Discussion:
The French are Gutless Cowards !!!
(too old to reply)
Dusty Henson
2004-12-04 21:41:58 UTC
Permalink
Fuck'um ... the stinky, sleazy motherfuckers !!! The French are obsessed
with
licking to boots and kissing the ass of Saddam Hussein, their hero !!!
France is no longer wealthy and NO longer a World Power ...
Just World Class COWARDS !!!!!
Mark Underwood
2004-12-05 13:11:33 UTC
Permalink
The ass ??/ Why would they be interested in kissing his donkey.. unless you
mean arse lol

Not a world power.. a fleets of independent ballistic missile subs, nuclear
aircraft carriers, an electricity supply that is 90% nuclear... as now
taking delivery of the European Fighter.. who's only equivalent is the F22
raptor ... hardly not a world power... just more intelligent than a right
wing nazi american state.

Another sad yank from some mountain shack living off welfare no doubt.
Post by Dusty Henson
Fuck'um ... the stinky, sleazy motherfuckers !!! The French are obsessed
with
licking to boots and kissing the ass of Saddam Hussein, their hero !!!
France is no longer wealthy and NO longer a World Power ...
Just World Class COWARDS !!!!!
Patrick
2004-12-05 19:28:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Underwood
The ass ??/ Why would they be interested in kissing his donkey.. unless
you mean arse lol
Not a world power.. a fleets of independent ballistic missile subs,
nuclear aircraft carriers, an electricity supply that is 90% nuclear...
as now taking delivery of the European Fighter.. who's only equivalent is
the F22 raptor ... hardly not a world power... just more intelligent
than a right wing nazi american state.
Another sad yank from some mountain shack living off welfare no doubt.
A classless top-poster! All those weapon systems just waiting to be sold to
the remaining world's dictators. The race is on to see if the United States
can eliminate all those dictators before the french can profit from arming
them all. (ex. Saddam Hussein - mirage jets, exocet missiles, security
council votes for oil vouchers??)
Mark Underwood
2004-12-06 00:44:46 UTC
Permalink
Sad peanut brained yankee nazi - go and pick some cotton or go back to
working at wal mart for a few dollars an hour lol
Post by Patrick
Post by Mark Underwood
The ass ??/ Why would they be interested in kissing his donkey.. unless
you mean arse lol
Not a world power.. a fleets of independent ballistic missile subs,
nuclear aircraft carriers, an electricity supply that is 90% nuclear...
as now taking delivery of the European Fighter.. who's only equivalent is
the F22 raptor ... hardly not a world power... just more intelligent
than a right wing nazi american state.
Another sad yank from some mountain shack living off welfare no doubt.
A classless top-poster! All those weapon systems just waiting to be sold
to the remaining world's dictators. The race is on to see if the United
States can eliminate all those dictators before the french can profit from
arming them all. (ex. Saddam Hussein - mirage jets, exocet missiles,
security council votes for oil vouchers??)
Patrick
2004-12-06 01:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Underwood
Sad peanut brained yankee nazi - go and pick some cotton or go back to
working at wal mart for a few dollars an hour lol
Post by Patrick
Post by Mark Underwood
The ass ??/ Why would they be interested in kissing his donkey.. unless
you mean arse lol
Not a world power.. a fleets of independent ballistic missile subs,
nuclear aircraft carriers, an electricity supply that is 90% nuclear...
as now taking delivery of the European Fighter.. who's only equivalent
is the F22 raptor ... hardly not a world power... just more
intelligent than a right wing nazi american state.
Another sad yank from some mountain shack living off welfare no doubt.
A classless top-poster! All those weapon systems just waiting to be sold
to the remaining world's dictators. The race is on to see if the United
States can eliminate all those dictators before the french can profit
from arming them all. (ex. Saddam Hussein - mirage jets, exocet
missiles, security council votes for oil vouchers??)
You're disputing the veracity of my remarks? I couldn't tell for sure
through all of the wisdom spewing from your keyboard.
waggg
2004-12-12 19:02:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Patrick
A classless top-poster! All those weapon systems just waiting to be sold
to the remaining world's dictators. The race is on to see if the United
States can eliminate all those dictators before the french can profit
from arming them all. (ex. Saddam Hussein - mirage jets, exocet
missiles, security council votes for oil vouchers??)
You're disputing the veracity of my remarks? I couldn't tell for sure
through all of the wisdom spewing from your keyboard.
Huh ... I don't get it ... everyone was on the side of Saddam before 1991
.. are you so ignorant ... o_O
Patrick
2004-12-06 01:20:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Underwood
Sad peanut brained yankee nazi - go and pick some cotton or go back to
working at wal mart for a few dollars an hour lol
Post by Patrick
Post by Mark Underwood
The ass ??/ Why would they be interested in kissing his donkey.. unless
you mean arse lol
Not a world power.. a fleets of independent ballistic missile subs,
nuclear aircraft carriers, an electricity supply that is 90% nuclear...
as now taking delivery of the European Fighter.. who's only equivalent
is the F22 raptor ... hardly not a world power... just more
intelligent than a right wing nazi american state.
Another sad yank from some mountain shack living off welfare no doubt.
A classless top-poster! All those weapon systems just waiting to be sold
to the remaining world's dictators. The race is on to see if the United
States can eliminate all those dictators before the french can profit
from arming them all. (ex. Saddam Hussein - mirage jets, exocet
missiles, security council votes for oil vouchers??)
Does this ring a bell??

