69 comments on “No wonder Bush has no exit strategy for Iraq”
C’mon, Craig…French bashing is a long standing American tradition…dating back long before Iraq. I mean, I can’t remember a time since I’ve been alive in which ripping on the French was unacceptable (and it seems, from the British I have known to be a popular pastime in segments of Europe as well).
Jokes are one thing.
The political bashing coming from the Right since the French decided to no be another laptop for Bush is quite another.
As for the statue of liberty…gee, very nice and all but if that’s all it takes to earn an eternity of unquestioning goodwill lets start shipping off statues pronto.
Well, you’ll be happy to know that Americans are great at one thing: wasting goodwill.
So, yeah, we need to ship out a bunch of 20′ statues of Bush around the world. Then we can watch them be toppled like that one of Saddam in Bahgdad. You know, the one that was staged to show how great the US is.
Because we sure as hëll don’t give a šhìŧ about the goodwill of others, even if it comes in the form of something sent to us 150 years ago by a country that is supposed to be our ally.
Republican fries, anyone?
What do you mean “we” kemosabe?
But there is a nugget of a good point in all this; we should be careful not to make all encompassing generalizations about a nationality based on the actions of a few. The undeniable fact that some French politicians were on the take from Hussein’s regime does not instantly invalidate those who opposed the war for less mercenary reasons. How much of a factor the Oil for Food/Bribes for Peace scandal was in French foreign policy will no doubt be made clear one day. In the meantime, smart people should probably avoid making unsupportable claims like “all French are cowards” or “Americans are great at one thing: wasting goodwill”.
The undeniable fact that some French politicians were on the take from Hussein’s regime does not instantly invalidate those who opposed the war for less mercenary reasons.
And some of our politicians aren’t on the take?
Nobody should forget that great PR shot of Rummie shaking hands with Saddam, even though it was 20 years ago.
I used to think we went to Iraq for good reasons – now the only good reason I can come up with is that it is indeed for the oil.
In the meantime, smart people should probably avoid making unsupportable claims like “all French are cowards” or “Americans are great at one thing: wasting goodwill”.
Oh please, Bill.
Bush pìššëd away everything the world handed us after 9/11. And since the dûmbášš was reelected, it shows that Americans don’t give a dámņ.
“Jokes are one thing.
The political bashing coming from the Right since the French decided to no be another laptop for Bush is quite another.” Posted by Craig J.
okay, so you aparently don’t live in the central US, because everyone i have knows has not been making fun of, but bashing the entire political system of France since the mid 70’s (when i was born). I have bashed the French political maneuvering and promotion for human rights here but not here ideals since i was about nine years old. my hatred for the stupidity of the political blunders of the French government has nothing to do with the fact that they didn’t support us in the war for Iraq and has everything to do with the fact that they act (for a lack of a better term) very French on every issue. How can you claim to be a great state for human rights and yet deny the basic religious ideals such as the wearing of muslim veils in schools. I can not stand the french because they swing one direction this time, and a completely seperate direction the next time. The only person i bash for not supporting us in the war for Iraq is Bush, quit changing the reason of why we went in there. quit making a statement that says this one time, and that another. so tell you what, let me keep bashing the French for aslong as i want, or until they finally start passing policies that coordinate and congeal with the overall perception that they try to posses, and start complaing about the real problems out there, like the fact that i am a far-right wingest and i can’t stand Bush. so don’t lump me into an all emcompassing group becasue i am a conservative. there are those of us who are just as frustrated as you guys
okay, so you aparently don’t live in the central US
Born and raised in Illinois and later Iowa. So, I guess you were apparently wrong about that assumption.
How can you claim to be a great state for human rights and yet deny the basic religious ideals such as the wearing of muslim veils in schools.
And we’re any better here how?
Schools here have dress codes. Granted, they’re not based on religion, but they’re often based on stupid crap like the notion that every kid will somehow be treated equally if they’re dressed like twins.
That French dress code is a bad idea, but I don’t consider it something due to a lack of respect of human rights or other such nonsense.
And in case you haven’t noticed, we’ve struggled with similiar things here: should women in the US be allowed to wear the traditional burqua (sp?) when it comes to things like a driver’s license or passport?
