Pennsylvania Congressman Curt Weldon has a fantastic piece in today's Washington Times. Go. Read it.

Despite impassioned pleas from Afghan President Hamid Karzai for additional troops to provide security against continuing violence by Islamist fundamentalists that threatens critical national elections, Mr. Chirac blocked the U.S.-backed plan, claiming such forces "shouldn't be used in any old manner." Mr. Chirac's actions and anti-American rhetoric only serve to underscore the depths to which this once great nation has sunk.

The time has come to end France's continued economic gain paid for with the blood of U.S. and coalition soldiers. America cannot continue its efforts to improve relations with France, if France is only willing to reciprocate when it is convenient for her to do so.

Naturally, there's not a word regarding France also being part of the Kosovo and Afghanistan bombings as well as scores of Kosovo children being treated in French hospitals...

And who gives a damn about the Sudan, right? I'd like to know what France has to gain by doing something about it... Another hotbed for muslim extremism and a huge catastrophe, yet the US doesn't seem in any rush to "liberate" anyone there.

zoomerex writes: "And who gives a damn about the Sudan, right?"

Oh yes, you Frenchies are sooo concerned about Sudan aren't you? So concerned that you provided military intelligence and helipcopters used for ethnic cleansing of Sudan's southern oilfields needed by Total

Let's be clear about this, we're talking about French military assistance to a Sudanese regime which hosts terrorists groups, has direct ties with slave trading, and engages in ethnic cleansing of non-muslims. And now you French scumbags are complaining that the US is not sufficiently concerned with Sudan?

Such noble French motives from the 'nation of conscience'.

Faith McDonnell, director of the IRD’s Church Alliance for a New Sudan says it all: "It’s obvious that France is more concerned with Total Fina Elf’s [a French oil company] investments in Sudan’s oil than with effective UN monitoring of human rights in Sudan”

In case hyperlinks didn't work, 1st one: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=6703
and
http://www.ird-renew.org/News/News.cfm?ID=603&c=3

Pavefrance should put some instructions on how to insert hyperlinks, bold, italics, etc into comments.

"Saddam's arsenal of mass destruction" already makes your source a little suspicious...

As far as the French government aiding some third world dictatorship with weapons ending up in the wrong hands... I plead guilty as well as putting self-interests first (what's new?), but we've seen that before from a certain Western power, haven't we? Not to mention Rwanda...

You really can't do no wrong, can you?

correction:

"Saddam's arsenal of mass destruction" already makes your source a little suspicious...

I was going to question the author's assertion that France provided intelligence to the Sudanese govt - since France has little (if not zero) capacity in Eastern Africa, but then I found this gem in one of the articles:

By the mid-1990s, Paris and Berlin had already laid the foundations for the cultural and economic integration of the EU with the Islamic states of North Africa and the Middle East

Thanks for the in-depth coverage of europolitics and enlightening comments on the intricacies of the European institutions. I feel much smarter now.

I was actually referring to Mr. Blowhard's post, whose reading distracted me from the main thread, to which I would comment in the same way that Zommerx did.

Chirac's insistance that NATO stays within its European boundaries can indeed be questioned. I am actually quite undecided on the topic.

So, if China attacked the US, hypothetically, that would be outside of European boundries? Just curious. Isn't Afghanistan coverered under article V or X or whatever it was concerning an attack on a member state?

Vive le Lance

If China were to attack the States, the ensuing nuclear conflagration would make NATO involvement of little importance.

Vive le Lance, indeed.

I think it is time for the United States to withdraw from NATO.

With the end of the Cold War NATO no longer provides any service of value to the U.S.

Since France and Germany are dead set in hindering the War on Terrorism we need to move our troops to locations that protect American intrests rather than tying up manpower and resources to protect ungrateful allies.

Let France and Germany protect their own borders from now on, after sixty years it is time to wean these babies off Americ's tit.

I agree. Pull out of NATO. Move the UN to Haiti. Take all our troops out of the Western Europe - why are they still there? I'd much prefer to have our troops in Europe protecting our borders with Canada and Mexico then have them protecting western europe. Those Euros are very smart people - if they get attacked, I'm sure they can sort things out with their enemies over some wine and cheese.

I can certainly see why zoomerex and Dr. Evil would question France's complicity in dealing with the murderous Sudanese regime, France being the 'nation of conscience' and all... a nation which of course, only promotes universal brotherhood and peace. A nation which would never stoop so low as to pursue the crude goals of profit while collaborating with a known host of terrorist organizations which engages in ethnic cleansing. The French, we all know (because they tell us so), would only pursue policies based on only the highest moral principles.

After all, it was probably only coincidence that France would conspire with Libya to lead an effort to take Sudan out of the UN's “gross violations” category and to dismiss the U.N. Special Rapporteur at the same time they were cutting deals with the mass murderers in Khartoum.

I think it more plausible to believe the Christian aid groups in Sudan who, unlike the French, don't have an axe to grind when they say: "It’s obvious that France is more concerned with Total Fina Elf’s [a French oil company] investments in Sudan’s oil than with effective UN monitoring of human rights in Sudan"

Accoring to Human Rights Watch, seems http://www.hrw.org/reports98/sudan/Sudarm988-05.htm the French willingly provided satellite intelligence on SPLA positions to the Sudanese regime among other 'favors' in exchange for giving up Carlos the Jackal. Give us Carlos and 'cleanse' the undesirables from our Total Oil fields and we'll be happy to do business with you Mr. Satan.

