As you may have noticed, there was a report from France on Dutch TV tonight. French citizens complaining how deeply insulted they were by Rumsfeld's 'Old Europe' comment were followed by French citizens shouting "Bush, Bush, assassin!" (i.e., murderer) in a so-called peace protest...

I must admit, I'd have been very tempted to look at France and say "Guys - remember Germany? We should have let them have you." Then look at Germany and say "Guys - you still want France? We won't object next time. Take the country, loot the hell out of them. Just keep it all in France, okay? Step outside the dotted lines, and we will smash you to pieces." Then walk away muttering "You deserve each other."

Which is probably why I'm not a diplomat.

J.

I have despaired of French politics since before deGaulle pulled out of NATO and declared that he needed a nuclear "Force de Frappe" with no oversight. M. Chirac is now maneuvering to take over the EU and EC before more members might frustrate his plan to make only France and Germany eligible for the EU presidency. And his rantings about "cowboy" Bush and "child like" Eastern Europe, among others, point up that he is no diplomat.

I just wonder what hold he has over Herr Schroeder that transforms that person into a hand puppet, or the Mortimer Snerd of global politics.

I don't know who is the bigger turkey
Germany or France or.............Turkey???

There is much confusion as to why European countries are so-called 'anti-American'. It seems to be a term create by America to rally Americans behind their govnerment in outward protest of worldly opinions. These nations are not 'anti-American' and are not conducting 'anti-American' policies but rather are opposed to American policies. If someone says they're going to loot a bank, is that ok? What if they ask others if they would allow you or possibly help you to loot a bank, does that make it ok? If the opposition is opposed to the looting of the bank in the first place then how can you state your case as damned if you do, damned if you don't. No matter what channels you go though for approval or non-opposition from others, its always damned if you do.
France's opposition was to the war, whether it was a UN sanctioned war or a unilateral war. It did not matter if the US had proposed resolution after resolution, if they led to immediate war then France was opposed to it.
I do however agree about the irrelevance of the UN. They proved it not just before the Iraq war, but over the last decade when resolution after resolution demanding resolution of the palistinian-israeli conflict had been veto'd one after another by none other than the US. Increasing the case of irrelevance is the fact that the UN has no governance over the single most powerful entity with the world's largest arsenal of the world's most destructive weapons, the United States. If the UN cannot deem when war is necessary and when it is not, whose primary purpose was to 'save future generations from the scourge of war', then what role does it serve. It is not a leage of nations built to serve the intersts of any one nation, but instead to uphold the morals and pricipals of all humans for worldly benefit.

And to JLawson: I dont think you remember Germany. It was full of Nazi's, not a bunch of people who wanted to have free wine and cheese at the expence of the French. America did not trek over to Europe to save the French, but went over there to eliminate a threat to themselves that became apparent with the bombing of pearl harbor (in WWII) or the visible dominance of the German military over its European counterparts and itself (in WWI) [in actuality America joined the fight after a ship carrying civilians and arms to Britain was sunk by a German U-boat]. And it both situtations America arrived late in the battle and after all of Europe had suffered mass casualties. You might expect thanks, but don't hold your breath for praise.