ANALYSIS: An Even-Handed Look at American, European Relations

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Chirac wants to leave a trace in history books like De Gaulle did

De Gaulle certainly left his mark on the history book. A big brown streak akin to the ones in some people's underwear.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Only if you symphatize with Al Queda's aims . If so, then yes, you'd have a point.

No dice. The methods of war are supposed to be valid, whatever the one perfomring it. IS the willful slaughter of civilians an acceptable war strategy, yes or no?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
De Gaulle certainly left his mark on the history book. A big brown streak akin to the ones in some people's underwear.

I know De Gaulle got on your Yank fragile nerves, but it was really no reason to poop in your pants, you know

[ErikM]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
<...>in WW2, we bombed civilians in Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

Of course, in the end, our system was better .

*ErikM tries hard to find some logical link between these two statements*

[Imran Siddiqui]

The methods of war are supposed to be valid, whatever the one perfomring it.

'Supposed to'? Sorry, but the winners decide which 'methods' are valid and which are not.

IS the willful slaughter of civilians an acceptable war strategy, yes or no?

Yes, if the end goal is a prevention of more casulties. That's, at least, my view. In reality, it is acceptable only if the winner does it and says it was acceptable.

[GhengisFarb™]

De Gaulle's one of those people who will be a prime target for potential time-travelers to irradicate from existence as his nonexistence is almost guaranteed to improve human society.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, if the end goal is a prevention of more casulties. That's, at least, my view. In reality, it is acceptable only if the winner does it and says it was acceptable.

I couldn't care less about the winner writing history books, I am asking YOU, what YOUR MORALS think of the slaughter of civilians as a military strategy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

*ErikM tries hard to find some logical link between these two statements*

Why is it so hard? In tough times, we resorted to killing civilians of an enemy country in a total war to save our system, which has many more freedoms for our citizens (at least IMO).

[ErikM]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
De Gaulle's one of those people who will be a prime target for potential time-travelers to irradicate from existence as his nonexistence is almost guaranteed to improve human society.

That's why Americans are so dangerous. They are raised on Star Trek and believe in all kind of sci-fi nonsense like time travel and democracy in Afghanistan.

Lack of logic + military power = dangerous mix

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
De Gaulle's one of those people who will be a prime target for potential time-travelers to irradicate from existence as his nonexistence is almost guaranteed to improve human society.

Ah, well, if you think that the guy who established France as an independant country instead of a US poodle, and who also avoided France to be ruled by a military junta, I suppose you have quite a few enemies among the world. Do you hate, say, Juan Carlos with a similar passion as well?

[GhengisFarb™]

Naw, just De Gaulle. He's the only one that's French.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I am asking YOU, what YOUR MORALS think of the slaughter of civilians as a military strategy.

If the end intention is less people killed in military actions than in the civilian bombings, then yes, valid.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If the end intention is less people killed in military actions than in the civilian bombings, then yes, valid.

Well, thank you for your honesty.

[Ted Striker]

Chirac

Richard Simmons

[Ned]

Spiffor, thanks for your thoughtful and accurate post. It would be helpful for France to have people like you explain France's position to the US. We then would have a place for dialog.