Are we in some freaky violation of human rights if we say, no, you can’t wear those in your pictures for security reasons? I’d rather doubt it.
And this doesn’t even get into the problems we have with holding people for years on end without charging them with a crime, rendition, and so forth.
Yes, the US is such a great bastion of human rights.
And some of our politicians aren’t on the take?
Strawman argument, as you know. That would be like responding to someone arguing that “The only reason we went to Iraq was for the oil” with “Oh, and you never used oil?”
Bush pìššëd away everything the world handed us after 9/11
What exactly was it that they handed us? Sympathy? Ok, thanks but that’s not worth a whole lot. I’m sure the sympathies of many toward the Tsunami victims is appreciated a bit less than the 1.6 billion or so given by the USA government, corporations and individuals.
Support for the war on terror? Seems to me that this has gone and continues to go quite well. The large number of terrorists who have been captured or killed in many countries around the world attests to that, as well as the long overdue cutting off of funds to their front organizations.
Of course, the other countries of the world would be daft NOT to do something about terrorism, regardless of their feelings toward the President. Does anyone think the French are so stupid that they would encourage or even tolerate international terrorism just because the US wants them to do the opposite? The Islamic Terrorists have shown no desire to limit their war to just the United States (Hëll, many, maybe even most of their victims have been Muslims).
So, out of curiosity, what exactly would France, to just pick one country, be doing for us now under President Kerry that they aren’t doing for us now under President Bush? There may be perfectly good answers to this question, I just don’t know them.
Schools here have dress codes. Granted, they’re not based on religion, but they’re often based on stupid crap like the notion that every kid will somehow be treated equally if they’re dressed like twins.
Uh huh. Yeah. The look like twins. Right.
Have you looked at a public school lately? To be able to say that with a straight face?
here’s our school dress code, briefly: No spaghetti straps or halter tops or excessive cleavage. This mostly applies to the girls. No skirts so small that when you sit down your hey-nanni-nanni is exposed to the world. No sagging trousers that expose underpants. No gang insignia. Hats off in classroom. No messages of profanity, racism or drugs. No see through clothes or clothes that can cause physical harm (hooks, spikes).
That’s pretty much it. There are a small number of schools that have actual uniforms but they are in the tiny minority.
We get that you think that the USA is no better than pretty much anyone else and worse than most but you gotta chose your arguments a little more carefully.
One thing I do have to give the French credit for–none of this holding people for years without being charged nonsense. Some of those accused of rioting were arrested, convicted and jailed within days. None of that defendent’s rights silliness. I’m sure they ahd the best representation possible and taht all the evidence was properly examined in the 15 minutes that the magistrate took to send some kid to jail.
Oops…spoke too soon.
From the Associated press:
Over the past several years, especially following the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, French authorities have adopted some of the toughest anti-terrorism laws and policies in Europe — including pre-emptive arrests, ethnic profiling and interrogation without the presence of defense attorneys. The authorities have more than 40 mosques under watch. Police agents in civilian clothes reportedly mill in and outside mosques, recording speeches of the prayer leaders, or imams. …According to Mr. Leclair, if officials have information that “Mr. Mohammed X” is a suspect but have no solid evidence, they have no qualms about finding something in his personal life, like a past complaint from his abused wife, to detain him for questioning. “Sometimes, of course, we can bring some trouble in the personal life, but I think it’s better to [make] trouble for some people for one day and avoid 200 to 300 people from dying in a blast,” Mr. Leclair said. … Under French law, suspects can be detained for 92 hours before charges are filed, and jailed for up to 3½ years as investigations continue and a trial is prepared. A new catch-all charge of “conspiracy in relation to terrorism” enables prosecutors to cast their nets wide. …Today, more than 100 suspects “with good terrorist profile” are in detention — about 50 of them either convicted or prosecuted, Mr. Leclair said. The other 50 are in police custody.
Well! For folks who don’t like the thuggish jackbooted tactics of Bush’s Amerikkka they seem to be doing a fairly good job of using the same tactics. Rencontrez le nouveau patron, même que le vieux patron.
Anyway…I’m off to Kentucky for food and family. Take care, everyone, happy holidays.
