please stop bashing France

lekomin inc wrote:
a nice soul searching session

I agree that the Polish contribution to the Iraqi Freedom might seem
pathetic to many people. But we have send our finest (GROM is the finest of
the Polish military units). We have no resources to send 10 thousand troops
neither now nor we will have itin 10 or 20 years. Polish troops went for the
Iraqi Freedom OP as we wanted to show that we care. In reality US/UK would
have done the same, that is superb, without Poles. Everybody knows that. But
in other times, maybe less fortunate for Poland then right now, we might
need help from countries that don't really need to help. We hope they will
help for seemingly idiotic reasons, the same as Poland did in Iraq. Freedom
is not granted and you need to fight for it.
take care
lekomin inc


What is GROM anyways

I know that its english translation is storm , but what exactly is the
unit. Is it a desant unit modeled after old soviet formations , or is it
more like an american ranger unit.

Also what your guys did was outstanding , plus your government for
sending them , it says more to send troops to a combat theater , than
all the words in the UN.

Declan O'Reilly

In article ,
"Franck" wrote:

Unless you mean Chile.

Chili genocide refers to killing all of the peppers.

sorry I hope your french is better than my english..just a question of
culture

Well, since you've been tossing around words like "genocide," you should
be able to get the names of the countries they supposedly happened in...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:35:12 +0200, lekomin inc wrote:

This guy's "cruise" might have cost 5000 bucks.. but what was it range?

He hasn't actually built the thing yet. Details at

http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

Chad Irby wrote:

Well, since you've been tossing around words like "genocide," you should
be able to get the names of the countries they supposedly happened in...

Yeah. Franck... "Barbie" is just an American fashion doll, right?

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:57:57 +0100, ess (phil hunt)
wrote:

The Eisenhower
administration did disagree with France and the UK about how to settle the
issue, but did nothing in the way of interfering with French and British
actions.

This is only true if "withdraw or we'll **** your economy" counts as
nothing.

Try "withdraw" or we'll stop underwriting the loans you are using to buy
votes with.



greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

"Gordon" wrote in message
...
This is my one input to this thread - I believe that countries do things
in
their own interests 90% of the time and if other folks are getting
butchered,
well, that's just terrible. Saddam was seen as the lessor of two evils in
the
region, then over the years gained in stature among despots, reaching the
pinnacle of brutality. By then, America had been distancing itself from
Saddam
for years.

If by the pinnacle of his brutality you mean his extermination of thousand
of Kurds with chemical weapons then the US was certainly still supporting
him at the time. Concern was certainly expressed within intelligence and
government circles yet foreign policy at the time dictated a blind eye be
turned as you say because of the "lesser of two evils". But then a lesser
of two evils is still an evil.

But even as we drew away, other countries embraced him, pointing at
our earlier involvement as a sort of extenuating circumstance for their
current
colusion. Plus, our government drilled it into everyone's heads that
Saddam
was actively working to either nuke or dust us.

Despite the fact that he never expressed any intent to attack anyone outside
of the region? He was certainly critical of US government behaviour, seeing
the US's double-dealing in the Iran-Iraq war as a betrayal, but there's
little evidence he was working to create anything beyond a theatre
capability. (Where as we on the other hand actively seek to create
inter-continental weapons capable of threatening and striking those who
oppose our political standpoint. Is it any wonder that nations the world
over want to redress the balance?)

With that as a background,
France stood up as defender of Iraq's despot, not its people. The
differences
between us became a rift and for the foreseeable future, its going to
remain.
America didn't do things in Iraq for the right reason, and neither did
France.
The main difference is that we stopped supporting Saddam at some point.
France
never did. Both countries were "beating their wife", but at least we
stopped.

It was only stopped due to political expediency and a shift in allegiances.
America no longer had anything to gain by supporting Saddam, I don't believe
conscience or the welfare of the oppressed citizenship had anything to do
with it. The defence of Kuwait and protection of Saudi Arabia show
un-democratic and despotic regimes continue to be supported in defence of a
greater evil.

Si

Simon Robbins wrote:

If by the pinnacle of his brutality you mean his extermination of thousand
of Kurds with chemical weapons then the US was certainly still supporting
him at the time. Concern was certainly expressed within intelligence and

"Support" is an excessive description of the relationship.

The US was attempting to get along with Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war.
The US didn't like Iran because of the hostage situation in 1980. The
attempt to make an "ally" of him failed.

So as of spring of this year, the US had tried to befriend Saddam and tried
to contain Saddam. Largely to no effect, or very limited effect.

The US no more "supported" Saddam than just about any other major country
of the world. The difference is, the US stopped while much of the rest of
the industrialized world continued in its business/military relations with
the despot.


SMH

The US didn't like Iran because of the hostage situation in 1980. The
attempt to make an "ally" of him failed.

could you explain me the role of US gvt and CIA on the military support of
Iran between 1984 to 1987 (Irangate)

--
Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

what value is an editorial cartoon ? I think it's just made to raise a
question on a subject. I agree it somtimes does have a political
meaning, but I don't think it's its major goal.

Chad Irby wrote:
In article ,
guy wastiaux wrote:


I don't know what are your references, but they certainly aren't to be
trusted. Try Le Monde for example : arguably the best daily available in
France, which is center-oriented, the most serious one. Not once, since
the beginning of the war and since 9/11 did I read articles that were
speaking of the US as the root of all evil on Earth....Now you figure


Read the editorials, especially the editorial cartoons.

Some of those were, quite frankly, insane.



--
Guy Wastiaux
aka FauCon PoiLu
visit me @ http://guy.4002.org/
mail me @ faucon.Wastiaux @ laposte.net

BUFDRVR wrote:
Both of those outcomes would have had a direct and significant
impact on US
National Security objectives. This is not even close to compareable with French
actions last winter-spring.

First, why the US should prevent other countries for preserving their
interests in the world just to serve their interests ? Seems to you that
UKs & France's interests don't count in this case. I find that quite
surprising. Besides there could have been an interest for the US in
preventing Egypt to take over the canal, as in the UK-French ruled canal
area could have provided some vital space to Israel (which eventually it
took on it's own).

Second : if France really had trade interests with SH, as some people
assert, then why do you blame France for protecting its interests ?
Wouldn't the US have done the same thing ? I think they would have by
any means deemed necessary. Just as happens all the time. Like happened
with the Kyoto pact.

Finally, all of the world is still waiting for the connection between
Iraq & world terrorism to be established. As of this moment, it seems
Iraq didn't pose such a big threat regarding terrorism, as it was
supposed to be. Same goes for WMDs. So what major impact had SH on
national security matters ? The US kept enough troops in the area since
'91 to prevent him from even farting too loud..

--
Guy Wastiaux
aka FauCon PoiLu
visit me @ http://guy.4002.org/
mail me @ faucon.Wastiaux @ laposte.net