Today Instapundit happens to link to a related article demonstrating http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3875277.stm exactly where the French stand in dealing with the ethnic cleansing of non-muslims in Sudan

This, given France's recent upsurge in support and investment with the terrorist mullahs in Iran and her previous support of the blood soaked Saddam makes it clear (to anyone willing to see) - France will not hesitate to sell out western civilization for a few francs/euros

It's incredible really.

I note that zoomerex and other Frenchmen are quick to bring up French cooperation with the US in the Balkans and in Afghanistan.

Given the incredible French f*ckup in Srebrinca which cost so many thousands of innocent lives, is this really a source of pride for people in France? And whatever came out of the reported deal between Chirac and Milosovic? Was that investigated thoroughly, or was it treated like any other French whitewashing?

It's also worth noting that the French allowed Serb war criminals Karadzic and Mladic freedom of movement, even protecting them against the British and the Americans. Proud to be French?

Re Afghanistan, despite all the early tough talk from the French about being in on the offensive, when it actually came down to it, the 1st group of French troops (all 15 of them) did not arrive in Afghanistan until Jan. 2002, well after the fall of Kabul and Khandahar. The French were definitely not on the 'tip of the spear' in that fight.

And once significant numbers of French troops did finally arrive in Afghanistan, how effective were/are they?

Frenchies, was it ever reported in your "free" press the incident in Afghanistan during operation Anaconda in which US troops were under fire and called in for French air support and the French pilots refused?

Our troops, under Al Queda mortar fire, called in for air support to the French. An order was given and the French pilots refused.

Does the French media point to French involvement in Afghanistan and the Balkans as a source of some sort of great national pride? Perhaps I have been somewhat harsh in my criticisms, but from what I've seen, the French 'contributions' to efforts in Afghanistan and the Balkans has been minimal at best, and in some cases detrimental

Does the French media ever point out these facts?

The French, we all know (because they tell us so), would only pursue policies based on only the highest moral principles.

Who is "they"? source? link? At least France doesn't see herself guided by "God"...

Give us Carlos and 'cleanse' the undesirables from our Total Oil fields and we'll be happy to do business with you Mr. Satan.

Sort of like the US/Saddam relashionship around the 1980's? (crush Iran and we'll supply you with intel and chemicals, never mind your horrendous human rights record...). Again, I wouldn't talk so fast. btw, Carlos was wanted everywhere in Europe and the Middle East including Israel. Had France not lift a finger, you'd be just as outraged. And he was kidnapped from his hospital bed by French agents.

Frenchies, was it ever reported in your "free" press the incident in Afghanistan during operation Anaconda in which US troops were under fire and called in for French air support and the French pilots refused?

I beleive it was a case where the French refused to target what they beleived was a hospital, or some civilian complex (or a wedding party? just kidding), not 100% sure. Perharps the French were being a little more discriminating than the often trigger-happy US forces.

And once significant numbers of French troops did finally arrive in Afghanistan, how effective were/are they?

Don't know but they're training Afghan officers, paid for by French taxpayers. I beleive the French Foreign Legion is there too, and they usually don't go to dangerous areas to hold other peoples' coats. Also, you may not know that the initial Taliban US bombings were launched from the French military base of Djibouti. Yes, that's French airspace... I will grant you that the initial French involvment in Afghanistan was rather foot-dragging.

Does the French media ever point out these facts?

They do not report military activities as openly as in the US media.

M. Zoomerx,

No one at Pave has ever mistaken France's moral derelictions as guided by God, but thanks for the reminder.

On to the concept of "trigger-happy". You are right to suggest that "trigger-happiness" is not common among those ignorant of the application of finger to trigger. Since it is a common theme in your posts that the French are the most reluctant and therefore the most unpracticed of warriors, well, it hardly seems a case of discrimination if they fail to provide the ordered supporting fire. They simply are ignorant of the exigencies of real war.

Perhaps the French forces would feel more comfortable prosecuting orders cleared by the editorial board of Le Monde and published as headlines.

In the movie Blackhawk Down, a soldier returning to the fray remarks that "it's all about the men next to you". This insight explains why "discriminating" French support is worthless to men in the field.

I was taken aback by your response to the situation in the Sudan. What is going on in the Sudan is plainly wrong. Neither geopolitics, Realpolitick, national hauteur, international rivalries, nor any other contingency that can be dredged up makes it right or an acceptable tragedy. That even here France feels compelled to resist the American position, gaming the fates of countless Sudanese, is disgraceful.

Playng the cynic in everything hardly covers you or France in glory.

DGB

"Perharps the French were being a little more discriminating than the often trigger-happy US forces. "

If this is not the very picture of the kind of worthless ally that you wouldn't want to share a foxhole with, (not to mention the smell), I don't know what it.

France is no ally. Refusal to come to the aid of 'allied' soldiers under fire has traditionally been conidered the lowest form of cowardice for good reason.

And who gives a damn about the Sudan, right? I'd like to know what France has to gain by doing something about it...

Yes, who gives a damn indeed. Tens of thousands dead, but pay no mind - we've got pictures of US soldiers making people stand on boxes.

So, France asked them to disarm the militia? Well, yipee. I'll bet the Darfur residents are just dancing. I can even hear their cries of joy from all the way over here - "Oh, the end is nigh! The great and wondrous diplomacy has started!" Wait... no, those are cries of terror. They know that they'll continue to be hunted and killed for years to come now that diplomacy is underway.

