like to add that Emperor Hirohito said that it wasn't the dropping of the first atomic bomb that motivated him to end the war and surrender. It was the second bomb.

Kal

Back to Hiroshima, You are sincerly convinced that lives where saved by this, and may be you are right. But it is just an apreciation.

One held by the US government in WW2. Enough so that the purple hearts ordered, in anticipation of the number of American casualties, are still being given out today; So great was the expectation that the Japanese would fight as they had in Okinawa. It was considered that as hard as the Japanese fought the invasion of Okinawa they would have fought just as hard, or harder, for their own home island.

This is a view mirrored by a number of Japanese military men of the day (and the Emperor) and I have yet to read any reputable military historian who disagrees with that assesment.

Kal

"It was considered that as hard as the Japanese fought the invasion of Okinawa they would have fought just as hard, or harder, for their own home island.
This is a view mirrored by a number of Japanese military men of the day (and the Emperor) and I have yet to read any reputable military historian who disagrees with that assesment."

EXACTLY!!

This is why I made the point of stating revisionist history. It wasn't until recently the idea that we SAVED LIVES was questioned. It was most universally believed at the time that it did save lives. The Japanese believed this as well. (See article.)

The people whose lives were to be lost were the allies and the Japanese. The majority of the parties involved, then, believed the use of the bombs was justified. It's easy to look back and state it was unnecessary. The men whose lives were on the line (Japanese and allies) didn't view it as unnecessary.

We also stayed and helped rebuild Japan. We did not have to do this, but we did. How many other nations, after winning a war so decisively have done this? After all, Japan attacked us first, tortured our POWS, and cost a lot of US lives. But we still helped it rebuild. Then we left Japan to the Japanese.

Can anyone think of another nation that has done that? There may be one, I just can't think of any.

Again, no apologies. We didn't murder anyone. It was war. We ended it. Too bad we didn't end it in a way that would please people who weren't even there and weren't faced with the alternative of invading Japan.

I recommend people look at some of the battles that were fought in the Pacific theater. The Japanese fought to the death. They considered surrender shameful. We had fought them on enough islands to realize taking Japan was going to be bloody and costly, for both sides.

A US Civil War General stated "War is Hell". He was right. He also believed the way you take the desire for war away from a people is to help them realize what a Hell it really is. You have to break them of the desire for war. We did that.
I don't believe it could have been done, as efficiently, any other way. Neither did those who were there at the time.

What the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs did was to save lives!"Operation Downfall" was prepared in its final form during the spring and summer of 1945. this plan called for two massive military undertakings to be carried out in succession, and aimed at the very heart of the Japanese Empire...
an island-by-island invasion at a projected cost of a half million to one million American deaths. Thr Japanese death toll was conservatively estimated at 5 to 10 million, on the Japanese mainland alone. this figure was not inclusive of the most certain retaliatory deaths of the Japanese subject peoples.

"Operation Downfall," the code name for the scheduled American invasion of Japan.
The first phase, called Operation Olympic, would have sent 650,000 American servicemen starting November 1, 1945 to try to capture the island of Kyushu. It would have been a slaughter because the Japanese were prepared to defend Kyushu with 540,000 troops and 5,000 kamikaze planes.

The follow-up invasion, called Operation Coronet, was scheduled to start the drive toward Tokyo on March 1, 1946. U.S. plans projected an invasion force of two million men.

Iwo Jima had given the United States forces a preview as to what would be expected...
On February 19, 1945, 30,000 Marines landed on that little five- mile island... When the Iwo Jima battle ended a month later, the price we had paid for raising our flag was 26,000 casualties including more than 6,800 dead

Japanese soldiers were tough and unrelenting fighters. Under orders not to be captured alive, only 1,000 were taken prisoner while 22,000 died defending Iwo Jima.

Via coded messages that had been intercepted, The U.S. military were aware that Japan planned to defend its home islands with 2.3 million troops, another four million Army and Navy employees, and an armed militia of 28 million, all sworn to fight to the death.

Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman's military adviser, predicted that 30 to 35 percent of U.S. soldiers would be killed or wounded during the first 30 days of an invasion of Japan. The Hiroshima bomb saved those lives, as well as those of about 400,000 Allied prisoners of war and civilian detainees held by the Japanese, whom Japan had planned to execute in the event of an American invasion.

