On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:06:29 -0500, "Tony Volk" wrote:

The US was a neutral, you know, like the Swedes, the Swiss, etc. We had
just recently completed the clean up of a euro mess (WW1). The fact that
the French screwed up the Armistice was getting them into another mess.
We, quite reasonably, decided that, since Europe had evidently decided
that a war every few years was a good thing, we would decline to
participate.

You didn't answer the question. The U.S. ignored the need to defend
"peace, freedom, etc." as the Germans and Japanese began the war. They only
got involved when they themselves were attacked. So why would you blame
France for not wanting to join a U.S. fight when France wasn't attacked (no
one was actually, but assuming you're going with the Bush 9/11 line of
garbage). Why is it "quite reasonable" for the U.S. to back out of a war
they're not involved in, and cowardice/betrayal for France to do the same
thing? France just fought in GW 1, US starts GW 2, and sits out. That's as
close to an exact parallel to your WW1 and WW2 comments as you could get!
Your answers strike me as deeply hypocritical.
For the record, I think the U.N. should have gone in as a whole and
taken out Saddam for breach of GW 1 agreements, and for his atrocities
against his people. I'm glad that a monster was removed (I think that they
needn't have, and shouldn't have lied about removing WOMD). But to accuse
France of being cowards in not joining this relatively minor war makes me
wonder what you think of the actions of the U.S. in early WWII when the
stakes were much higher, the need much direr, and the evil much worse. How
was the U.S. reasonable while the French were not?

Well, for one thing there was about a 60 year difference. The UN will never
be an effective organization, its Charter ensures that. You will also note
that in WWI the French army mutinied, and in WWII they rolled over and
played dead.

Tony

p.s.- to any veterans of WWII, I am in no way questioning the incredible
valor and sacrifice of the Americans during WWII, only trying to illustrate
that any country can be or has been selfish and complacent in the face of a
common danger so it's ignorant or hypocritical to single out any one country
as such; I apologize in advance for any implied insult (none was intended)
and can only offer that I'm trying to make a complex point in a brief
fashion

There was very little "common danger" involved. In WWI we were not attacked
at all, and in WWII the "danger" to the US was the Japanese.

Al Minyard