It’s interesting that being critical of President Clinton is perfectly acceptable; but criticism of the Bush Administration apparently makes on unpatriotic …. The country is larger than one man. Criticizing one president and his administration because it does not live up to the ideals which you believe truly do represent America does not in any way equate with hating America itself.
And as far as what we’re losing internationally … I suppose it’s possible you could have missed posts on here from international posters, talking about how the United States is now more feared, by the general populace, in their countries. The US’ current “might makes right” foreign policy is not very conducive to keeping good will. Will it lead to physical conflicts with more nations? Maybe not; but it’s not exactly something to which we should be aspiring, either.
And, as you say, Bill – happy holiday, all
Luke, I’ve seen the posts but I was also alive when people in Europe were marching against Reagan’s idea to deploy MX missiles…this while the dust of Chernobyl wafted over their lands. There haven’t been too many times when the United States hasn’t been feared by countries that are weaker than it is…and really, that isn’t an entirely irrational feeling. I am far more nervous about the Chinese than I am about the Germans. I don’t, however, expect the Chinese to be especially unhappy about that situation.
Will the Europeans use their fear to wage war on us? It’s not a matter of “maybe not”. there is no rational scenario where it happens. With what army? And besides, even if they won wouldn’t it destroy their economies?
I’m not saying that things should not be better than they are–I just asked for some concrete examples of what it is that the world handed us after 9/11.
There are a small number of schools that have actual uniforms but they are in the tiny minority.
And yet, that was exactly my point: they ARE out there. And I’m sure alot more districts than you think have discussed the idea, and not just in areas on the coasts where gangs are a problem.
So, yes, I can say it with a straight face.
I know, it may get my “Raving Liberal” card revoked, but I fail to see how dress codes, or even school uniforms are a bad thing.
Uniforms allow children to focus more on their studies instead of what the kid next to them is wearing and “ooh, I want a pair of shoes like that!” They’re there for an education, not a fashion show.
Also, it would be a step in the right direction in preparing them for the real world. From the cook line at McDonald’s, all the way up the corporate ladder, if you don’t dress in accordance with the dress code, you get sent home and don’t get paid that day.
That’s just life.
-Rex Hondo-
This just in…
Riots continue in France. The French government is in special meetings to discuss terms of their surrender.
Speaking of jokes that were only mildly amusing the first time, but significantly less so the millionth or so time…
-Rex Hondo-
Posted by Bill Mulligan at November 23, 2005 03:45 PM
Luke, I’ve seen the posts but I was also alive when people in Europe were marching against Reagan’s idea to deploy MX missiles…this while the dust of Chernobyl wafted over their lands. There haven’t been too many times when the United States hasn’t been feared by countries that are weaker than it is…and really, that isn’t an entirely irrational feeling.
It wasn’t (primarily) fear of the US that led to demonstrations against the MX and the Minuteman in Europe — it was the fear that deployment of such systems meant that that the basing of US strastegic assets in Europe meant that they were suddenly living next door to primary targets if WWIII ever happened.
I am far more nervous about the Chinese than I am about the Germans. I don’t, however, expect the Chinese to be especially unhappy about that situation.
Old joke from That Period:
Young Soviet officer in Armor Training School is posed a tactical problem.
“You are sitting on Hill Thus-and-so, tasked primarily with defence of military assets Such-and-so and This-and-that, and secondarily with the interdiction of enemy attacks along the axis of Highway And-the-other.
“Forward observers report three NATO units, in total stronger than your unit, approaching.
“Apparently, the Americans intend to open up the highway allowing an attack to your rear.
“The Germans will be attacking your most essential asset, Such-and-so, the loss of which could lead to disaster.
“The British will be attacking This-and-that, which must be held to allow our planned drive to succeed.
“In which order do you engage the enemy?”
“Simple, Tovarisch General — first the Americans, then the British, then the Germans.”
But the Germans are attacking the most essential of all — why them last?”