They don't need talking - they need doing. Talking isn't going to keep them from being slaughtered by the janjiweed, or from starving to death when they run from their lands. Hundreds of thousands are starving right now, thousands won't live out the week if aid doesn't reach them. France telling Khartoom to disarm the militia doesn't fix that. It's a hollow prop for the self-esteem; "Look! We tried!" When it's all over with, all you have to do is ignore the people who died while you were feeling good about talking to Sudan. And forget about the months of purging before you said "Hey, really now, knock it off".

When words prove worthless, it's actions that count. Kofi Anan had already secured a promise from Sudan to commit troops to stopping the militia violence - and yes, believe it or not, it still isn't happening. The rainy season is just starting now - if things don't start happening, these people are screwed. Feel good all you want about sitting down and talking to Khartoom, but it isn't going to make those people any less screwed. Every day that windbags like Muselier spend on talk and nothing else, people will die. There it is, plain and simple: you can talk them to death.

Right now they need real help - big guys with guns who tell the janjiweed to piss off or get blown to hell, and who come bringing as much food as they can carry. Those sorts of guys are infinitely more helpful to the people hiding in the scrublands than Renaud Muselier (or Colon Powell). France even has some of the right kind of guys, though admittedly they're scarce in Europe as a whole these days. I know we've got them too, but at the moment we're stretched a bit thin between Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, Germany, and sundry other UN and NATO commitments. Since the grownups are busy right now, maybe you kids could pitch in? Silly thought, I know, but maybe the backseat drivers could show us that they actually know how to drive.

If you could have asked for a custom-made opportunity for France and the EU to show how to "multilaterally" get together, take charge, and clean up a really screwed up situation in whatever you consider a "correct" way, you could't have paid extra for better timing than the Sudan crisis. Is anything even remotely like that happening though? Before you raise your hand, NO, a soft scolding from Renaud Muselier does not count.

Here's what is happening: 20+ countries of Europe collectively ponied up $10 million for Darfur relief. To the best of my knowledge none of them are actually providing any such relief, but they've passed the hat and there's a fund to do that if someone will. On the other hand, the UK is channelling over three times that amount through their embassy and just about every major relief organization, and will soon be delivering blankets and food. The US has put forth $235 million and negotiated an aid distribution corridor through Libya (not a country well-disposed to negotiating with us - Muselier could have made a useful contribution here). We're delivering food to the country, but I'm not certain that secure distribution channels are in place to get the food from port to where it's needed, and the Brits may not have the surplus air power to take up the slack. Now that the US has cooked the meal - could you kids maybe please set the table? We only have so many hands, and you're just using yours for sitting on.

And since you asked what France has to gain from coddling and pandering to Sudan's ruthless regime, the answer would be huile, of course.

Another hotbed for muslim extremism and a huge catastrophe, yet the US doesn't seem in any rush to "liberate" anyone there.

But it's never too soon to start laying the groundwork to thwart liberation, is it? France's vital mission to prevent liberation never sleeps. Endangering Total profits is bad for France - better that people in other countries keep bootheels on their throats than to permit an external threat to the 35 hour work week.

All vitriol aside though - if you sincerely do have concern over Darfur, do something about it right now. The crisis can't be overstated for those people, but both of our medias have been understating it in grand fashion. Take a few minutes out of your day - you don't even need to leave your chair. You don't need anything more expensive than e-mail, though if you want to get fancy you could go the somewhat costlier stamp and envelope route (which in itself really says something today). Write your news sources demanding more attention for this - it really is more important than an American woman pointing at an Iraqi penis (Stef may disagree, but she's even uglier than Rachel Corrie). Short and sweet is best, here's a good sample letter that might be a tad long; feel free to modify it (and appropriately translate it).

If you're still game for more after that, send similar letters to your elected representatives, and be clear on the point that allowing Khartoom to say "Oh, ok, we'll do something about that" without actually doing anything about it is no good in your view. The killing must stop, the cleansing must stop, and aid must be permitted to reach those who need it - please be firm on these points. Bonus points if you tell them you're not happy about officials excusing slavery either, and do tell them that you approve of your country's troops being committed to any such effort if you actually do approve of it.

-------------------------

Blowhard - links here at Pave are just plain ol' HTML, like this -

<a href="www.pavefrance.com">here's a link!</a>
Here's a link!

You're right - a link in the reply window to some info on basic HTML might not be a bad idea, lots of people don't know it. Personally, I'm waiting for Pave to support inline styles...

-------------------------

Perharps the French were being a little more discriminating than the often trigger-happy US forces.

I guess they have that luxury when they're not the ones being shelled. Our troops tend to focus on keeping troops alive - if you're taking fire from a hospital, you neutralize that fire. I've got a solution though - next time it's Frogs on the ground, and we'll do the nice, safe flying. When you need help, we'll debate whether or not to follow an order. Hehehe, I kill me - "next time". Oh, I gotta remember that one...

That even here France feels compelled to resist the American position, gaming the fates of countless Sudanese, is disgraceful

Did you hear that France is supporting the US resolution? It's interesting to me that the US is now interested in the Sudan... an oil-rich nation. A coincidence, I'm sure.

Did you hear that France is supporting the US resolution? It's interesting to me that the US is now interested in the Sudan... an oil-rich nation. A coincidence, I'm sure.

