WOM..
Yes a couple of thousand...some F18s, some ships and some surveylance [tracking] aircraft, etc....the SAS probably number about 200...[but we'll never really know]..

Egad!!!....'surveillance'...

it´s a sad situation, but there is probably a reason why this man wanted to attack American soldiers. you would probably have similar things in mind when a foreign country starts bombing the US

Paxx, first off, no, the constitution is not heavily influenced by the French. It is largely based on existing English laws as well as influences from classical political thought.

Second, yes, the French gave the US the statue of liberty. So what? You really have a very bad habit of equivacating things. In one post you compare the experience of the average Frenchman in World War II with the holocaust and now you're equating the thousands of Americans who died liberating France with the statue of liberty.

And indeed, the US wouldn't exist today without French help. But once again, that was hundreds of years ago and two, how many Frenchman perished in the act? Very few. You can't equate the two.

The fact is, the world we live in today and the freedoms we enjoy today were purchased with American, British, Australian, and Canadian blood. Not French.

You take France out of the picture in the 20th century and nothing changes very much. You take the US out of the picture and you get to pick which nightmare totalitarianist system you want to live under -- Nazism or Communism.

The point is that history has shown that perhaps it might be wise to give the US a little benefit of the doubt. After all, it was American "cowboyism" that liberated France. Not French diplomacy with the tyrants that the French political culture seems to be so enthralled by. Whether that be Mugabi, Saddam, or Hitler, the French political culture has never seemed to have much problem with dealing with them.

WOM, I saw that PBS show too. It was fascinating.

Regarding the Internet: No US military investment, no Internet. Or at least not in the way we know it. The internet we know today grew out of academia, but its beginnings and more to the point, its original source of funding was helped by the military. And in both cases, it was American academia and the American military.

The point being, the US has been a real force for good in the world. Hence why it is so distressing when people start using rhetoric that suggests that the US is somehow a "threat" to the world.

Here is a good article that talks about the history of the Internet:
http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml

I find it so ironic that the very people who are making such a fuss about anti-American sentiments are retaliating with even stronger anti-non-American ones. There's so much arrogance and blind patriotism flying around here. Yet again I've found myself skipping several pages because I got sick of reading comments bashing those who disagree with agressive action.

There's a very distinct difference between killing to protect your loved ones from a real threat, and killing innocents in the name of preventing a potential threat. In the end, it's not US soil that's under any major threat from Saddam, and yet they continue to preach about how they're going to war to protect their own people. Why can't these people just be honest and say that they are attacking Iraq because they disagree with the atrocities which are claimed to have been brought upon the Iraqi people by Saddam Hussein and his government? Why does it always have to be about protecting Americans and God bless American and yada yada yada...?

I'm proud that I'm not American. Not because I have any problems with the American people, but because I'd be ashamed to have these views expressed in my name.

The two main instigators of war are religion and patriotism, and I'm glad that I hold neither. While nations continue to distinguish themselves with boasts of superiority in whatever capacity, and with comparisons of moral standards, there will never be a chance for peace. Only once we start to consider ourselves as people of one global community, and learn to respect the ways and opinions of other nations without resorting to agression and underhanded comments about mistakes of the past can be hope to gain any semblance of peace.

Several people in particular have made me very angry in this thread. Not because I would deny them their opinions on the matter at hand, but because they feel the need to attack other nations to prove the worth of their own.

The only people I have really come to respect in the course of this discussion are paxx and the others who are not afraid to disagree without dredging up nasty little facts from the past which have no relevance to the topic.

BTW, anyone who would claim that the French built nuclear reactor in France was for any other purpose but to get nculear weapons is in denial.

Iraq is has about as much need for a nuclear power plant as Michigan has need for imported fresh water.

I also saw some comments about USA vs. World. The United States is not capable of conquering the world via conventional arms. It could conquer a large portion of it but some places just couldn't (China is too populated). On the other hand, the rest of the world combined is not capable of invading the United States.