...On he other hand , it has become increasingly apparent at THIS was a TOTAL waste of American and British lives!

...In April and May 1944, the Allied air forces lost nearly 12,000 men and over 2,000 aircraft in operations which paved the way for D-Day.

Over 425,000 Allied and German troops were killed, wounded or went missing during the Battle of Normandy. This figure includes over 209,000 Allied casualties, with nearly 37,000 dead amongst the ground forces and a further 16,714 deaths amongst the Allied air forces. Of the Allied casualties, 83,045 were from 21st Army Group (British, Canadian and Polish ground forces), 125,847 from the US ground forces.

...Today, twenty-seven war cemeteries hold the remains of over 110,000 dead from both sides: 77,866 German, 9386 American, 17,769 British, 5002 Canadian and 650 Poles.

Apparently, the French cannot even be entrusted to take adequate care of our dead!

Hey Fiery Celt,
You rock!
Speaking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the fact my beloved Father was preparing to go with the 9th Air Force to deploy from operations in Europe to go to Japan for the invasion of the home Islands,
the bombs saved his life, his brother's life and the lives of every single American and Brit, and Aussie who may have had the displeasure of having to fight their ways across Honshu etc.
I myself being a sound supporter of Clausewitz and his doctrine as anyone who studies military affairs or politics should be will always opt to bring all of the power we have to bear on the enemy...that includes if all else fails 20 megatons....Kim Jong Il are you listening you little Maggot?
That is what Truman (A man my Father hated, loathed and despised as a tax grabbing DemocRAT) did when he decided in favor of using our Nukes on the Japanese. We brought all of our power to bear on Japan and they decided that it wasn't worth their time to fight us any longer. Millions of Japanese were saved as well.
There is a line in the Movie the English Patient when a character said,
"Your actions had consequences. People died."
and the reply was,
"People would have died anyway, just other people."

Thats what war is, not a game, not something to be harranging the USA about either.
If these froggy Reds think our guys like being over in Iraq with its dust, its heat and its ridiculous people they have another thought coming. We don't. On September 11, 2001, 3,000 of our Brothers and Sisters were butchered by arabs. Period, and now, these same people who supported the corrupt filth who perpetrated that genocidal crime are paying HUGE! It sucks to have a Texas sized boot shoved up your hind end but obviously Levshit and his arab friends haven't read any American history. Word to the wise my friends, it would behove you to think before pissing off the USA like Bin Laden and Saddam did, because you may end up like Uday and Qusay....
as Clint Black sings in one of his songs,
"It might be a smart bomb they find stupid people to. And if you stand with the likes of Saddam one just might find you.."

Thinking of how we brought all our power to bear in WWII, it's frustrating that while people moan and complain about Iraq, there is little acknowledgement of the fact we are holding back in fighting.

We are risking our own soldiers lives because we want to have as few Iraqi casualties as possible.

I have relatives over there. I don't enjoy thinking about how their lives are placed in danger that we could avoid. Some rejoice at the deaths of coalition forces and seem to think we'll cut and run if the body count gets too high. This is false thinking. If the body count gets too high people here will demand we risk a higher Iraqi casualty rate to keep the soldiers safe. We won't leave, we'll just use the weapons we have a different way.

However, if we ever get pushed to the wall, like N. Korea may, watch out. We have not unleashed all we have in a long time. I pray we never have to, but if we need to we will. I wonder if N. Korea understand this?

A pretty gem from Cozmogirl:

It might be a smart bomb they find stupid people to.

What's wrong Cozmogirl ? Are you turning anti-American ? It is very bad... Or just do you feel suicidal ? Ooh please, NEVER DO THAT ! I would miss you too much. For the least, send me the recipe of Cosmopolitan Martini before !

In second thought I think that a bommb targeting stupid people is a project to FORGET ASAP. Such a dreadfull WMD would cause tremendous casualities whatever is the country where you drop it. The worst crime against humanity never seen!

A+

If the body count gets too high people here will demand we risk a higher Iraqi casualty rate to keep the soldiers safe. We won't leave, we'll just use the weapons we have a different way.

Impressive Chris ! Is it a threat ? and to who ?

1) It's all about WMD : Not found...
2) It's all about Al Quaida : Not found...
3) It's all about freedpm for Iraqui people : I wish you SUCCESS, but your way is strange. or your new conception for freedom (Using your weapons in the way you can keep occupation of the country) is even more strange.