Let's see, zoomerx initially complained that not enough was being done about the crisis in Sudan. Then, when it was pointed out to him that La Belle France was providing satellite military intelligence to the Khartoum govt so they could better carry out their ethnic cleansing while France was actively opposing UN sanctions against Sudan as recently as yesterday, zoomerx now reveals how deep and sincere his concern for Sudan truly is...he now changes his tune, smearing US efforts to help by claiming our sudden interest in Sudan is only because of its oil.

This is a classic example of a tendency which seems to be prevalent throughout French culture - projecting their own vile corrupt motivations onto others. Never mind France's long standing support of this mass murdering Sudanese regime in support of Total's oilfields. Anything for a euro, right Frenchies?

Dont' forget that 80% of the entire French population were so moronic as to believe that the US went into Iraq only for the oil. That's not 'some' French who believe that, that's damn near all of them

Whether it was multi-billion euro deals with Saddam, or the increased support and investment France is now giving the terrorist supporting mullahs in Iran, or Chirac's invitation and embrace of Robert Mugabe(Chirac was holding hands with the mass murderer), France does not hesitate to willingly (gleefully?) support the world's bloodiest dictators for money or simply to thwart the US.

And before you Frenchies run off screaming "the US does the same thing", give me examples of equivalent lowlife corrupt behavior from the US, because I'm not seeing it. From where I stand, France looks to be a whore

OB seems to have covered it pretty well, but I would like to see a link to any news story confirming that the US gave Iraq chemicals for warfare, as was claimed by Zoomer. I don't expect it, since she largely respouts Michael Moore level propaganda, but I would like to see her try anyway.

Did you hear that France is supporting the US resolution? It's interesting to me that the US is now interested in the Sudan... an oil-rich nation. A coincidence, I'm sure.

I haven't seen an article that represents France's position as "supporting" - could you link one? English preferred of course, but French is ok.

Incidentally, the US hasn't had oil interests in Sudan for years, and isn't likely to aquire any by nobbling the government's pet thugs.

give me examples of equivalent lowlife corrupt behavior from the US, because I'm not seeing it.

Look harder, today's news for instance. Just imagine for just one second, if this article had France in its headline. "Lowlife corrupt behavior", did you say? Would you like a list a corrupt butchers you have supported in the past decades? The problem with you is that you really beleive you're so freaking pure and innocent (don't get me wrong, you've done some great things). Easy to claim when "God" is on your side, after all...

I would like to see a link to any news story confirming that the US gave Iraq chemicals for warfare, as was claimed by Zoomer..

What's more, zoomerx made that poodlesh*t claim about US sales of chemical weapons to Iraq in the context of comparing it with France's long standing support of the murderous, terror supporting Sudanese regime. Never mind that the US's support of Saddam in the 80's was miniscule , and at a time in which Saddam was fighting islamofascist mullahs in Iran who had taken US citizens hostage. In hindsight, our support, although only a tiny fraction of the amount of arms sold to Saddam by France and Russia, was not a good idea.. but at least it was understandable under the circumstances.

But French support of the Sudanese regime? Providing military intelligence and other aid to the Sudanese murderers knowing that they would use it in their ethnic cleansing of innocents?? And now France is trying to stop US efforts to save lives in that region? This is truly abominable behavior on the part of the French...almost beyond belief really. In many, many ways France acts more like Libya or Pakistan than they do a western country

I find zoomerx's comparison to be incredibly dishonest, but typical of what you hear so often from the French.

One other minor point, Carlos the Jackal was not exactly kidnapped from his hospital bed by French agents (he was duped to leave the hospital by a Sudanese policeman) as zoomerx claims, and his extradition preceded lengthy diplomatic negotions between France and Sudan (in which France agreed to provide military intelligence and other favors so that the ethnic cleansings could be more effective). Carlos' capture was only allowed with the full cooperation and permission of the Sudanese govt. Prior to the capture, Sudanese intelligence officers and Sudanese leader Sheik Hassan al-Turabi had been invited to Paris for the negotiations

Did you know that it was the CIA which orginally tipped off the French govt as to the Jackal's exact location within Sudan? It's true

I had no idea that Djibouti was "French airspace" until zoomerx told us. Silly me, I thought Djibouti was a sovereign country separate from France.

Look harder, today's news for instance. Just imagine for just one second, if this article had France in its headline. "Lowlife corrupt behavior", did you say?

The big difference, a difference you would acknowledge if you weren't so dishonest, is that selling nukes on the black market is not endorsed or approved by our government. If a US firm is caught selling nukes on the black market as was alleged (if the charges are true, unproven at this point), they will have hell to pay.. full criminal prosecution, possible treason charges. This, in contrast to official French government support of blood soaked dictators for the most crass financial self interest

Would you like a list a corrupt butchers you have supported in the past decades?

I would be glad to compare the US record against France's any day. I think this gets at the crux of the matter. Where would you like to start? The Algerian torture chambers? over 1 MILLION Algerians fighting for freedom were killed by the French not so long ago. What in US history compares to THAT atrocity? How about the French policy of installing and removing African dictators over the past 40 years resulting in 35+(?) interventions on that continent. French navy carrying out joint exercises with communist Chinese Navy to intimidate free Taiwanese elections a couple months ago. And don't even get me started on French treachery in Rwanda

US 'support' of less than pristine governments was almost always in the context of fighting communism and other threats to freedom. For example, we 'supported' Stalin to defeat Nazi Germany.

France on the other hand, doesn't hesitate to support the most nightmarish dictatorships simply for selfish profit - Sudan, Iraq, and Libya being prominent examples...while embracing murderous thugs like Robert Mugabe for god knows what reason

In this regards, there is a HUGE difference between France and the US, whether you admit it or not.

