I've heard it said that the French were willing to go along with and assist an American effort to oust Qaddafi, but would not support what they considered a half-measure. If true, this would mitigate somewhat their behavior in this affair. Your general proposition--that France is not an ally--still holds on other grounds.

France will come around when a different flag is flying on their capitol.

To be a conservative is to despise the French.

Never mind the lions and lambs, we have the frogs and krauts in bed together. Nice picture that conjures up.



N'est-ce-pas? Jawohl!

marc - you mean the EU flag
?

The flag of the islamist revolution will be the next flag to fly over France. Chirac and his government are doing all they can to hasten that day.

I prefer to think of France as a good restaurant set in a museum. I can enjoy the food, respect the skill that went into its preperation, take advice on which wine to drink with each course, I can even be fond of the staff, but their views on whether I should bomb Iraq are not particularly germane.

I remember Bob Dole, during his concession speech, once said Clinton's name. The crowd of course booed, but Dole then said something like, "Now, now... he's our opponent, but not our enemy." I'm tempted to say the same about France: they don't want to slaughter Americans or anything, but they do disagree with America like Democrats disagree with Republicans. I'm not positive on this, and of course if the French aren't with us, they are ipso facto with the terrorists, but I kinda prefer the distinction.



Also, there is no sign we'll need to invade France to stop terrorism.

Just John - agreed. The relevant two classes here are "ally", with whom we are in a permanent relationship and who we can count on to come to our aid in times of need, whose desires will influence our conduct and whose conduct will be influenced by our desires; and just another country, with whom we may cooperate on a transactional basis but with whom we have no permanent cooperative relationship. France is merely a transactive partner, not an ally.



Although when they fund Palestinian terrorism, there are moments when I can see them becoming our enemy . . .

The problem with boxing above your weight class is that, when you do run up against the champ, you're likely to get smacked around. I don't think the French realize this, and they're obviously more than willing to take the U.N. down with them. Since I'm certain that we'll be going to war, with or without (hehe) UN approval, the smackdown may be coming soner than even I expected. Somebod is leaving with more than a black-eye.

"efffectively ending" Libyan terrorism? Orrin, Pan Am 103 was bombed AFTER Reagan's pinpricks.



I do not for a second believe that France would have gone along if only Reagan had intended to do what he ]

said he intended to do -- he said he was out to change

the regime.



I have news. Reagan is drooling on his ranch. Quaddafi is still head honcho in Tripoli.



Libyan terrorism has not ended, it just takes place in countries we don't care about.



France may be finished, but it's not through. Having lost, consecutively, the War of the Austrian Succession, the War of the Spanish Succession, the War of Jenkin's Ear, the Seven Year's War, the war against England [brief interval for Crimean War and war against Austria], Franco-Prussian war [anther interval for World War I], World War II, it would appear that France is pretty much impervious to mere military disaster.

David: Excellent analogy.



PJ: Your logic, while commendable, breaks down in the sense that if they aid and abet our enemies, it follows fairly logically that they, too, are our enemy. Even putting Al Bundy's fatwa
to the side, it is hard to overlook the ways the French have consistently aided Iraq, since 1998 at least; or to treat that aid as anything less than material comfort to an enemy of our state.

Harry:



I know you contain multitudes but even you acknowledge that Pan Am 103 was the last gasp.

Christopher - I agree that aid to our enemies is a hostile act. As I mentioned in my post, I count their aid to Arafat as a hostile act, and if they've given weapons to Saddam that's a hostile act also. But in deciding if the country is an enemy, you have to balance those acts against cooperative ones - e.g. cooperative policing of the terrorists, sharing of intelligence, etc.

True, Orrin, but it hardly indicates that Quaddafi changed his spots, does it?



And remember, the announced intention was not merely to punish or deter terrorism but to achieve a change in regime. Who have I heard lately singing the same tune but not delivering?



Oh, yeah. Him.

Harry:



When did Reagan say he wanted to change the regime in Libya?

I thought it was the Iranians who were resonsible for Lockerbie, using the Libyans as their agents.



Anyway the more I read about France, the more disgusted I get with elites running their universities, press and government and with the populace who take to the streets at every opportunity. They seem to be totally lacking in morality (particularly sexual) and their hostility to America is based on little more than jealousy of the success of Anglo-Saxon culture which has exposed them as the runts that they are.



What with their belly-aching at American capitalism while blocking attempts to reform agricultural subsidies and liberalise trade while basing their opposition to war in Iraq on what appears to be commercial grounds, I thank Allah for Britain and not France being the colonial masters of India.



Frankly they make Democrats look good.

Ali:



There's our bumper sticker:



The French: they make the Democrats look good.

"Reagan and his senior aides (namely Shultz, CIA

Dirctorr Casey and National Security Advisor Poindexter) were determined to remove (Quaddafi) from power."



-- Joseph Stanik, "El Dorado Canyon," p. 223.



Stanik goes on to retell how in August 1987, Reagan signed a National Security Directive to overthrow Quaddafi.



I believe there was an earlier statement, too, but Stanik's book is poorly indexed and I can't put my finger on it.

That's hardly a stated and determinedly pursued national policy. It's merely a requirement if you're to support his opponents and fund operations against him.

I'll agree it wasn't pursued determinedly.