It seems as though a frog has decided that Saddam is his kind of client. He has agreed to defend Saddam and his right hand man, Tariq Aziz.

Some of Jacques Verges' accolades include:

In World War II, he joined General Charles de Gaulle's Free French forces, but later he became a Communist.

During the Algerian war of independence he defended Algerians accused of terrorism against France, and married one of his clients who was jailed for planting bombs in cafes in Algiers.

And there is going to be a team of a dozen other Frenchies that will be there to help defend Saddam.

And I suppose that the evil US Army will be expected to provide security for this pack of vermin. Perhaps it would be more fitting for the Iraqi police to do the job.

Verges will have to co-ordinate with the French journalists in country, so that Saddams boys don't try to shoot his plane down. Verges crossing his fingers wouldn't hurt either, considering his track record in defending dictators.

You wrote in Bald : "but later he became a communist".

It's not a personnal point but, what is the matter with being communist ?

Your point is ?

Stephane: The problem with being a Communist is that they are members of a totally discredited system. The word Communist equals loser today. I assume you are French because nobody else in the world would need to ask this question.

NTM: Dreaming about Bush. In America the military cannot sue the President, duh. This may be a new concept for you but when one joins the US military BY CHOICE there is the possibily that you may be asked to actually FIGHT somebody. That tends to lead directly to some risk of injury or maybe even death. Call us silly but when we have a war there people defined as the enemy. We try to kill these people. They on the other hand actually try to kill us. I know that when you surrender before a shot is fired these dangers are avoided but that is just not the American way.

"Call us silly but when we have a war there people defined as the enemy. We try to kill these people."

You talk like a videogame addict, you just want to frag. War is the last solution, not a hobby.

"I know that when you surrender before a shot is fired these dangers are avoided but that is just not the American way."

Yes, you've got big balls, but you're walking on them now.

Max: I agree with you completely that war is not a hobby. Here in the States it is an occupation preformed by highly trained professionals all of whom are volunteers. Serious business for serious people as I implied.
The term "frag" is more applicable to the Vietnam era, which was a war fought by conscripts who did not recieve the same level of training as todays troops. This is not the fault of those who served but the commanders who sent them into combat without the tools and skills, not to mention a real plan, required to win. This led directly to a much smaller all volunteer force and change in tactics geared to overwhelming force.

I will take issue with your contention that "War is a last solution" however. Surrender is the last option, appeasement is next to last, and war would be 3rd from the bottom on my list. If it is truely your opinion that surrender or appeasement are preferable to war that would go a long way towards explaining French behavior during the last century.

Sasquach :

You talk about communism in U.S.S.R. , it's different of the communist system. Your point about "loser" isn't the kind of argument I was waiting for... doesn't matter

Stephane: What Kind of Communism are you talking about?? The kind in China under Mao or Cuba under Castro?

If you could define what kind of arguement you were looking for perhaps I can provide it for you. I think the statement about communism being a totally discredited system pretty well sums it up. Even the Chinese Party itself doesn't believe in Communism any more. Collectivism does not work well in the real world. Capitalism does. Those who are able to produce or innovate will not do so if the friuts of their labor are taken from them by the collective. To expect people of ability to labor so those who lounge can eat is folly. Can you offer me a reason why this statement is false.

he is responsible for the killing of 570 US soldiers

Your source for this number please.

Sharing sounds sweet, but there is an important difference between democratic capitalism and communism.

Under democratic capitalism, and I don't believe in any other kind of capitalism, you are free to live as you would like. You may work as hard as you want and share the results with as many as you can. Bill Gates says he is going to give away 10s of billions of dollars, and has already given away hundreds of millions. He is free to do so.

Under communism, I am not allowed to live as I like. What you want is a system where everyone is forced to live by your values. This inevitably leads to disasters like Stalin and Mao.

Sasquach :

Capitalism does ? HAHAHA
Should tell that to those who work like slaves in the third world, thanks to them : capitalism work for you ! If Capitalism really works, explain me why does 20% of the US population has 80% of US wealth ? DO you call that working ???

For once I agree with you drive-by. Verges is a scum (he represented Klaus Barbie, who sent thousands of Jews as well as French citizens to concentration camps). Him being a communist makes him an even more pathetic character. I'm embarassed by him.

does 20% of the US population has 80% of US wealth ? Do you call that working ???

I would like to see your source on that one, but I will tell you that the other 80% still seem to be living better than Europeans on the meagre 20% left to them. I can't remember ever seeing anyone forced to shit in a hole in the floor, as one does in Paris. Our borders are regularly overrun by people who want to come here. Our population is actually growing, unlike Europe's.