It's my opinion that not only the French govt., but the French people themselves are deeply cynical to an extent that is bizarre. They believe everyone else is as corrupt as they are (or worse). That deep cynicism among the French people is why imo the French govt is free to pursue corrupt, morally bankrupt policies in ways that would never be permitted here in the US. Hell, you see this French attitude on full display here at Pave from the French posters and the French media on a regular basis. "the US is as bad or worse" blah, blah..a willingness to excuse and explain away inexcusable behavior of France while at the same time so quick to accuse the US

Easy to claim when "God" is on your side, after all...

Your religous bigotry and hatred is coming through loud and clear

(Not in order...)

And don't even get me started on French treachery in Rwanda

Don't get me started either. You're being typically silent about your own screw-ups it seems. You did nothing, worse, you prevented any further action.

Never mind that the US's support of Saddam in the 80's was miniscule , and at a time in which Saddam was fighting islamofascist mullahs in Iran who had taken US citizens hostage.

Ah yes of course, but you finally admit that the lesser of two evil is sometimes better and things don't really turn out the way you hoped for, congratulations!

And never mind Exxon was making billions in Irak in a oil consortium with Total/Fina (you know, those "murderers") etc... funny no one seemed to complain about Big Bad Saddam then, eh? ;-)

The Algerian torture chambers? over 1 MILLION Algerians fighting for freedom were killed by the French not so long ago.

Sure, I'm not disputing that. Vietnam too. These were colonies ... different times, sick methods, that's what we did then. btw, Algerians "patriots" were also butchering innocent Algerian-born French citizen and blowing up cars and cafés too, sounds familiar?

Should I bring Salvery, Segregation, Indian massacres? Abu Grahib? Jesus! I guess you've been bad too! tssk tssk!

(in which France agreed to provide military intelligence and other favors so that the ethnic cleansings could be more effective).

So France directly and officially "supported" the massacres, that's splendid. Link?

How about the French policy of installing and removing African dictators over the past 40 years resulting in 35+(?) interventions on that continent.

Many of them with US support (it was nice to have France on your side regarding Haiti btw), don't be so naive. I supposed the US never interfered with South American regimes with disastrous consequences, ever? Better a big fat bloody dictator with lots of shinny medals than a commie, eh?

In this regards, there is a HUGE difference between France and the US, whether you admit it or not.

You're comparing apples and oranges. France has different political and financial interests in former colonies, many of whom (Gabon, Chad, Coter D'Ivoire...) have treaties allowing France to intervene in urgent cases (many of them when French citizens as well as locals were in danger).

while embracing murderous thugs like Robert Mugabe for god knows what reason

"Embracing"? The guy was invited to an African conference in Paris, period. Bad choice I admit. Did you know that Saddam was once given the keys to the city of Detroit for his "generous religious contributions" in 1980? Do you seriously beleive the CIA knew nothing about his regime? Come to think of it, maybe not, they probably couldn't locate Baghdad on a world map.

US 'support' of less than pristine governments was almost always in the context of fighting communism and other threats to freedom.

To profit who? Yeah, and it worked really well in Vietnam. Like I said, a bloody right-wing dictator is so much preferable to a commie...

This, in contrast to official French government support of blood soaked dictators for the most crass financial self interest

WMD? Where are the proofs? I remember when your media was hysterical about "French-made" WMD in Irak, no doubt to be found, "blood on their hands" etc... Where are they Blowhard? How about blaming your pals the Pakistanis? Oh no, of course not. btw, could we conclude you went to Irak for the wrong reasons? You can of course imagine if French intel had wrongly submitted false info for an undeclared war (ooops)... Pave would have a feast.

Finally, France is not "supporting" the murderous Sudanese regime, as if Chirac was rejoicing over the massacres, it's a little more complicated than that (I know I know, what a difficult concept), there are lots of articles about France's concerns, if you bothered to put aside your antiquated anti-French views first.

For the record, The Economist recently ranked France proportionally equal to the US in foreign aid. Bad, Bad French.

And it's true, have you noticed how all of a sudden the US has been interested in oil-rich African nations?

Your religous bigotry and hatred is coming through loud and clear

No, I just don't wrap myself in it nor am I blinded by it. Hatred? I didn't invent Pave.

while embracing murderous thugs like Robert Mugabe for god knows what reason

It certainly has nothing to do with maintaining a post-colonial grip on as much of Africa as possible, we can all be well assured of that.

You're being typically silent about your own screw-ups it seems.

"Typically"? Is OB a new name for an old hand here? Or are you just giving your preferred stereotype a workout?

Our own screw-ups? A "screw-up" is when you do something, like prosecute a war in S.E. Asia on a half-baked agenda of the President and State Dept. instead of the military, abandon the region to murderous ideologies, and leave it beggared and buggered. That's a royal screw-up. Although I only skimmed your link, I saw no claim of a screw-up by the US - only that we didn't act, and kept that posture for as long as possible.

Screwing up would consist of actually setting that ball in motion, or working to keep it rolling - not standing back and watching it roll. Had we tried to undermine France's effort to clean up its own mess for once, that would have been a screw-up. We didn't do something, we did nothing, which is exactly what LEW's insist we must do to make all the people of the world happy with us.

