"It's too bad France didn't work so hard to defeat the Nazis" - That one was extremely unfair. Did anyone attack the US for the death of all those black slaves or millions or Indians or those chinese people that died during that glorified railroad building yet ? No.

In a representative government, you want, at the least, the people who make or enforce laws to be directly elected by the people. So if the lawmakers do something bad, they cna get thrown out in the next election.

c242: In case you weren't aware, more Americans died in the Civil war than any other war. And that issue was largely about the issue of slavery. So yes, someone did attack the US about slavery -- the US.

Regarding France in WW2, I don't think people realize France's behavior in WW2. I've written an article on the subject if you're interested : https://www.joeuser.com/Articles/Britishvs.French.html

Lets just leave it at that. I'm done. Just don't be so quick to call somebody evil.

PS: if you have Frenc friends, you'd know that talking about the Nazis occupation to a Frenchman is the most sensitive topic you could ever ever ever mention. Even more than 50 years later, France still has not forgotten German occupation, and even today, France look at Germany with a shadow of distrust. The Nazi occupation is both a humiliating and a sore episode in France's history. Rubbing his nose in it is the best way to make a Frenchman resent you.

Frogoy, you can choose the person that is put forward by the party. You can't vote for your neighbour to be president, unless he/she has established a party.

laycrayon: In the US, anyone can run for president. Party or no party. George Washington didn't belong to a party.

Paxx: If France has such bad memories of WW2 (as in negative memories) how can they be so soft on a monster like Saddam?

It's as if you were telling to jews that they deserved what they got. Very very wrong. You just don't say something like that. Bad bad bad bad bad.

I thought that at least you should have some kind of collection of signatures that shows you are supported by enough people. You also have to be an AMERICAN

You have to be 35+years old and have X amount of signatures in each state to be on the ballot to run for president.

To clear my post #202 : I didn't want to say that the US has to be attacked for that, as it is not neccessary for this topic we are discussing here and would be as unfair as the above statement about France.

You are comparing the "plight" of the Vichy France with the Holocaust?

Poland suffered FARRR more than France did in World War II. They recognize evil tyrants when they see them. Not surprisingly, they strongly support US action in Iraq.

And to anyone reading this - let us remember, we are all just people, mostly friends from all over the world debating these issues. None of us are members of any country's leadership (well at least I don't think so). So if these discussions are making your blood heat up, just take a few steps back and keep it in perspective. And remember that *written* communication is always a challenge over verbal because it is difficult to convey intentions. Just as I don't think Paxx is intending to imply that most Americans are a bunch of mindless sheep following the war drums, I am not implying that most French are soft on dictators. I don't know how the average Frenchmen feels about Saddam. But I do believe that the evidence leads to the conclusion that the French political culture is cynical and ammoral. That it is a culture that is unable to make the distinction between good and evil.

I personally just don't understand how France could give up so easily to the Nazis -- without even defending its own capital. I don't understand how Vichy France, which had considerable support in metropolitcan France, could ally itself with the Nazis. I don't understand how the French could support the removal of jews (contrast French behavior with the behavior of Denmark which actively resisted turning over its jews). I don't understand how France could forbid the US from striking Lybia in 1986 despite clear evidence that Lybia had sponsered a terrorist attack on Americans. And I don't understand why France would work so hard to thwart US action in Iraq while France itself apparently has no problem using military force in Ivory Coast.

But I do know what conclusions the evidence points to.

WOM: 35 years old yes. But X signatures are required to be listed on the ballot. You can still run for President without that.

The net result is still that the leader of the US is elected by the people and barring a modest age restriction (and requirement of being a natural born US citizen) anyone can run for President.

I think your mistaken Frogboy. You need x signatures in each state to be on the ballot. Yes you can be a write in canidate in the states tyhat still has that.

I draw a strong line between this discussion and 'just' skinning topics. But I prefer this threat still being here as I always want to know more of 'real-life' opinions of people You read/meet virtually every day. The other thing to think about is that not english/us people (including me) have to find the right english words to express themselves. That's not easy and sometimes leads to false interpretation.

The 'War between the States' had very little to do with 'freeing the slaves' other than using this as window dressing.
Lincoln's stated objective was to prevent the Union fragmenting .... I studied the 'Civil War' and wrote my graduation paper on it, cause and effect.
More people died from disease and starvation than in combat while the POW 'Concentration Camps' predated the British in the Boer War by 35 years or so.
Of course, a dumb-arse Australian member of this country's armed forces wouldn't know as much about real military history as a devout civilian American hawk ..... would I?