Since SAM enlighted me : Oil has nothing to do with this again. That's typical leftwing European whining

Your motivation to invade Iraq is more and more mysterious.

Sam wrote
Oil has nothing to do with this again. That's typical leftwing European whining
Pierre wrote :
Your motivation to invade Iraq is more and more mysterious
Yes ,more and more mysterious.
In fact , Sam admitted it was about oil in its post, but didn't realize it.
Indeed , it was not for the primary use of oil. It means, take the oil, make money with it is not the primary motivation.
The motivation is geostrategical. The control of Iraqian oil, or the "controlled freedom" of Iraqian oil, allow the US to be not so dependant of Saoudian oil , and so allow them to urge Saoudian to "clean" their country.
The 9/11 guys were all Saoudian, and it appears that dome financial structure supporting Al-Qaeda are established in Saoudia. How to press Saoudia Arabia if you are dependant of it ?
In Iraq, the US counquered a way to press Saoudia Arabia, a country "welcoming" terrorism.

That's why,in this meaning, this war is about Oil.

All of our differences stem from one Idea. You all kid yourselve that Islam has some redeeming value to mankind.

The motivation is geostrategical. The control of Iraqian oil, or the "controlled freedom" of Iraqian oil, allow the US to be not so dependant of Saoudian oil , and so allow them to urge Saoudian to "clean" their country.

This sounds more logic and realistic than all the official bullshit spreaded by Bush's administration.

Hard task then, getting from Iraq what US currently gets fro Saudia will need a firmly held puppet government. Those of you who dream sincerly about freedom might be highly disappointed. But all good for all fundamentalists who will get in Iraq loads of candidates for terrorism.

Good move ! keep on like this...

J.Mayeau wrote :

All of our differences stem from one Idea. You all kid yourselve that Islam has some redeeming value to mankind.

This looks important ant might explain a part of the support on Iraq operations. Can you tell us more ?

Pierre:
1) It's all about WMD : Not found...
Haven't found Saddam or binLaden either. Are you intimating that since they haven't been found they don't exist or have never existed?

2) It's all about Al Quaida : Not found...
Two things 1)We're finding them and killing or arresting them all over the world. 2)The US NEVER claimed Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda. The US pointed out that Saddam supports terrorism and terrorists and that is a fact admitted by Saddam before the war and well documented. His support of both Hamas and other terrorist groups is well-knwon.

3) It's all about freedpm for Iraqui people : I wish you SUCCESS, but your way is strange. or your new conception for freedom (Using your weapons in the way you can keep occupation of the country) is even more strange.
I suggest you study your history a bit more. Two countries, Germany and Japan, were both brought to democracy by the US in that way. Or are you trying to forget about that whole WW2 thing again?

Your motivation to invade Iraq is more and more mysterious.
Then you should pay closer attention to what President Bush said and to what the US Senate voted on. If you had you'd know why the US resumed combat with Iraq. Or perhaps you're like the Bush-haters here in the US who ignore the facts just to bash Bush and the US?

Kal

Wow, again Pierre and Mayeax (Who interestingly enough has no valid e-mail with which to personally blast him/her/shim at) have no idea what they are talking about.
According to the US Department of Energy, Venezuala is the USA's biggest oil importer. Which makes sense. Its closer, more convienient and cheaper than exporting out of one lousy staging area in Iraq.
Secondly I have heard that we went to Afghanistan for oil? Uh..Afghanistan has no oil, nincompoops!
NONE ZIPPO! ZERO! Not a freaking drop...so....obvioulsy there must be a reason for us to have ousted Pierre (the fairy) and Mayeaux's Taliban buddies from power? Maybe because those jackasses were protecting that filthy pig Bin Laden??? HUH COULDN'T THAT BE A REASON?????
GEE!
You two and your friend Levshit are beyond my comprehension, your bigots, you hate anything that has to do with America. You hate religous people, you hate morality because it offends your sanctimonious a-morality. You hate liberty, you hate people taking responsibilty for themselves and their lives. Your all ridiculous as well as your useless country France. You just hate. Your insecure and when some bad ass shows up in Marine Corps cammies, or navy Seal uniform you decide they are bad because they have masculinity and manlieness....testosterone...what do you have? None. You sit on your fat hind ends writing nasty grams to people who couldn't care if you existed or not thinking your such great strong men....well....according to my opinion, you wouldn't even make a blip on my radar. Most American women don't have time for twerps and fairies. Your certainly not male thats for sure....Maybe your a new gender that the lefties you love so much can rally for? Hmmm....