Don't misunderstand me - standing back quibbling over the definition of "genocide" as an excuse for inaction was a spineless and shameful episode in our foreign policy, which was greatly exacerbated by delaying longer while arguing over who would pay for the APCs (although that foot-dragging lack of "interferance" is supposed to be admirable). There is no apologizing for that - it was too wrong to be excused. But Rwanda wasn't our "screw-up" - it was France's.

I supposed the US never interfered with South American regimes with disastrous consequences, ever? Better a big fat bloody dictator with lots of shinny medals than a commie, eh?

I know that Chile of 1973 has become something of a socialist staple when bemoaning the evils of The Great Bugaboo (for who could you be describing but Pinochet?), but what do you know about Allende's rule? Or Pinochet's coup? Or US involvement? I don't mean the populist hearsay agit-prop that you can aquire in any bar in western Europe (or college campus in the US) - I mean history of the events up to the overthrow of Allende, inclusive. And what disasterous consequences do you speak of? If you choose to ignore everything else I've said (as is your wont to do), please do answer this bit.

To profit who? Yeah, and it worked really well in Vietnam. Like I said, a bloody right-wing dictator is so much preferable to a commie...

Um, the commie stayed in Vietnam - we failed to get anything right-wing in there. Which is in better shape today, Vietnam or Chile? And don't let's pretend that the effort in Vietnam had nothing to do with suppressing or eliminating the emergence of a Khmer Rouge - had we not failed in that effort, millions would not have been slaughtered. Our shame in Vietnam was not in going to war - it was in failing to win, and all the tragedy during and following that failure.

If you want to know who profits when those situations don't turn out as a goathump, take a look at S. Korea. They could be enjoying the vibrtant, enlightened, democratic worker's paradise that North Koreans are so blessed with today. Nobody profited from Vietnam, although the people of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos could have if we hadn't screwed the pooch so badly. Bankrupt ideologies produce bankrupt societies.

WMD? Where are the proofs? I remember when your media was hysterical about "French-made" WMD in Irak, no doubt to be found, "blood on their hands" etc... Where are they Blowhard? How about blaming your pals the Pakistanis? Oh no, of course not. btw, could we conclude you went to Irak for the wrong reasons? You can of course imagine if French intel had wrongly submitted false info for an undeclared war (ooops)... Pave would have a feast.

Wow... what a gem this is. I had to sit here and marvel at this completely unhinged maelstrom of straw men, red herrings, and non-sequitors for nearly a minute before I concluded that yes, you really do think it says something in response to OB's statement. What proofs do you want - proof that France profits from supporting oppressive regimes? Ask and ye shall receive, but I thought that you already knew plenty.

And it's true, have you noticed how all of a sudden the US has been interested in oil-rich African nations?

All of a sudden? Like oil just sprang into Sudan, and suddenly we cared? Not quite - as you'll note from OB's links, US oil companies were operating in Sudan as recently as 1992, and who knows how far back. The only US oil company operating there pulled out when 3 employees were killed. That doesn't exactly sound like they want the oil very badly, does it? Our oil consumption has existed for several decades, and of course the oil itself has been there for millions of years. So the only thing sudden is the overtly growing foreign policy interest in Africa as a whole (not, as you suggest, only the oil-soaked bits of it; the gold- and diamond-soaked bits are included, thank you).

For as long as I can remember we've been befuddled by our government's tendency to tiptoe around Africa. When some of the crappiest stuff on earth has been happening there, lots of us really had no idea why our involvement was so minimal (and just look at how often LEW's praise us for not meddling! They thank us ALL THE TIME!). Of course, I finally understand - it wasn't African nations that we were studiously not interfering with, it was France and Britain. Since the completion of Britain's withdrawl, our involvement in Africa has been inversely proportional to France's - as yours reduces, ours increases. If it looks sudden to you that our foreign policy expresses a stance in Africa, then it's only as sudden as France's decline.

I can see the French position in regards to the Sudan. If they commit troops to stop these mauraders they are screwed with Kartoum and the oil ventures.

What is needed is some slight of hand. Could there be a way to arm these villagers without rubbing the Sadanese government the wrong way? Anti aircraft missles and light arms would be enough to end some Camel riding gun jockeys. France could be sidestepped by using the African Union.

You can of course imagine if French intel had wrongly submitted false info for an undeclared war (ooops)... Pave would have a feast.

The Financial Times reported Wednesday that MI-6 was correct to conclude Saddam Hussein had sought uranium ore from Niger. “…a key part of the U.K. intelligence on the uranium came from a European intelligence service that undertook a three-year surveillance of an alleged clandestine uranium-smuggling operation of which Iraq was part…”

A Washington Times commentator (it was not a news story) today says “the scuttlebutt is it was the DSGE, the French external intelligence service, which shared the intelligence with MI-6 only on the express condition the British not share it with the U.S.”

So, Zoomer, IF (and I do realize that the DSGE stuff is not a proven fact) President Bush said leading up the war “The British government has learned that Saddam recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” in his 2003 State of the Union, and that info was supplied by DSGE, wrongly, then “French intel had wrongly submitted false info” that did lead to war.

Also, the line about the French giving info to the British ONLY if they do not share it with the US is interesting. If this is true, then this line speaks more loudly than the wrong intelligence information, IMHO.

France is not "supporting" the murderous Sudanese regime, as if Chirac was rejoicing over the massacres, it's a little more complicated than that (I know I know, what a difficult concept), there are lots of articles about France's concerns, if you bothered to put aside your antiquated anti-French views first.

