Before I begin this message I should probably point out that I do not agree with the Idealogical Jihad launched by some members of the Muslim faith in any way and do realize that the only way it can be combated is through conflict.
That being said, I think it is important that we as a Western Society with secular Governments understand why some of this started in the first place. Obviously there is no single answer but Western Society has been messing around in the area for a few hundred years, I don't know about you but if some people came over here and started interfering in what we did for 200 years, give or take a few, then I'd be pretty cheesed off.
Mikey wrote:I agree with the lunacy of "Freedom fries," etc. However, the French have shown themselves to be poor allies in the post-Cold War world on numerous occasions prior to any Iraq-related actions. The fact that the current president has a post=presidency job lined up as village idiot doesn't mitigate that fact.
I wouldn't say that, they were excellent allies when you needed someone else on the Security Council to help you go along with Genocide in Rwanda...
On a more positive note, France is in Afghanistan with 1,400 troops (give or take a few), clearly showing their poor ally status.
I suppose you are probably referring to France's withdrawal from the NATO Military Command Structure. In regard to that, the US was involved heavily in the Vietnam War and relations between Europe and America rose and fell throughout the period. The fact that America would largely abandon an ally militarily and even politically was proven first in 1956 during the Suez Crisis when France, Britain and Israel invaded Egypt to reopen the Canal and were condemned by their ally, the US Government, who choose to side with a Soviet Sattelite Nation and again in 1967 when the US refused to back Isreal against nearly the entire Middle East because they were involved in Vietnam and couldn't be bothered to help, which ironically was started because of the failure of the 1956 Invasion which was partially torpedoed by the US Government.
I can hardly blame France for suspecting the same thing would happen if things went badly in Europe, especially considering that France had just fought 2 World Wars in which the US had sat out until the last moment before stepping in to help out. From that point of view I can completely understand their desire to be able to defend themselves without having to rely heavily on outside support which given the track record, probably wouldn't show up for 5 years.
The way I remember it, the majority of the UN believed the same supposedly wrong intel.
Which nations were these, from my understanding the big players on the Security Counsel did not agree, hence why the US was forced to invade unilaterally instead of with UN backing. On a side not, do you really believe the Intel was true and that Iraq was stockpiling massive amounts of Biological and Chemical Weapons, using big trucks driving around all day producing this stuff while building massive refineries required to make weapons grade uranium?
PS - they also still deserve scorn for the Maginot Line.
Sorry, I didn't catch how many troops you had in Europe at the time. The defences were outdated having been based on the previous War but what else do you expect them to base it on. Thats really like saying the US Military's placement of defences was stupid, they should have seen in their crystal balls that planes would be used as missiles to target civilian buildings...
They
might have been better served by Armour and Air Power but given their population and general logistical capabilities at the time the plan made sense.
There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.
-Elie Wiesel
Dreaming in Color Living in Black and White, Sitting in a Grey Day Leaning on a Bright New Tomorrow.
-Billy Ray Cyrus