Free Republic

France pulled out of NATO military command in 1966.

At trip down memory lane ...

"On 7 March 1966, General de Gaulle announced to President Johnson that France was withdrawing from the integrated military organisation. On 1 July 1966, French representatives stepped down from positions in the military organisation. NATO moved out of its headquarters in Versailles and Fontainebleau on 1 April 1967.

General de Gaulle nonetheless maintained French participation in the Atlantic Council. France remained a member of NATO and all its structures except the integrated military command. Instructions were given to prepare for co-operation between French and NATO forces in the event of war, subject to France's decision to participate. The Lemnitzer-Ailleret agreements made comprehensive provisions for possible French intervention alongside Allied forces. Lastly, France maintained its land forces already stationed in the Federal Republic of Germany"

Just checked. Do not see it available in Quebec yet.

Could the soldier be eligible for a pardon from the president?

[I recall Clinton pardoning puerto rican terrorists, drug smugglers, fugitive Marc Rich and anyone else willing to pay]

"A Dutch decision to withdraw its roughly 1,345 troops (one of the largest contributions to the coalition) could have a serious chilling effect on other European governments' willingness to extend deployments in Iraq," said the departmental analysis, which was forwarded to some offices of congressmen. "The Netherlands is one of our strongest allies in Europe, and their former foreign minister is now the secretary general of NATO."

Oh My, there you go again. Being buddies has absolutely nothing to do with it.

You do not understand. Syria provides safe harbour for terrorists right now cause they pay. And they do not threaten regime. [Earlier, When the palestinians did cause trouble the current leaders father killed oh 30,000 or so destroying a town completely - since then they came to a more profitable arrangement]

No i would not be surprised if weapons or material was sent to Syria from Iraq.

In Gulf war part I , i was surprised that Saddam made a deal to send his surviving air force to Iran for safe keeping. This only months after a ten year slaughter between the two countries. But i have learned a lot since then and hope i am not quite so naive as i once was.

There is no historcal precedent for leaders or groups needing to like each other before they conspire with each other for a common goal. Liking or hating each other - or any emotion in between has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Hitler and Stalin paired up nicely to slice up Poland and let Hitler consolidate Europe. Check out the writings pre WWII to see how they saw eye to eye. NOT!

How about Stalin and Roosevelt. Or better yet Stalin and Churhill. Did they cooperate cause they were buddies? You wouldn't want to concede that Roosevelt was pro soviet?

How about Pol Pot and the anti Communists teaming up to fight the Vietnamese with majority funding from Red China? Don't think that team wasn't made up of folks who "hated" each other.

How about the Saudis, Pakistan and the arab (foriegn) mujahaddeen and the USA teaming up to fight the USSR in Afganistan. No love lost there between those folks. Those mujahadeen evolved into Al Qaeda.

You can go back as far as u want in history and to any part of the globe and find that alliances are formed by necessity.

Did the French Ally with the Rebel colonists in the American war because the Tallyrand or King Louis thought so highly of the Continental congress or it's Generals. No way. There target was Britain. They saw America as a weapon to bleed the British. And they tried to tie up the Americans so that an American US peace would not be effected.

Am i mistaken or were the Red Chinese not allied with the Vietnamese. Only to invade them and fight them to stop anymore dominoes from falling in SE Asia.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

This is poster seems to share the Jimmy Carter like vision that got the world in a mess 35 years ago. Carter did not think the shah was a nice enough man to be an ally and let the world know it. You can draw a line from that event to the invasinon of afganistan and the forming of the arab mujahadeen (brezinskis idea) to were we are today.

The muslim terrorist goal is to provoke a violent backlash against all muslims. 'cause the terrorists want the "arab street" to rise up and overthrough their governments, paving the way for the OBL types to take over in the chaos.

Another great thing about Bush was how he avoided this. Have not heard of a single vigilante style death of a Muslim in US.

Have there even been attacks on property as in the Dutch story?

Hope that county map is made available as a poster.

They are so Dramatic. Their Deus Ex Machina.

She would have to duke it out with Senator Reid of Nevada (who is prolife). Guesing she'll save her recources for 2008.

Senator Reid of Nevada is toted by MSM to replace Daschle as Minority Leader. He is Pro-Life.