The year in 1956. France is in the middle of a war against terrorism. I’m not talking only about bombs here, but also women and children being litterally butchered (google “Phillippeville slaughters”). So, the french authorities decide to use every means at their disposal to fight the FLNs murderous thughs, and those who support them. Of course, France can’t go toe to toe with the main sponsor, given that said country had nukes, and we had none. But there was a country, led by a mustache-wearing dictator, who was supporting terrorism, not only aimed at France, but also at Israel. A dictator who made no secret of his wish to destroy Israel, and who also harbored nazi war criminals (sent there by the CIA, BTW). A dictator who had taken control of some very important strategic resources. So, a plan was put in place to remove said dictator, and replace him with a puppet government. And the plan worked. The french, british and israeli forces kicked egyptian ášš all over the Sinai. But something happened that was not planned.
Of course, the opposition of the Soviet Union was expected. What was not, however, was the opposition of the United States, nor the lengths to which Eisenhower would go. If the Russians threatened to nuke France and Great Britain, the United States used their economic power to force the British to pull another Dunkirk, Leaving France alone again, and even went so far as to put american ships in egyptian harbours in order to thwart planned air strike agains the egyptian naby (which, BTW, might explain the USS Liberty a few years later). So, inspite of the fact that the operation was a military success, it was a political failure.
I don’t know what reasons Eisenhower had to oppose our actions in Suez. But if the United States said that invading a sovereign country is wrong, well, it’s wrong. And if France didn’t have the right to invade Egypt in 1956, The USA didn’t have the right to invade Iraq, which was certainly not as big a threat as Egypt, in 2003. And you can certainly agree that Chirac (who at the time was fighting in Algeria and even got wounded for his troubles) did a lot less than Eisenhower did in similar circumstances. And judging from what has happened in Iraq since then, one can certainly agree that Eisenhower, regardless of his reasons) saved us a lot of trouble.
Gerard,
Thanks for the history lesson. France believed that Egypt was the problem and the US prevented France from trying to do something about the problem, thus allowing the problem to continue. No wonder the French are still carrying a grudge.
People who don’t live in an area usually can’t see why these things last so long. It makes no logical sense to me why the Irish and the British carry so much animosity toward each other, but, to many of them, it is a way of life, and has been for decades.
• 
C’mon, Craig…French bashing is a long standing American tradition…dating back long before Iraq. I mean, I can’t remember a time since I’ve been alive in which ripping on the French was unacceptable (and it seems, from the British I have known to be a popular pastime in segments of Europe as well).
Jokes are one thing.
The political bashing coming from the Right since the French decided to no be another laptop for Bush is quite another.
As for the statue of liberty…gee, very nice and all but if that’s all it takes to earn an eternity of unquestioning goodwill lets start shipping off statues pronto.
Well, you’ll be happy to know that Americans are great at one thing: wasting goodwill.
So, yeah, we need to ship out a bunch of 20′ statues of Bush around the world. Then we can watch them be toppled like that one of Saddam in Bahgdad. You know, the one that was staged to show how great the US is.
Because we sure as hëll don’t give a šhìŧ about the goodwill of others, even if it comes in the form of something sent to us 150 years ago by a country that is supposed to be our ally.
Republican fries, anyone?
What do you mean “we” kemosabe?
But there is a nugget of a good point in all this; we should be careful not to make all encompassing generalizations about a nationality based on the actions of a few. The undeniable fact that some French politicians were on the take from Hussein’s regime does not instantly invalidate those who opposed the war for less mercenary reasons. How much of a factor the Oil for Food/Bribes for Peace scandal was in French foreign policy will no doubt be made clear one day. In the meantime, smart people should probably avoid making unsupportable claims like “all French are cowards” or “Americans are great at one thing: wasting goodwill”.
The undeniable fact that some French politicians were on the take from Hussein’s regime does not instantly invalidate those who opposed the war for less mercenary reasons.
And some of our politicians aren’t on the take?
Nobody should forget that great PR shot of Rummie shaking hands with Saddam, even though it was 20 years ago.
I used to think we went to Iraq for good reasons – now the only good reason I can come up with is that it is indeed for the oil.
In the meantime, smart people should probably avoid making unsupportable claims like “all French are cowards” or “Americans are great at one thing: wasting goodwill”.
Oh please, Bill.
Bush pìššëd away everything the world handed us after 9/11. And since the dûmbášš was reelected, it shows that Americans don’t give a dámņ.