It's a matter of logistics. One doesn't just load troops on a boat and ship them. There are no nations (outside the US) capable of maintaing extended supply lines.

And the entire issue is moot. The United States is a democracy. Military force cannot be used without the consent of congress which requires the consent of the American people. It is harder for the US to use military force than say Canada because of the structure of the US government (it's not parliamentary).

The bottom line on many of these debates could be summed up as follows:

There are no perfect solutions for an imperfect world.

Grayhaze: It is natural that those you agree with your views are people you would tend to admire more while those who disagree with you anger you.

But it's intellectually dishonest to assert or imply that one side is somehow arguing at a responsible level while the other side is in the mud.

I mean heck, good grief, you had Paxx implying that the only reason why Americans are in favor of action is that we're brainwashed.

And you above imply that Americans are in favor of military action because we're blind with patriotism.

That seems to be a trend with some people here, yourself and Paxx included. Those who disagree with you are simply not as "enlightened" as you are it seems. It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that some of us, having looked at the facts at length have simply come to a different conclusion than you have.

I am very glad to be an American. I support the foreign policy of the US administration. It has nothing to do with blind patriotism. It has to do with a sober assessment of the facts and making a judgement call.

I have simply come to a different conclusion than you have.

Similarly, when one says that we should be "ashamed" of the position of our country, I would say that is nation bashing. But again, you seem to have a real blind spot for those who attack the United States (consider some of the things our friend from Spain has been saying, look what you and Paxx have said). I fully admit to "Bashing" France. But there is nothing that I stated about France that isn't factually true. Someone from France or sympathetic to France might find what I've written to be upsetting. On the other hand, a Jewish person would likely find Paxx's equating the holocaust with the French experience during WOrld War II to be very upsetting.

I do agree that it's wrong for someone to imply Paxx is a coward because he is pacifistic. I certainly don't think Paxx is a coward. Moreover, my opinion of Paxx, you, Thibaud and others has not been harmed at all by this discussion. We should all take a step back and be thankful that we can have these relatively friendly exchanges of ideas.

I would ask that people try to avoid making *personal* remarks. Attack the message, not the messenger.

frogboy,

though i didn't take your comments about france especially directed to me, you should better say that your don't like france nor french, it would be faster that trying to revisit history.
European history is something we learn at school while we're children and though you may have learned a lot by yourself reading books, you don't know what exactly happened in france.
My grand-parents and parents did. That's not written in a book. Don't tell me you know what they did during war and if they loved hitler !
We may be the "old europe" ... but remember that most of all american ppl are coming from this "old europe", except indians of course.

The extent of my 'patriotism' is to be pissed off with those at ArtUproar who persist in referring to themselves as 'AUssies'.
We may be a bunch of larrikins and 'good sports' but we have graves on any continent you'd like to point a stick at with the dead from just about every global/local conflict you can think of...who fought [and died] for all sorts of reasons, one of them being 'to be and remain Australian'...that's what an 'Aussie' is, not some smart-alek bunch of kids on a web-site. The sooner they move on from doing that, the sooner I'll see them respecting others' National pride.

Yes, I'm proud to be an Aussie...but we don't need to wave a flag or sing an anthem...all we need is to look around at the rest of us...we may be all different generations of wogs, but we're all true-blue and fair-dinkum, now...

I accept that there are those who believe in the US cause as a result of making their own minds up based on the facts at hand. By talking about blind patriotism, I am by no means implying the entire US population. I'm talking about those people who agree with war because it's what the President has decided. Those people aren't interested in the facts, but only in blindly supporting the actions of their government because whatever the US government do, they can't possibly be wrong.

Time will only tell whether the decision to attack Iraq was the right one. I'll be the first to admit that I was wrong if it turns out that Saddam Hussein is proven to be everything the American people want him to be. If the situation is the reverse though, I doubt very much that there will be many who admit to being wrong. They'll just spin more half-truths to cover their backs.