That's why,in this meaning, this war is about Oil.

Outstanding analysis Marc. Just don't forget that was only a part of it. The war also focused terrorists on Iraq and reduced their focus on American civillians in the US. The war also enforced the UN's resolutions regarding Iraq, though that was a minor part of our motivation, but the part that made it perfectly legal IAW international law. There is also the fact that this dried up yet another large source of funding for terrorists world-wide (Saudi Arabia and Jordan were not the only major sources of money funding terrorism).

Kal
ps no sarcasm meant. I do think it was an astute observation.

Pierre, Those of you who dream sincerly about freedom might be highly disappointed. But all good for all fundamentalists who will get in Iraq loads of candidates for terrorism.
BS, American occupation, democratization, and de-Nazification of Germany didn't result in increasing terrorist attacks on American forces. They pretty much ended after a few years, even though the frequency was higher than the US expected for the first year.

As to your charge that this will increase terrorism it still isn't turning out that way. The Saddamites have had to increase their bounty on US GIs and have been having to send the children of party chiefs to attack and die. So far the evidence shows the opposite of your assertion.

Kal

Good move ! keep on like this...

One more thing. Are you French? If so, one would think you'd have learned the outcome of appeasement and inaction in the face of enemy forces, goals and desires. And yet your counsel so far on this issue has resembeled that of Chamberlain, Laval and Kennedy.

Kal

Salut Kal,

One more thing. Are you French?

Ben oui mon vieux. Et en plus, un vilain-pas-beau qui pense pas comme il faut...

If so, one would think you'd have learned the outcome of appeasement and inaction in the face of enemy forces, goals and desires. And yet your counsel so far on this issue has resembeled that of Chamberlain, Laval and Kennedy.

PIF! PAF! BOUM! Avec ça je, je suis habillé pour l'hiver. Pas bon par ce temps là.

I am not that enlighted in story, so I don't know abou Kennedy's fault. About Laval : Unfortunately, this bastard was everything you like but no way a supporter of "appeasement and inaction". He was the main builder of collaboration with nazi holocaust. In fact he was a French nazi, prime minister of Vichy's government. As simple and sad as this.

The French equivalence of Chamberlain was Edouard Daladier.

1) It's all about WMD : Not found...
Haven't found Saddam or binLaden either. Are you intimating that since they haven't been found they don't exist or have never existed?

No, I don't. We know Saddam used WMD (provided by all the good occidental world, USA on top)against Iran, Kurds and Shiite people. And some WMD MIGHT exist now. The UN 1441 resolution and inspections where just about it. The lie was claiming having enough evidences to start a war. Four monthes to (not) find anything shows these evidences never existed.

The US NEVER claimed Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda. The US pointed out that Saddam supports terrorism and terrorists and that is a fact admitted by Saddam before the war and well documented. His support of both Hamas and other terrorist groups is well-knwon.

Sorry but YES, US claimed links between Saddam and AL QUAEDA.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.alqaeda.links/

Or may be, it is a bit like the "yellow cake". "Oh no no no, US never told that! Just Colin Powell did..."
In counterpart, You tell right about the funds provided by Saddam to Hamas and the Kamikazes families.

I suggest you study your history a bit more. Two countries, Germany and Japan, were both brought to democracy by the US in that way. Or are you trying to forget about that whole WW2 thing again?

Hum.. How to tell you this ? Are not you tired to always and again try to hide the mistakes YOU are doing TODAY with the glory and courage of your FATHERS and GRANFATHERS 60 years ago ? We owe more than a lot to THEM and except some negationists or fanatics, we fully know it.
But what do we owe to YOU ? Just this : telling "You born well".

The Nazi Germany and Japan who brought you despite your wish in the war on 7 December 1941 where other size of client than Iraq. It was a TOTAL war. And after such desaster, both German and Japanese people where ready to accept any condition.