“Jokes are one thing.
The political bashing coming from the Right since the French decided to no be another laptop for Bush is quite another.” Posted by Craig J.
okay, so you aparently don’t live in the central US, because everyone i have knows has not been making fun of, but bashing the entire political system of France since the mid 70’s (when i was born). I have bashed the French political maneuvering and promotion for human rights here but not here ideals since i was about nine years old. my hatred for the stupidity of the political blunders of the French government has nothing to do with the fact that they didn’t support us in the war for Iraq and has everything to do with the fact that they act (for a lack of a better term) very French on every issue. How can you claim to be a great state for human rights and yet deny the basic religious ideals such as the wearing of muslim veils in schools. I can not stand the french because they swing one direction this time, and a completely seperate direction the next time. The only person i bash for not supporting us in the war for Iraq is Bush, quit changing the reason of why we went in there. quit making a statement that says this one time, and that another. so tell you what, let me keep bashing the French for aslong as i want, or until they finally start passing policies that coordinate and congeal with the overall perception that they try to posses, and start complaing about the real problems out there, like the fact that i am a far-right wingest and i can’t stand Bush. so don’t lump me into an all emcompassing group becasue i am a conservative. there are those of us who are just as frustrated as you guys
okay, so you aparently don’t live in the central US
Born and raised in Illinois and later Iowa. So, I guess you were apparently wrong about that assumption.
How can you claim to be a great state for human rights and yet deny the basic religious ideals such as the wearing of muslim veils in schools.
And we’re any better here how?
Schools here have dress codes. Granted, they’re not based on religion, but they’re often based on stupid crap like the notion that every kid will somehow be treated equally if they’re dressed like twins.
That French dress code is a bad idea, but I don’t consider it something due to a lack of respect of human rights or other such nonsense.
And in case you haven’t noticed, we’ve struggled with similiar things here: should women in the US be allowed to wear the traditional burqua (sp?) when it comes to things like a driver’s license or passport?
Are we in some freaky violation of human rights if we say, no, you can’t wear those in your pictures for security reasons? I’d rather doubt it.
And this doesn’t even get into the problems we have with holding people for years on end without charging them with a crime, rendition, and so forth.
Yes, the US is such a great bastion of human rights.
And some of our politicians aren’t on the take?
Strawman argument, as you know. That would be like responding to someone arguing that “The only reason we went to Iraq was for the oil” with “Oh, and you never used oil?”
Bush pìššëd away everything the world handed us after 9/11
What exactly was it that they handed us? Sympathy? Ok, thanks but that’s not worth a whole lot. I’m sure the sympathies of many toward the Tsunami victims is appreciated a bit less than the 1.6 billion or so given by the USA government, corporations and individuals.
Support for the war on terror? Seems to me that this has gone and continues to go quite well. The large number of terrorists who have been captured or killed in many countries around the world attests to that, as well as the long overdue cutting off of funds to their front organizations.
Of course, the other countries of the world would be daft NOT to do something about terrorism, regardless of their feelings toward the President. Does anyone think the French are so stupid that they would encourage or even tolerate international terrorism just because the US wants them to do the opposite? The Islamic Terrorists have shown no desire to limit their war to just the United States (Hëll, many, maybe even most of their victims have been Muslims).
So, out of curiosity, what exactly would France, to just pick one country, be doing for us now under President Kerry that they aren’t doing for us now under President Bush? There may be perfectly good answers to this question, I just don’t know them.
Schools here have dress codes. Granted, they’re not based on religion, but they’re often based on stupid crap like the notion that every kid will somehow be treated equally if they’re dressed like twins.
Uh huh. Yeah. The look like twins. Right.
Have you looked at a public school lately? To be able to say that with a straight face?
here’s our school dress code, briefly: No spaghetti straps or halter tops or excessive cleavage. This mostly applies to the girls. No skirts so small that when you sit down your hey-nanni-nanni is exposed to the world. No sagging trousers that expose underpants. No gang insignia. Hats off in classroom. No messages of profanity, racism or drugs. No see through clothes or clothes that can cause physical harm (hooks, spikes).
That’s pretty much it. There are a small number of schools that have actual uniforms but they are in the tiny minority.