After all I feel very 'home' here and sometimes have fear that people won't get along anymore because of their nationality. That would be extremely wrong...

Whatever Frogboy, if you wnat to think that the French are nostalgic of the pleasant Nazi occupation of their proud country, then suit yourself. You'll not make many French friends that way though.

Something I received today in my military mailbox
-----------------
See men shredded, then say you don't back war By Ann Clwyd

“There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be used as fish food . . . on one occasion, I saw Qusay [President Saddam Hussein’s youngest son] personally supervise these murders.” This is one of the many witness statements that were taken by researchers from Indict - the organisation I chair - to provide evidence for legal cases against specific Iraqi individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

This account was taken in the past two weeks. Another witness told us about practices of the security services towards women: “Women were suspended by their hair as their families watched; men were forced to watch as their wives were raped . . . women were suspended by their legs while they were menstruating until their periods were over, a procedure designed to cause humiliation.” The accounts Indict has heard over the past six years are disgusting and horrifying. Our task is not merely passively to record what we are told but to challenge it as well, so that the evidence we produce is of the highest quality. All witnesses swear that their statements are true and sign them.

For these humanitarian reasons alone, it is essential to liberate the people of Iraq from the regime of Saddam. The 17 UN resolutions passed since 1991 on Iraq include Resolution 688, which calls for an end to repression of Iraqi civilians. It has been ignored. Torture, execution and ethnic-cleansing are everyday life in Saddam’s Iraq. Were it not for the no-fly zones in the south and north of Iraq - which some people still claim are illegal - the Kurds and the Shia would no doubt still be attacked by Iraqi helicopter gunships.

For more than 20 years, senior Iraqi officials have committed genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. This list includes far more than the gassing of 5,000 in Halabja and other villages in 1988. It includes serial war crimes during the Iran-Iraq war; the genocidal Anfal campaign against the Iraqi Kurds in 1987-88; the invasion of Kuwait and the killing of more than 1,000 Kuwaiti civilians; the violent suppression, which I witnessed, of the 1991 Kurdish uprising that led to 30,000 or more civilian deaths; the draining of the Southern Marshes during the 1990s, which ethnically cleansed thousands of Shias; and the summary executions of thousands of political opponents.

Many Iraqis wonder why the world applauded the military intervention that eventually rescued the Cambodians from Pol Pot and the Ugandans from Idi Amin when these took place without UN help. They ask why the world has ignored the crimes against them? All these crimes have been recorded in detail by the UN, the US, Kuwaiti, British, Iranian and other Governments and groups such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty and Indict. Yet the Security Council has failed to set up a war crimes tribunal on Iraq because of opposition from France, China and Russia. As a result, no Iraqi official has ever been indicted for some of the worst crimes of the 20th century.

I have said incessantly that I would have preferred such a tribunal to war. But the time for offering Saddam incentives and more time is over. I do not have a monopoly on wisdom or morality. But I know one thing. This evil, fascist regime must come to an end. With or without the help of the Security Council, and with or without the backing of the Labour Party in the House of Commons tonight. The author is Labour MP for Cynon Valley.

Some prespective for those of you who think there is no need to remove Saddam and his sons. Are you willing to do it. If an agreement can't be made on what is the right thing to do, what makes you think that talking it over amongst the UN countries and Iraq is going to do. How would you feel if you wife or daughter or mother even, was hung and raped and humiliated in front of you. Would you say "please, stop"? Or would you die for them stopping their torture.

I pose this question to all of you who question the reasons for the US to go in and remove Saddam. I am going to be one of them. I am proud to be going to Iraq when my unit gets the call. While all of you sit in your comfy arm chairs and enjoying skinning and making alls...I will be possibly killing another human being, and yes even dying myself. Ask me if I am afraid....your damn right, but ask me if I would rahter stay in the US where I'm relatviley safe....hell no. I would rather die protecting all of you who could care less about me then sit idley by.

By the way did you guys see I got promoted? Thanks goes out to all those that encouraged me and helped me along the way.............LadyWolf and Queezendorf especially

G_A, that is more or less what my post #179 was referring to.

It is hard for people in civilized nations to comprehend what places like that are like. How can the "people" of a nation like that ever rise above the "leader"?

France had a resolution shot down that would have given Iraq 30 days to comply fully... ( 30 days was chosen because of recent disarmament moves made by Iraq)
after 30 days France would have offered their political support for military action.

Would it not have been more beneficial for the US and Bush to have waited 30 days to gain the support from France?