By the way, I do think your attacks on the French people should stop Frogboy. Whatever happened in WWII happened over 50 years ago. It's irrelevant to current events, and the current generation shouldn't be judged based on the actions of their ancestors. The US has an extremely chequered past, filled with many outrageous events which are best left in the past. Let the past stay where it is and judge based on current actions, if you really need to judge at all.

I dunno why people talk out of their asses...

the original great-granddaddy of the internet was called the ARPAnet.

ARPA:

"ARPA - DoD directive 5105.15 establishing the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) was signed on February 7, 1958."

ARPA later became:

"DARPA - On March 23, 1972, by DoD Directive, the name was changed to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). DARPA was established as a separate defense agency under the Office of the Secretary of Defense"

The people who say the internet doesn't owe its existence to the military are dolts.


******************

It is time to lean back and tell yourselves what a beloved professor told me about racism once.

"It wasn't reasoned *into* people, so it can't be reasoned out of them".

The anti-war sentiment in this case is a hippies, look-at-me-I'm-enlightened, Devart socialite, "if we don't look at it maybe it will go away" stance. It disregards 3 decades of crimes against humanity by Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi people are hostages, and many would simply allow the hostage-taker to do with them what they will, for fear that aiding them might risk their already threatened and miserable lives, or sacrifice some useless ideal.

I feel that the anti-war stance is racist and inhumane; It happened in Rwanda, it happened all over Eastern Europe, and in every case ethnic, non-christians were the main victim.
If a French or German leader gassed and starved his people he wouldn't last a year, and with little protest at his demise. I have no urge to argue with people who can write off the suffering and deaths of millions of people simply to *appear* more evolved or idealistic.

The middle east is filled with brutal, chaotic dictatorships that have no regard for human rights or freedom. I will be happy to see them *all* fall, one at a time or en' masse, peacefully, or forcibly. The world *will* evolve, no matter how many has-been nations think they can continue to profit from petty, evil men. Those who oppose that evolution will be remembered as those who opposed the liberation of billions of people.

'nuff said

Jafo, people actually look at you without running?

/me runs and hides now.....

could conquer a large portion of it but some places just couldn't (China is too populated). On the other hand, the rest of the world combined is not capable of invading the United States.
It's a matter of logistics. One doesn't just load troops on a boat and ship them. There are no nations (outside the US) capable of maintaing extended supply lines."

you should write an article in your blog on this topic. or maybe one about pirates vs. ninjas

I think that's pretty much how UK 'patritism' manifests itself too Jafo. We're proud of our heritage and to share a common bond with the rest of the population, and believe flag-waving and anthem-singing is best left for Royal occasions and sporting events.

Sometimes patriotism can border on fanaticism, and that's when the lines start to blur.

Karma, be careful now.....I still have those negatives...

It's comments like yours that really make me angry. Because I disagree with war, I'm both a hippy and a racist. There's logic for you... >

By the way bakerstreet, I didn't say the Internet didn't owe it's existence in part to the Military. I just disagreed that it was created by the Military. There's a difference.

Jafo-

grayhaze, yes, many Australians are bemused by the US's overtly 'prominent' National Pride....not necessarily a bad thing, though we Aussies have a hard time even knowing the words to our anthem...and I'd wager if you discounted all our athletes there'd be bugger-all left who actually DID!....

BTW, Karma....'Lord' is a masculine title....methinks you're having a gender crisis...

I don't think even our athletes know our anthem!

The majority of people in the UK know about as much of the anthem as people outside the UK do. We know it starts with 'Rule Brittania...' lol

Thibaud: I have gone through great pains to try to be specific in my comments about the French: I am talking of their political class. As I have said elsewhere in this thread, the average Frenchman is as brave as anyone else IMO.

Grayhaze, ahem, I believe your national anthem is "God Save the Queen." (Of course, "King" when there is a king.)

"Rule Britannia" is notable, but I believe not the official national anthem.