We get that you think that the USA is no better than pretty much anyone else and worse than most but you gotta chose your arguments a little more carefully.
One thing I do have to give the French credit for–none of this holding people for years without being charged nonsense. Some of those accused of rioting were arrested, convicted and jailed within days. None of that defendent’s rights silliness. I’m sure they ahd the best representation possible and taht all the evidence was properly examined in the 15 minutes that the magistrate took to send some kid to jail.
Oops…spoke too soon.
From the Associated press:
Over the past several years, especially following the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, French authorities have adopted some of the toughest anti-terrorism laws and policies in Europe — including pre-emptive arrests, ethnic profiling and interrogation without the presence of defense attorneys.
The authorities have more than 40 mosques under watch. Police agents in civilian clothes reportedly mill in and outside mosques, recording speeches of the prayer leaders, or imams.
…According to Mr. Leclair, if officials have information that “Mr. Mohammed X” is a suspect but have no solid evidence, they have no qualms about finding something in his personal life, like a past complaint from his abused wife, to detain him for questioning.
“Sometimes, of course, we can bring some trouble in the personal life, but I think it’s better to [make] trouble for some people for one day and avoid 200 to 300 people from dying in a blast,” Mr. Leclair said.
… Under French law, suspects can be detained for 92 hours before charges are filed, and jailed for up to 3½ years as investigations continue and a trial is prepared. A new catch-all charge of “conspiracy in relation to terrorism” enables prosecutors to cast their nets wide.
…Today, more than 100 suspects “with good terrorist profile” are in detention — about 50 of them either convicted or prosecuted, Mr. Leclair said. The other 50 are in police custody.
Well! For folks who don’t like the thuggish jackbooted tactics of Bush’s Amerikkka they seem to be doing a fairly good job of using the same tactics. Rencontrez le nouveau patron, même que le vieux patron.
Anyway…I’m off to Kentucky for food and family. Take care, everyone, happy holidays.
It’s interesting that being critical of President Clinton is perfectly acceptable; but criticism of the Bush Administration apparently makes on unpatriotic …. The country is larger than one man. Criticizing one president and his administration because it does not live up to the ideals which you believe truly do represent America does not in any way equate with hating America itself.
And as far as what we’re losing internationally … I suppose it’s possible you could have missed posts on here from international posters, talking about how the United States is now more feared, by the general populace, in their countries. The US’ current “might makes right” foreign policy is not very conducive to keeping good will. Will it lead to physical conflicts with more nations? Maybe not; but it’s not exactly something to which we should be aspiring, either.
And, as you say, Bill – happy holiday, all
Luke, I’ve seen the posts but I was also alive when people in Europe were marching against Reagan’s idea to deploy MX missiles…this while the dust of Chernobyl wafted over their lands. There haven’t been too many times when the United States hasn’t been feared by countries that are weaker than it is…and really, that isn’t an entirely irrational feeling. I am far more nervous about the Chinese than I am about the Germans. I don’t, however, expect the Chinese to be especially unhappy about that situation.
Will the Europeans use their fear to wage war on us? It’s not a matter of “maybe not”. there is no rational scenario where it happens. With what army? And besides, even if they won wouldn’t it destroy their economies?
I’m not saying that things should not be better than they are–I just asked for some concrete examples of what it is that the world handed us after 9/11.
There are a small number of schools that have actual uniforms but they are in the tiny minority.
And yet, that was exactly my point: they ARE out there. And I’m sure alot more districts than you think have discussed the idea, and not just in areas on the coasts where gangs are a problem.
So, yes, I can say it with a straight face.
I know, it may get my “Raving Liberal” card revoked, but I fail to see how dress codes, or even school uniforms are a bad thing.
Uniforms allow children to focus more on their studies instead of what the kid next to them is wearing and “ooh, I want a pair of shoes like that!” They’re there for an education, not a fashion show.
Also, it would be a step in the right direction in preparing them for the real world. From the cook line at McDonald’s, all the way up the corporate ladder, if you don’t dress in accordance with the dress code, you get sent home and don’t get paid that day.
That’s just life.
-Rex Hondo-
This just in…
Riots continue in France. The French government is in special meetings to discuss terms of their surrender.