So your argument for trying a system again that has led to tens of millions of deaths, is that wealth distribution in the US is unequal?

I thought you were going to tell me how communism would work, not repeat tired old cliches about envy.

Stephane: There was a time when the left said that we were abusing the Japanese because capitalism was new to them and they were starting with low wages and long hours. They have grown ever more wealthy as a society. It takes time and work. I can name Germany, Japan, The UK, Austraila, Singapore, US, and Canada as successfull capitalist countries. Can you name a single communist country that successfully meets the needs of it's people. I can't think of a single one.

I will readily agree that there is an unequal distribution of wealth in all of these countries. There is also a large amount of wealth to go around. When the pie is very large even a small slice will sustain you well. Communist countries do not generate wealth. When the pie is tiny even a double share will leave you hungry.

By the way I notice that you avoided the question I asked. Here it is again. Why would people of ability innovate, produce and labor if the collective takes the fruit of that labor from them and gives it to those who won't labor on their own behalf.

Don't expect an answer, the reason they come here is to make high moral pronouncements, which they apparently can't back up with facts, then they slink away for a while waiting till things calm down and come back and make another, unsubstantiated high moral pronouncement. They think that because everybody they know agrees with them, they must be right, when all it really proves is that everybody they know gets the same limited, slanted news that they do.

Drive-by :
False, there are a lot of people who disagree.

Sasquach :
About your questions, sorry if I didn't answer. You're right and I never said it was the right thing to do, and we see problems like that in capitalist societies. Maybe it's something we can't control.
My big problem with capitalism is selfishness and private property, two things which sometimes are going too far ! For example, I don't think that owing a gun protect you better than police, the right to kill shouldn't be given to anybody. And I don't believe in self-made man anymore because of the giant companies destroying the small ones, etc...

Capitalism is unjust but Communism is against human nature Stephane. I agree with Sasquach's question.

Stephane: You bring up 4 issues that are common in discussions of the American version of capitalism and I would like to address each one in turn.

#1 Selfishness: I would contend that selfishness is a property of human nature that is independent of the enonomic system a person lives in. There are a huge number of good and selfless things done here in the States and I'm sure in every society around the globe each and every day. I believe strongly however that it is not only wrong but impractical to legislate or compel any form of personal sacrifice. The person who would gladly be selfless becomes far less so if you try to force them. The 700 people of the company I work for gave $50,000 to our local United Way, spent a weekend doing labor to fix up the retarded citizens center, cancer fundraisers, blood drives, literacy drives and several other worthly projects in the last year. We are all capitalists and members of the working class. The company does it's part to support these efforts as well. This is a part of the American people that rarely gets mentioned when the world speaks of us. They all talk of Bill Gates and George Soros ect..

#2 Private Property: I believe that private property is the single most important right a human being can have. Without private property there is little reason to strive to the utmost limit of your talent. Why give all you have if all you recieve is a basic share from the collective. The best is brought out in mankind by private property rights. Opportunity is made by innovation and hard work. This generates wealth within a society and jobs which support not only the workers and their families but those good causes I mentioned before. There must be wealth before it can be shared.

#3 Private ownership of Weapons: The right to possess private firearms is not the same as a liscense to kill. To protect my life or the life of my family is not a right to kill but a right to self defense.

There is a further issue with regard to weapons where the US differs from all other nations I can thing of. You may ask "Why do these fools insist on owning guns when many people are killed and injured every year by them". The difference is that Americans do not trust our government, and we never have. Those personal weapons are protection against abuse by those in power. It is a protection that has a price that is paid for in blood. It is controversial within US society. But it is a protection a majority of us support at this time. It is a protection that I support personally.

#4 The Self Made Man/Woman: I personally know several multi millionairs who were so poor 20 years ago that they damn near starved in college. They have worked their butt off to get what they have and that initial hunger was more of a motivator that a human rights abuse. One of them recently gave $2 million to his old college to support scholarships. That is how capitalism works, my friend, and that is why I am a capitalist.

It's understandable that the decision of Vergès to defend Saddam Hussein can irritate some people (he's French, he was a communist - like many people in Europe in the 50's). But as it is well-known, Vergès defended Klaus Barbie and Carlos the Jackal. A Nazi and a terrorist. To me, that this man was chosen by Hussein family clearly means that Hussein can be compared to this kind of criminals - even by his family!

BTW, he still can take a lawyer. As any other criminal in a fair trial.

