>>>>>>>France getting its comeuppance for trashing Israel and appeasing Israel's enemies. My heart bleeds for France - NOT!<<<<<
French did much more worse than that. For more than 15 years France has openly supported islamic terrorism on the territory of former Yugoslavia. It was good for French diplomatic interests in Muslim countries, it played well with the Muslim voters at home. The young Muslims rioting today on the streets of Paris have grown up with the French media lies about "poor innocent Bosnian Muslims and Albanians" suffering in the hands of savage Christian Serbs. The propaganda against Serbs followed all tenets of Hitler's propaganda. Big lie, simultaneously repeated 1000 times from all media outlets.
In 1999, after activelly supporting Albanian terrorists with terror bombing of Serbia, French troops took control of parts of Kosovo. They DID NOTHING to protect Serb population from the Albanian terrorists. It became the norm that killing a Serb is no crime.
Former Bernard Kouchner became the first UN Administrator of Kosovo. In a public speech, he said verbatim "Albanians are my favorite people" At that time, Albanian mobs were looting Serb property and freely murdering Serbs on the streets.
In March 2004 Albanin mobs torched thousands of Serb homes and set ablaze Christian churches. French troops DID NOTHING to protect Serbs in their own country.
What goes around, comes around. Kosovo was a preview of Comming attractions.
Albanian mobs torch Serb houses and Orthodox Christian Seminary in Prizren, March 2004
Albanian youth urinates on demolished Christian church while other is taking picture of him.
Paris November 2005
The other thing we discussed this morning, and Secretary Rumsfeld very much took the lead on this, along with the Secretary General, is the problem of national caveats. The way to understand this is when Country X sends a soldier into Afghanistan or Iraq, our preference is that there be no strings attached. That soldier then becomes a NATO soldier in Afghanistan or in Kosovo or in Bosnia. When NATO needs to deploy that soldier on a difficult mission – to put down riots, to take action to protect the mission –they do so automatically. Unfortunately, a number of the NATO countries have attached what we call caveats, conditions to the use of those soldiers.
The best example, and the worst example, was in Kosovo in March of this year when there was large-scale rioting and attempts by the Kosovar/Albanian community to burn down Serb houses, burn Serbs out of their homes, burn down Serb churches.
The NATO commanders were only able to rely on roughly half of the troops to go into the street, to put down these riots and demonstrations. The other half stayed in their barracks because their capitals have told them you can’t go into the streets of Kosovo with NATO unless we agree back in our capital.
QUESTION: Because those are considered --
AMBASSADOR BURNS: Well, because for any number of reasons. Some of the NATO countries have decided that their troops shouldn’t be availability for those types of tough actions.
MR. DERITA: Because it was a riot and they had caveats on riots.
AMBASSADOR BURNS: Right, the U.S. and Secretary Rumsfeld led a major effort in the Alliance for the last six months to try to convince countries to remove these conditions when using their forces.
A result of today’s meeting was we’ve made a lot of progress in Kosovo. Nearly all the countries that had these caveats or conditions on their forces back in March, which led to the problem we had during the demonstrations and riots, have now removed them. There were some who still had these conditions in Afghanistan, but there was a major attempt this morning to convince them to remove them.
The U.S., for the record, does not attach caveats on the use of American forces in NATO commands, whether it’s Bosnia , Kosovo, or Afghanistan. We’re now joined by the majority of the countries who think that’s the right way forward.
QUESTION: But it’s still a problem, you say?
AMBASSADOR BURNS: It’s still a problem that needs to be worked on and there was, gosh, a good hour of discussion on it this morning.
QUESTION: What’s the sticking point for those nations?
AMBASSADOR BURNS: NATO’s going to work well as a collective military organization if all the troops that are assigned to Afghanistan or Bosnia or Kosovo or soon to be Iraq will come under the authority of the local NATO commander, and be very prompt in answering that person’s commands. It’s not going to work as well if troops are phoning back to their capital several thousand miles away and asking, is it okay if we obey the order to go into the streets and put down a riot in Pristina, which is what happened last March. So there’s an obvious self-interest on the part of the Alliance in resolving this problem. The U.S. has been, I would say, the leader -- Secretary Rumsfeld and also General Jones, the American Supreme Allied Commander. We’re trying to convince the European allies.
http://nato.usmission.gov/ambassador/2004/2004Oct13_Burns_Romania.htm