The problem is that French 'concerns' about Sudan all amount to empty double talk and lies. It's deeds which matter, not words. And the deeds, according to Human rights watch and other organizations is that France has been giving the Sudanese murders satellite military intelligence and other military assistance which France KNEW full well would be used to target and kill those who are trying to resist the ethnic cleansing. As if that behavior was not horrific enough, France has been using its seat in the UNSC to obstruct US draft resolutions to deal with the crisis. So you're damn right, France has most definitely been supporting the Sudanese murdering tyrants.

Let the seriousness of what France has done and is doing in Sudan sink in for a moment. You post here with your phony pretend concern for the Sudanese, then when the truth comes out, you start pointing fingers at the US impugning our motivations (it's all about the oil!) like a moron while excusing the inexecusable behavior of France. Your dishonesty is breathtaking.

"Embracing"? The guy was invited to an African conference in Paris, period.

Hell yes he was "embraced".. Chirac gave Mugabe a private meeting and was photographed holding hands with the mass murdering tyrant. The French went out of their way to flout an EU travel ban on Mugabe to invite him and his entourage to Paris where they were all wined and dined while his wife went on a Paris shopping spree. It's a pattern - French support of Sudanese mass murderers, support of Saddam, French support of countless blood soaked middle eastern tyrants and African butchers like Mugabe...anything for a few euros. France really has no sense of civilized honor or decency does it? And what does it say about the French people themselves, who show no outrage over this contemptible pattern of behavior on the part of the French government?

Contrast France's treatment of Mugabe to his treatment in the US, where the US reluctantly under Intl pressure allowed him into the country for a UN meeting, but restricted his movements to the UN area. No private meetings, footsies or hand holding with Pres Bush

Did you know that Saddam was once given the keys to the city of Detroit for his "generous religious contributions" in 1980?

I hadn't heard about that story on Saddam receiving the key to Detroit until you linked to it. It's interesting, but the award looks to be for monies Saddam donated to legit religious charities. It was given in 1980 prior to any reports (I am aware of) of chemical weapon usage, and was given to him by local officials only. Mugabe on the other hand, was a well known mass murderer and tyrant at the time of his red carpet invitation by the French

France has different political and financial interests in former colonies, many of whom (Gabon, Chad, Coter D'Ivoire...) have treaties allowing France to intervene in urgent cases

My, that's rich. The French are so quick to criticize honorable US motivations in Iraq, but when it comes to France's despicable support of dictatorial and genocidal regimes in Africa, well, that is all swept under the rug as merely a "different political and financial interest". The sad thing is that most French think the way you do. While screaming that the US is an imperialist for liberating Iraq, it is the French, not the US, which is using its money and force to dominate and rape 'former' colonies for selfish gain

Better a big fat bloody dictator with lots of shinny medals than a commie, eh?

And you call my views "antiquated"? Post again on this subject after you get a clue and enlighten us as to how many communist dictators have voluntarily gaven up power like Pinochet

For the record, The Economist recently ranked France proportionally equal to the US in foreign aid

French contributions to foreign aid is a bit like that story you linked to on charitable contributions made by Saddam to Detroit area churches. Both are self centered and corrupt, giving to charity solely for PR in an attempt to distract attention away from a mountain of other dirty dealings

That Allende article was long, but excellent. I didn't know 1/3 of that, it should be required reading. And what appears in the comments that follow? From none other than the Dissident Frogman -

I'm back here today because the French state, by the hand of Paris town council, decided to commemorate another 9/11 on 9/11.

They renamed a plaza in the 7th district to call it... Salvator Allende. Followed by an official commemoration of the coup and tribute to the defunct "democrat", at the Paris town hall, with a representative of Allende's family and the Socialist Party, Jorge Arrate - at the expense of the tax payer (sure, that's the least of their sins, but still).

*sigh*
Does anyone know what it was called before?

Zoomer,
You made a specific claim, that the US provided chemical arms to Iraq in the eighties. You don't have a link, apparently. I think you just say it because everybody you know believes it, so it must be true. I call bullshit on your claim. Just like you could never back up your ridiculous claim that Chirac had maintained before the war that there were no WMD in Iraq.

By the way, if you do find the proof of that claim, my offer to print it out and eat it remains.

As always, you are shown to be a poor liar. You should stick to opinion posts, every time you roam into the realm of facts, it turns out that you are misinformed.

We do have a couple of case studies by the way, where countries were split and the US installed the (right-wing... I guess) govt on the one side, and the commies on the other. The Koreas and the Germanies.

If you can think of another of these 'twin studies' that shows the left generally does better than the US, pleas provide a list.

Or, you could continue to do what you always do and stick your fingers in your ears and scream louder. Just don't think that you are changing any minds, because, unlike Europeans, Americans in general like to see evidence to support a theory; no matter how beautiful or appealing the theory might be.

So many questions, so little time.

You made a specific claim, that the US provided chemical arms to Iraq in the eighties. You don't have a link, apparently.

Here's one of many. It's no secret, never been denied either. So go ahead and burry your head in the sand if you want... I'm not blaming the US government of choosing the lesser of two evils (which clearly, the US has done in the case of Irak), I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy in ignoring it.

Just like you could never back up your ridiculous claim that Chirac had maintained before the war that there were no WMD in Iraq.