In the FIRST gulf war, OK, it was a necessary war, and if we had FINISHED THE JOB at this moment, It would have been a liberation war. With a large part of Iraqi people support. We called them to insurection and leted them alone beeing slaughtered by Saddam. On that, we are all US, France and others in the same bag. Who can trust us now ?

As to your charge that this will increase terrorism it still isn't turning out that way. The Saddamites have had to increase their bounty on US GIs and have been having to send the children of party chiefs to attack and die. So far the evidence shows the opposite of your assertion.

It is the best all of us, we can hope. I hope it too but don't believe so.

A+
Pierre

"I am not that enlighted in story, so I don't know abou Kennedy's fault. .."

It's not very hard to tell you don't know the story. I don't know where you get facts to educate yourself, but I'd use different sources if I were you. You are great with assertion. However, many of the few facts you present have been false.

"The lie was claiming having enough evidences to start a war. Four monthes to (not) find anything shows these evidences never existed."

Technically, this is *not* a new war. It's just a continuation of the first. The first war *never ended*. A cease fire was signed. Saddam agreed to terms that he later violated. Hence, the cease fire was voided. He voided it. So the Gulf war continues. Not a new war. Old war with a break in the middle.

Wow. 4 whole months to overthrow one of the worst regimes to disgrace this planet, try and repair the damage in Iraq, bring humanitarian aid to the Iraqis, and round up the rest of the gang who are still carrying on the fight for Saddam. FOUR MONTHS!! Be patient. Not all that much time has passed. It's not exactly like the coalition forces had *nothing* to do for 4 months but look for WMDs or their parts.

"Sorry but YES, US claimed links between Saddam and AL QUAEDA."

And we found the links. Recall the camp in the North, among other links? By link I mean aid and supplies.

"The Nazi Germany and Japan who brought you despite your wish in the war on 7 December 1941 where other size of client than Iraq. It was a TOTAL war."

Correct!! And we had no NAVY, because it was destroyed by Japan. We had no ARMY, to speak of because of the budget cuts. We were not at all prepared for WWII, especially fighting two armies. We were very ill prepared and very vulnerable.

Hey, too bad you couldn't go back in time and give pointers to the AXIS and wipe us out. Then, all your problems would be over. The US would be much weaker than we are today. Start inventing that time machine so you can get your wish!!

One advantage WWII had over our current war against the Islamists' terrorists is there were clearly defined countries to fight against. In this war, the enemy can be in any country. It's a very fluid and loose group of people. But, it is worldwide.

"In the FIRST gulf war, OK, it was a necessary war, and if we had FINISHED THE JOB at this moment, It would have been a liberation war. With a large part of Iraqi people support. We called them to insurection and leted them alone beeing slaughtered by Saddam. On that, we are all US, France and others in the same bag. Who can trust us now ?"

The first part of the war we are just now ending, *WAS* purely, solely, 100% about OIL. If it hadn't been for Kuwait's reserves and threats on the Saudis, nobody would have cared. I really didn't want to get involved with that war much. I think the idea of fighting for oil is not a good one. But, the reality is without that oil, we'd be in a pinch for a while.

The reason we could NOT end the first part of this war as it should have been ended is because of the UN. The UN didn't allow us to. It was the UN that negotiated the cease fire (not the end to the war, a suspension of the war) we are now enforcing.

It was a mistake to leave the Iraqis to be killed by Saddam. More would have died had it not been for the UK and US spending years flying over and keeping them safe (the Kurds).

"It is the best all of us, we can hope. I hope it too but don't believe so."

Thanks for revealing your true feelings. Unfortunately, we have no intentions of allowing our soldiers to die just to please you. It must be a hard thing to hate people so much you want to see them killed when they haven't done anything to you. Bitter and angry people aren't usually very healthy. Best let it go for your health.

Let's go directly to what's for me the worst part of your post Chris :

Thanks for revealing your true feelings. Unfortunately, we have no intentions of allowing our soldiers to die just to please you. It must be a hard thing to hate people so much you want to see them killed when they haven't done anything to you. Bitter and angry people aren't usually very healthy. Best let it go for your health.

and add this one in annex :

Hey, too bad you couldn't go back in time and give pointers to the AXIS and wipe us out. Then, all your problems would be over. The US would be much weaker than we are today. Start inventing that time machine so you can get your wish!!

PUTAIN DE BORDEL DE MERDE !!!