Speaking of jokes that were only mildly amusing the first time, but significantly less so the millionth or so time…
-Rex Hondo-
Posted by Bill Mulligan at November 23, 2005 03:45 PM
Luke, I’ve seen the posts but I was also alive when people in Europe were marching against Reagan’s idea to deploy MX missiles…this while the dust of Chernobyl wafted over their lands. There haven’t been too many times when the United States hasn’t been feared by countries that are weaker than it is…and really, that isn’t an entirely irrational feeling.
It wasn’t (primarily) fear of the US that led to demonstrations against the MX and the Minuteman in Europe — it was the fear that deployment of such systems meant that that the basing of US strastegic assets in Europe meant that they were suddenly living next door to primary targets if WWIII ever happened.
I am far more nervous about the Chinese than I am about the Germans. I don’t, however, expect the Chinese to be especially unhappy about that situation.
Old joke from That Period:
Young Soviet officer in Armor Training School is posed a tactical problem.
“You are sitting on Hill Thus-and-so, tasked primarily with defence of military assets Such-and-so and This-and-that, and secondarily with the interdiction of enemy attacks along the axis of Highway And-the-other.
“Forward observers report three NATO units, in total stronger than your unit, approaching.
“Apparently, the Americans intend to open up the highway allowing an attack to your rear.
“The Germans will be attacking your most essential asset, Such-and-so, the loss of which could lead to disaster.
“The British will be attacking This-and-that, which must be held to allow our planned drive to succeed.
“In which order do you engage the enemy?”
“Simple, Tovarisch General — first the Americans, then the British, then the Germans.”
But the Germans are attacking the most essential of all — why them last?”
“Business before pleasure.”
RE recent political hassles over the “X” on CNN and Bush’s wanting to bomb al-Jazeera: http://www.ucomics.com/jackhiggins/2005/11/24/
All right, here’s a lesson of history for you.
The year in 1956. France is in the middle of a war against terrorism. I’m not talking only about bombs here, but also women and children being litterally butchered (google “Phillippeville slaughters”). So, the french authorities decide to use every means at their disposal to fight the FLNs murderous thughs, and those who support them. Of course, France can’t go toe to toe with the main sponsor, given that said country had nukes, and we had none. But there was a country, led by a mustache-wearing dictator, who was supporting terrorism, not only aimed at France, but also at Israel. A dictator who made no secret of his wish to destroy Israel, and who also harbored nazi war criminals (sent there by the CIA, BTW). A dictator who had taken control of some very important strategic resources. So, a plan was put in place to remove said dictator, and replace him with a puppet government. And the plan worked. The french, british and israeli forces kicked egyptian ášš all over the Sinai. But something happened that was not planned.
Of course, the opposition of the Soviet Union was expected. What was not, however, was the opposition of the United States, nor the lengths to which Eisenhower would go. If the Russians threatened to nuke France and Great Britain, the United States used their economic power to force the British to pull another Dunkirk, Leaving France alone again, and even went so far as to put american ships in egyptian harbours in order to thwart planned air strike agains the egyptian naby (which, BTW, might explain the USS Liberty a few years later). So, inspite of the fact that the operation was a military success, it was a political failure.
I don’t know what reasons Eisenhower had to oppose our actions in Suez. But if the United States said that invading a sovereign country is wrong, well, it’s wrong. And if France didn’t have the right to invade Egypt in 1956, The USA didn’t have the right to invade Iraq, which was certainly not as big a threat as Egypt, in 2003. And you can certainly agree that Chirac (who at the time was fighting in Algeria and even got wounded for his troubles) did a lot less than Eisenhower did in similar circumstances. And judging from what has happened in Iraq since then, one can certainly agree that Eisenhower, regardless of his reasons) saved us a lot of trouble.
Gerard,
Thanks for the history lesson. France believed that Egypt was the problem and the US prevented France from trying to do something about the problem, thus allowing the problem to continue. No wonder the French are still carrying a grudge.
People who don’t live in an area usually can’t see why these things last so long. It makes no logical sense to me why the Irish and the British carry so much animosity toward each other, but, to many of them, it is a way of life, and has been for decades.