Why the French behave as they do

wnd.com ^ | March 5, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern | Patrick J. Buchanan

[Destro]

Legalistically from a constitutional point of view because they violated the ceasefire signed with the USA and from an international point of view (UN) for the same reason. No good enough proof exists of an al-Qaeda alliance to justify war, if it did then Bush would not need all this effort to go to war.

I could live with that reason at least.

[witnesstothefall]

Very thoughtful remarks. However, the War on Terror (which will sooner or later morph into WWIII if it hasn't already) is akin to fighting a hydra. Sadaam is but one head of the monster afflicting us.

Cannot remaking the political and socioeconomic map of the ME be seen as a pragmatic (and thus conservative) matter of achieving a comprehensive and more stable global security situation? The ME has been threatening the world order for many decades, not just since the end of the Cold War as the talking heads would have us believe.

[hunter112]

Maybe it's because the war is a terrible idea and a lot of pundits on the left and right, understand that.

I'm still waiting for someone NOT coming from a left-wing peacenik point of view to convince me that finishing the Crusades is a bad idea. Better to do it now, than to leave it for our grandchildren. I'm glad my father's and grandfathers' generation beat down Germany when they did, rather than leaving it for me. Now, Germany is a toothless, gutless miserable excuse for a country, whining about our need for a just war. That's the victory that my elders fought for. I'd like my great-grandchildren to see only peaceful Muslims, or none at all.

[f.Christian]

"The glory of France is a thing of the past. Its brief period of great benign advance in the 19th century, when it built a brilliant colonial empire which liberated millions of Africans from disease and backwardness, came to an end when De Gaulle jettisoned the whole fabulous enterprise. And the result is an Africa in ruins and disease. De Gaulle, the destroyer, set France on its present path of wholesale betrayal of Western values. The country is now overrun by Moslems, and its philosophers have contributed the last chapter in the descent to philosophical insanity: deconstructionism."

"France has become ... irrelevant (( link )) --- to the great tasks that confront the Bush administration."

"Apart from providing us with fine perfumes, wines, and cheeses, the French are incapable of saving Western civilization. Nor do they really want to. That job has been left to us."

© 2003 Samuel Blumenfeld - All Rights Reserved

[aristeides]

Great line from a Hitchcock movie (the remake of The Man Who Knew Too Much): "They're a cynical lot, the French."

[aristeides]

We're repeating the history of the Roman Empire. I used to think we shouldn't go further down that path, but 9/11, unfortunately, shows that we can't do that, safely.

[agincourt1415]

Pat B is certainly not brilliant.

The French are COWARDS and SELFISH.

Nobody cares about how they got that way or why.

NEXT CASE

NEOCON? You got to be kidding? You're just a garden variety ISOLATIONIST, get out of the way.

[elhombrelibre]

I did not bring up the word traitor. You did. I believe Pat is a blowhard and an egotistical person more concerned with himself than the Republican Party. I certainly think he's possibly as good of an American as any Democrat or Perot supporter. Isn't that what he is, a part of the opposition to the Republican Party? I don't even mind that he wants to attack the Neo-Cons. Everyone sees through him and knows what he really is getting at when he says that.

[aristeides]

Iraq poses no greater threat to the U.S. than do 10 or 12 other nations in the middle east region.

Even if that was true before we committed ourselves to bringing Saddam down, it's no longer true. Failing to carry through on that commitment now would itself pose a greater threat to us than almost all other countries pose.

Maybe it was a mistake to commit ourselves. But if it was, it has already been made, irretrievably.

[Destro]

Germany is toothless, gutless but she is not a miserable excuse for a country. They live well there.

[Bonaparte]

When Americans began braying about being the "last superpower" and the "indispensable nation," and tossing our weight around all over the world, it was predictable that this would happen.

Oh, please, Pat -- put a sock in it.

[Destro]

Maybe it was a mistake to commit ourselves. But if it was, it has already been made, irretrievably.

Exactly--a realist would have paved a road with many exits a neocon ideologue sees the world narrowly and thus we find ourselves in this do or die situation.

[Destro]

Those words Pat is attacking were spoken by Bill Clinton's SoS Albright....think about it.

[elhombrelibre]

No. We do. Saddam dies. No mistake to see that when there is no alternative, there is no problem. And if you think the Germans live so well, why are there 11% unemployed. I guess some socialism is appealing to some people.

[Destro]

Yea, the Germans are piss poor and miserable......

[Bonaparte]

"Iraq poses no greater threat to the U.S. than do 10 or 12 other nations in the middle east region."

Name them.

[Bonaparte]

Nice try at ad hominem argument, Destro. Now try arguing the facts.

Saddam invades his neighbors.
Saddam uses WMDs against his neighbors and against his own people.
Saddam consorts with and supports islamic terrorists.
Saddam has violated the terms of our ceasefire with him and has done so for 12 years.
Saddam has made no secret of his intention to inflict harm on America.

These are the facts. And they are no less factual merely because somebody like Albright has agreed with them.

[M. Thatcher]

Sorry Thatcher, but Buchanan's analysis makes volumes of sense

Thank God neither Buchanan nor you can persuade more than the aforesaid 17 people as to his position on anything. Nothing he or you think, write, or want will ever happen, in this world or the next. Praise be.

[Destro]

What Albright said had nothing to do with Iraq bit rather expressed a philosophy of neo-con-leftist imperialisim.

I justify my pro-Iraq mission @ #41

[Bonaparte]

Yes, I know that. And I appreciate it. I just don't like the ad hominem rebuttles and the use of the term "imperialist." Look at a world map, Destro. Notice how much of the globe is covered by America. Now look at a map of the Roman Empire circa 14 AD.

Notice the difference?

And BTW, while Bush's advisors do include neo-cons, so did Reagan's advisors. Does that make Bush and Reagan neo-cons too?