From where hell, did you got that I wished death of your's compatriots currently in Iraq ?! How did you come to tell I would have liked the victory of Nazism @#!?

If you wrote that on simple purpose of insult to get me upset, GOAL !! Nice shot !, you got it !

If you REALLY think what you are asserting above (which I can hardly believe) OK, my English is not that good. Then I try to explain again with details and dots on the "i"

At the end of 2002 and begining 2003 when this affair sparkled, I was shared between the two option,
Against war : By first instinct, because I thought that such an intervention MUST be based on credible motivations, because I thought and still think this medecine is worth than the disease it is supposed to fight.
For War : Ending Saddam's regime and his huge support on terrorism in Israel.

I knew like everybody that underlying these righteous principles was an interest conflict between US and Europe about control of the second oil ressources on the world. But did not want to take this in consideration for my choice.

When I eared that a guy like Bernard Kouchner (You know ? The French Doctors and former UN administrattor in Kosovo) was rather in favor of the war, It was a big argument. As the Blix's inspection was going on, I really hoped something serious would be found to whip out my objection to the war.

But then the oppositions between pro and anti became harder and harder. The US insistance about the wmd "evidences" more and more suspect. The US administration's argumentation only made of threat of retailiations, mocking against the "Old Europe", dismissing the work of UN inspectors, assertion that UN is just a "talk forum" etc. How to follow blindly a govrnment arguing that way ? This sent me back to the opposition to start this war NOW.

On 20 March, The question pro or annti was outdated, It was war. Since that the choice was then between a quick efficient victory of the coallition or an endless bloody deadly mess both sides.

Between both, as we tell in French : "Y a pas photo" (something loke "the choice is obvious"). Exept for a fool, a quick US victory was the only think to wish. And indeed, the military victory came quicker and with less casualties than anybody expected.

Now this MILITARY victory will only be usefull if the PEACE is WON. Meaning a successfull transition of Iraq to democracy or at least a regime having respects on humankind's rights, a significant decrease of terrorism and, last but not least a quick safe return home of your guys after success.

Tis is THIS result I wish although, right or wrong I am not optimist on it. This was what I meant with

"It is the best all of us, we can hope. I hope it too but don't believe so."

Hope it goes better now... Beyond our opposition I have enough respect for you and others here to admit you stand on your support the war as you think it was the right thing to do and because it is your country and your guys who are involved there. I don't try to discard your personal opinion by asserting you have any immoral motivation.

Please, try to do the same from your side

Thanks from
Pierre

The lie was claiming having enough evidences to start a war. Four monthes to (not) find anything shows these evidences never existed.

The point of 1441 was that Saddam was supposed to cooperate unconditionally or face dire consequences. At the time consensus in the US was that it meant cooperate or face war. He failed to cooperate and the US Senate voted to enforce 1441.

Enforcing UN resolutions has been ample reason to go to war many times, most especially when enforcement of that resolution is in the best interest of some of those parties involved. In this case enforcing 1441 has helped the US in its war on terrorism.

Sorry but YES, US claimed links between Saddam and AL QUAEDA.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.alqaeda.links/
Okay, so you're saying Saddam was in league with Al-Qaeda then. Or are you discounting the evidence in the article you sited? As I said earlier, the US presented evidence of links to Al-Qaeda but never claimed they were working together or that Iraq was giving them support. All we knew was that they were allowing them to operate unmolested. Ansar al-Islam, on the other hand, was given military support before the war began.

But what do we owe to YOU ? Just this : telling "You born well".
Nothing at all. Most especially if you consider the Soviet Union to have been your friend and ally. But France has never paid the debt owed to our grandfathers, and when the opportunity arose to pay part of that debt France stabbed us in the back.

The Nazi Germany and Japan who brought you despite your wish in the war on 7 December 1941 where other size of client than Iraq. It was a TOTAL war. And after such desaster, both German and Japanese people where ready to accept any condition.
Not entirely true. Attacks on allied servicemen and on the rebuilding of German infrastructure continued for almost two years in Germany. In Japan the Emperor of Japan prevented it from happening there.

In the FIRST gulf war, OK, it was a necessary war, and if we had FINISHED THE JOB at this moment, It would have been a liberation war. With a large part of Iraqi people support. We called them to insurection and leted them alone beeing slaughtered by Saddam. On that, we are all US, France and others in the same bag. Who can trust us now ?
I agree. The coalition should never have bowed to the wishes of the UN, especially considering their history in warfare. Unfortunately, if not for this coalition, the UN with France's inestimable help would have continued that tradition.