Chirac, in a TIME magazine article titled "France is not a pacific nation", said that he "didn't think" Irak had the capability to develop a nuclear arsenal, a purely personal opinion shared by countless sources including Americans, btw. Chirac never assumed WMD's were inexistant. I'm really baffled at why this statement seems so out of line to you. More recently, Chirac was saying that secret services, including the French, tend to "intoxicate" each other on occasions with bad intelligence.

I guess even a scum like Chirac can make some valid points.

I've tried to retrieve the article on line without success (they bill for archives), but I hope you like eating paper. I'll try again.

As always, you are shown to be a poor liar.

I see. In DeProg's ideal world, people should communicate via link waves or be labeled "liars". How sad.

because, unlike Europeans, Americans in general like to see evidence to support a theory

Link?

because, unlike Europeans, Americans in general like to see evidence to support a theory

Like CIA "evidence", for instance?

How's that for irony, DeProg?

Link?

Here

From your link:

"The report also noted that US exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical warfare agents"

Why is it when these same 'precursors' were found in Iraq after the war, you called them bug spray? These precursors were insecticides at the time, but your side called them chemical weapons precursors. Now when these same materials turn up in Iraq, you say they are innocent crop pesticides.

My evidence, Description of the chemicals when sold:

'Although U.S. export controls to Iraq were tightened up in the late 1980s, there were still many loopholes. In December 1988, Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, despite U.S. government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents. An Export-Import Bank official reported in a memorandum that he could find "no reason" to stop the sale, despite evidence that the pesticides were "highly toxic" to humans and would cause death "from asphyxiation."'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29¬Found=true

Description of same chemicals when found:

'Cyclosarin is part of the family of organophosphate chemicals, which are also used in insecticides. ... Officers at the site where the barrels were discovered said the results of the initial tests and the proximity to other types of munitions seemed to indicate a high probability that the chemicals were intended as weapons, not for benign purposes such as pesticides.'

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=14514&archive=true

'But another reason for the media silence may stem from the seemingly undramatic nature of the "finds" Hanson and others have described. The materials that constitute Saddam's chemical-weapons "stockpiles" look an awful lot like pesticides, which they indeed resemble. "Pesticides are the key elements in the chemical-agent arena," Hanson says. "In fact, the general pesticide chemical formula (organophosphate) is the 'grandfather' of modern-day nerve agents."'

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13168

So, choose your poison Zoomer. Which is it? Did we sell Iraq WMD, which we have found since the war? Or did we have no role in providing chemical warfare agents to Iraq?

And as for your Chirac statement, I read that article, and found no such statement there at the time. I might have missed it, please quote the sentence.

At the time you said that Chirac doubted the existence of WMD, doubting the existence of an advanced nuclear program represents quite a climbdown for you.

"What's this row of holes?"
"The goalpost got moved again."

Zoomer,
Which is it Zoomer? No WMDs found or US supplied them? I think it is the latter, one more reason not to like George Bush Sr. among the many. He had a very "old Europe" view of foreign affairs. We have reaped what he sowed.

By the way, if you want an up-to-date, informed not propagandized , US view of the prospects of the Kyoto treaty (Don't worry, it never mentions the science, just the politics) read this article.

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040711-105859-2520r.htm

Of course if you prefer to prattle on ignorantly, just don't read it.

By the way, I think that our involvement in creating Saddam, however small or large a part we played, made us all the more responsible to remove him. I could never understand the argument that if we created him, we should then just leave him there. We are saddled to some degree with moral responsibility for his rule.

And never mind Exxon was making billions in Irak in a oil consortium with Total/Fina (you know, those "murderers") etc... funny no one seemed to complain about Big Bad Saddam then, eh? ;-)

Is that what your French media told you to think? You write that as if you actually have a clue.

After Iraq nationalized their oil fields in the early 70's, I believe Exxon had very little, if any activity in Iraq although Total was quite active there under Saddam. Care to provide a link showing that "Exxon was making billions in Irak" under Saddam as you claim, or do we assume this is another of your lies?

Back to the original topic of the thread, what possible reason, other than an extreme selfish desire to thwart the US no matter what the cost, can Chirac have for blocking additional NATO troops being sent to Afghanistan to help secure their democratic elections?

Chirac is giving Al Queda exactly what it wants. Al Queda is frothing at the mouth waiting to inflict mayhem on Afghan elections and France is actually willing to oblige them

The French are scumbags..they really are

Chirac is trying to prove to Bush that his opinion matters. He is trying to make the point that it is impossible for the US to be everywhere at once. The genocide in the Sudan is tragic, but it is far more important that the US be tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It is a new version of Chirac's policy of enlisement. If he can't do it with treaties like the ICC and Kyoto, he will do it by refusing Europe's help even in noble causes.

It would be too bad if the elections in Afghanstan were disrupted and the Taliban came back to power, but that is not as important making the point to the US not to interfere when France has a cozy financial relationship with a bloody dictator.

The democratic aspirations of the Iraqi people are unimportant in comparison to Chirac's pique.

It think that Chirac thinks that he is winning his argument, and that he will outlast Bush and hoodwink Kerry. It is his only hope, but I wouldn't count on it.

The think is that this is the policy of the US electorate, not any individual, and the US electorate has patience dealing with empires, kings, and tyranies, as our history has shown. As the true facts about what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Sudan come to light, even the selfish European electorate will have to re-evaluate their positions.

Of course, by that time Schroeder and Chirac hope to have Europe safely 'post-democratic' -- a European phrase.

In response to the comment that the French are proportional to US in foreign aid I bet this does not take into account all that the American people give to charity to help people in other countries.