"Eric Takabayashi" <etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message

> France's common sense will not protect them any better than it protected
them
> through the early 20th century.

From 19th century till the half of 20th , we had one of the more powerful
army in the world. That army did not protect us in 1870 (we lost
completely), in 1914 (even with help we lost 20% of our cattle if you
include civilian losses), in 1940 (we lost completely), in 1944-45 (we lost
completely).
In clear : 3 times we were invaded like Irak now. 1 time we got out of it in
as good shape as Vietnam when you left it.

But our great army went to invade, and maintained under French rule about
1/3 of the available poor countries, and half destroyed a pair of them
before accepting to let them live their life. I spare you the civil wars.

Give me the list of the case they were useful in something.

>Forces bent on evil will appear to victimize
> others no matter how much sense you have.

And most forces tend to bend on evil, as it's hard to resist to the
temptation not to intefer in others' lives when you have a huge army....No,
today the only need for the French is to maintain enough army (nuclear
gadgets that is) to deter the US from nuking us. As they can do it, and you
never know if they lack excercise some day.

> Insert cheap anti US comment here.

Done.

>>that's getting anachronic and
> > causing situations I don't have a word for like in Israelopalestine or
in
> > Irakokurdistan.
>
> And what of nations and regions who have not advanced to the level that
you
> would like.

It's a question of following the historic model of "advanced" countries.
Because that'd mean they need something like WWII before evoluting.
No, they'll jump directly to a structure not based on nation and will get
along to share the rivers, the lands, etc. Or they'll all die. Of war, or of
thirst.

>You can think that way about France or Europe, but what about
> developing or unstable regions? What about them?

You have to think of them the same way.

>Should they be administered by
> "foreign" forces,

"Foreign"forces, I don't even want to hear about. International forces (if
possible not linked to identified nations) at the limit, for temporary help,
to replace/assist their police, etc, the time they rebuild social structures
and do it themselves.

>perhaps against their wills,

That's creating a new conflict.

> to allow them to merge with the
> rest of the world in peace and stability?

They already merged with the rest of the world. If they wait for peace and
stability, then that will be waiting for economic prosperity, etc, they'll
never do anything to get out of the circle.

> Why can't factual images be objective, as opposed to how they are
presented or
> interpreted?

Take an objective photo of your wife, I'll take one too. And we'll see if
the photo taken by the husband looks like the one taken by a female
stranger.
Photos have authors, like articles. People forget that too much.

> > There is no possibility they are right and we are wrong ?
>
> You mean that it is good to unilaterally invade Iraq without verifiable
> justification and lack a clear plan (or perhaps even the will) to rebuild?

Maybe there is miracle and they succeed in doing something good there.

> Do you actually entertain the possibility that much of the world would
have
> been better under Nazi rule, or without Allied intervention?

Do you think the world would have been better without the Allied cooperating
with the Communist blocks and letting Nazi Spain live its life ?

> > American.
> > I don't see them as a uniform mass.
>
> You can see them as groups according to how they vote,

No, thanks. I don't wish to label people from how they've vote at the last
election.

> And perhaps you've seen or read some accounts of US pilots who went on
strikes
> in Iraqi territory. The ones I read about did not dwell on the possibility
that
> theirs was the one which was causing civilian casualties.

The Israeli pilots went on strike...

CC