Oh, as to Joe Kennedy, he was Ambassador to England, and an isolationist, and actively advocated and worked towards a policy of appeasing Hitler. The BSC and Roosevelt gave him plenty of rope and then Roosevelt leashed him in. Some of the story is still classified, but the parts we know today (still very unflattering) weren't made public until the mid-seventies.

Kal

From where hell, did you got that I wished death of your's compatriots currently in Iraq ?! How did you come to tell I would have liked the victory of Nazism @#!?

Gotta go with Pierre on that one. I for one don't think he wants to see Americans and Brits die in Iraq.

But then the oppositions between pro and anti became harder and harder. The US insistance about the wmd "evidences" more and more suspect. The US administration's argumentation only made of threat of retailiations, mocking against the "Old Europe", dismissing the work of UN inspectors, assertion that UN is just a "talk forum" etc.
I still dismiss the work of the UN inspectors. They were in a no-win situation. So long as Saddam refused to co-operate and to honor the deal he made they could never do the job they were paid to do. This situation was made worse by the inspectors insistance on continuing the charade and in maintaining the illusion that they could play cop and detective despite the overwhelming evidence that they were unable to do their job without full Iraqi cooperation.

This was made into a further farce by Hans Blix's continued insistance that he was being effective and by playing down Iraq's lack of cooperation. Hans Blix lost even more credibility when he asserted his primary job was to prevent war. This is was in direct opposition to his assigned job as weapons inspector, since finding WMDs or presenting evidence of a failure to cooperate fully would be grounds for going to war.

Exept for a fool, a quick US victory was the only think to wish. And indeed, the military victory came quicker and with less casualties than anybody expected.
Another reason Americans are angered at the French. Now the US has an idiot base of 15%-20%, those whose opposition to American interests is pretty extreme. Polls conducted in France placed it higher with 30% hoping the US would lose. Whether they considered the additional American deaths in this outcome was never mentioned in the poll.

Again I'd like to reiterate this is not a position I have seen from Pierre.

Now this MILITARY victory will only be usefull if the PEACE is WON. Meaning a successfull transition of Iraq to democracy or at least a regime having respects on humankind's rights, a significant decrease of terrorism and, last but not least a quick safe return home of your guys after success.
Agreed. I doubt that we agree on how long that may take. It took years the last time the US did it, and the UN has had over a decade to accomplish nothing. Another reason many Americans are angry is that we see this, but we also hear people complaining that with all the advances made we have obviously failed since we haven't accomplished in a couple of months what it took years to do in other places.

This is not a French thing. Arab and Muslim countries took the same tack as France, Germany and Russia, though for obviously different reasons. There are a number of Americans taking the same view as those countries I just mentioned. Groups such as International ANSWER and the Not In Our Name organizations have taken up the same arguments as much of Europe. However, it should be noted that those groups endorsement only further marginalizes American opinion of France (and much of Europe's and all Muslim countries') point of view on this.

Kal

The lie was claiming having enough evidences to start a war. Four monthes to (not) find anything shows these evidences never existed.

One more point. It is incredibly easy to hide this stuff. Considering the size of Iraq and how easy it is to hide the stuff it may be years before it's all found. Hell, Russia has managed to misplace between 27,000 gallons and 135,000 gallons. They don't even know how much they've lost. American and Russian inspectors have been unable to account for it all and that is WITH full cooperation by the Russain Federation. The US misplaced a large number of Chemical Agent Identification Systems kits until a few years ago. These were destroyed.

I've written before how easy it is to hide the stuff. A couple of people with a backhoe and a stake-bed truck could hide several hundred gallons without anyone being able to find it.

Kal

Thanks for your understanding Kal

Gotta go with Pierre on that one. I for one don't think he wants to see Americans and Brits die in Iraq.

One thing where where we agree: There is today an exeptional hope and oportunity to go on a regime who fit their aspirations.
How close it will be to what we considere beeing a democratic regime ? Wait and see.

It seems also urgent to "upgrade" the UN. It is unpossible to understand how countries like India or Brezil have no representations. The circle of permanent memmber must be enlarged.

A+