Sasquach :

You talk about right to self defense. What would you do if you're not allowed to owe a gun ? Remember that in countries where guns aren't allowed, there are more less crimes. The real problem is : when you have a gun, there are temptation to use it, and that's dangerous.

The self-defense argument has become a parody in itself. There is such a huge proliferation of guns in the US that inevitably end up into the wrong hands, which inevitably (and understandably) leads people to think they need self-protection with the blessing of the all-powerful NRA. Why do you think the US leads the rest of the industrialized world combined in gun-related deaths?

Stephane & zoomerx: I note that you both responded to the self defense part of the gun issue but not to the paragraph about protection of the citizenry from an abusive government.

As to the issue of self defense let me try a scenario close to home for you. Assume that you live in Paris and that even a criminal cannot get a handgun. Your home is near those famous suburbs where you store all those wonderfull Muslim youths I hear about. One night a half dozen of them decide to enter your home and rob you or have a little fun of some other variety. What are your options?? Unless you are Bruce Lee you have none. They will do with you and yours as they please. Will the police be there to protect you or will they instead show up after the damage is done to file a report. The police are more times than not historians rather than protection. You ask what I would do if I didn't have a gun? The same as you would do in the scenario above. Whatever the nice thugs told me, my wife and teenage daughters to do of course--I am not Bruce Lee.

I will not contest that the US has more gun related deaths than other western countries combined. I acknowledged that there was a price to be paid in my previous post. Will you acknowledge that the concentration camps can return to Europe anytime your government gets out of hand and there is nothing the citizens can do about it?

Your final point is way out of context, Saquash. A little bit like me saying why "didn't you do something" when blacks were systematically segregated and discriminated against not so long ago? Was Vietnam stopped by some massive armed militia marching to the White House?

A lot has changed since the aftermath of the Boston Tea Party. I'm afraid the "right to bear arms" has completely lost its original meaning and has been grossly taken out of context by those who want you to beleive that you ought to arm yourself to the teeth and protect your kids against Big Brother. At least the argument of self-defence is a little more realistic.

Zoomerx: Did I imagine Rawanda's genocide, or Cambodia's? How about the Serbs little ethnic cleansing excersise recently. The nature of those who would rule has changed little since the Boston Tea party. My context was just fine thank you.

So there's your solution: arm every citizen of every world nation and their problems might just go away... If it was that simple... Do you honestly think that the average American gun buyer in America do it to protect himself from the Bush administration - "just in case" - or the eventuality of a Canadian-backed coup d'état? That's pure NRA public-relations fantasy. I'm not "anti-gun" Sasquash, I just have trouble with the whole "Patrotism means owning a gun" American concept that's too often shoved down your throat.

zoomerx: I am not an NRA member. Neither have I defined "Patriotism" as owning a gun. My father has never owned a weapon nor served in the military but he loves this country as much as anyone. The NRA is a non-factor for me.

I honestly believe that an armed populace is a deterrent to abusive actions by a government. Whether it is right in other countries is not for me to say. In Rawanda it could have been helpfull but in the Balkens probably not effective at all.

If you are not "anti-gun" as you say perhaps we can agree. For instance I don't beleive the 2nd amendment allows me to mount a 50 cal machine gun in the back of a pickup truck, or possess an RPG. Military hardware is for military use. Can you agree that law abiding citizens be allowed to possess hunting rifles and handguns? If you can't then "anti-gun" would be an appropriate lable.

If people ever have to deal with an oppressive govt, then I guess a RPG would come handy against M1 tanks. So why authorize one (handgun) and forbid the other (RPG)?

Wait a minute, Sasquatch. I'm from the UK, not the US, but I don't feel guns should be banned in all circumstances.

But there is something I don't get. Are you really, honestly, trying to tell me that you own a gun to protect yourself from your own government?

I mean, this is bullshit, right? No one is that paranoid that they believe they need a gun to protect them from the White House.

Are you?

Daniel

All governments are composed of human beings with all the failings associated with our kind. The US government is no exception. Recent history is full of examples of governments brutalizing and killing their own people. From Rawanda and Stalin to South American death squads and the Jews of Europe there is one common thread. The victims were all unarmed. You have had an example right in your own back yard in Bosnia a few years ago.

Do I think this will happen in the US tomorrow or next month. No. Do I think it will never happen here. I hope not. An armed population is a deterrent and once the government has all the weapons the citizens will never get them back.

Europeans seem to have a hard time grasping this part of America's attachment to our weapons. It is a common opinion among those who own weapons here.

It's an ideological excuse to aquire - and to sell - more weapons, in my opinion.