http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id344.htm
Patrick
2004-12-06 03:56:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Underwood
Sad peanut brained yankee nazi - go and pick some cotton or go back to
working at wal mart for a few dollars an hour lol
Post by Mark Underwood
The ass ??/ Why would they be interested in kissing his donkey.. unless
you mean arse lol
Not a world power.. a fleets of independent ballistic missile subs,
nuclear aircraft carriers, an electricity supply that is 90% nuclear...
as now taking delivery of the European Fighter.. who's only equivalent
is the F22 raptor ... hardly not a world power... just more
intelligent than a right wing nazi american state.
Another sad yank from some mountain shack living off welfare no doubt.
Yep, with an amazing 512K/sec upload - 3MB/sec download internet connection
speed! Comes standard for all US citizens living in poverty in our modular
trailer homes.
waggg
2004-12-12 18:54:38 UTC
Permalink
War against Iraq: the hard facts (a book review by Jos Kuyl)

William Rivers Pitt is a Middle-East expert.
For his book 'War on Iraq- what team Bush doesn't want you to know'
Pitt interviewed Scott Ritter, a UN weapons inspector (in UNSCOM*)
from 1991 to 1998 and one of the foremost experts on the Iraqi
arsenal, its history and politics.

The opening chapter, 'A splendid little Armageddon', is preceded by a
sobering quotation from former US President J.F. Kennedy: "Today,
every inhabitant of this planet must contempalte the day when this
planet may no longer be habitable. Every man, woman and child lives
under a nuclear Sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of
threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or
miscalculation or madness."

Bush and his administration have invested a great deal of political
prestige in the war against Iraq, which makes backing down virtually
impossible - a loss of personal credibility that makes backing down
virtually impossible. Indeed, Richard Perle, Chairman of the Defense
Advisory Board - and advisory panel to the Pentagon ) commented in The
New York Times (August 2002): "The failure to take on Saddam after
what the president said would produce such a collapse of confidence in
the president that it would set back the war on terrorism." It is
interesting to note that Perle is one of the architects of this war
and works closely with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy
Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz - all whom are "pushing Bush towards
this war". They believe that Iraq is a threat to Israel and America
and are determined to get rid of Saddam Hussein. All three men believe
that war with Iraq and "regime change" would be simplicity itself, and
insist that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction (WDM) and
would, if allowed, make such weapons available to Osama bin Laden for
further terrorist activity against the USA.

According to Pitt the facts are rather different from the
black-and-white scenario painted by the Bush administration. The
author says that the book was written "to provide a compendium of the
'stubborn facts' that surround this dubious war with Iraq, and the
long history we (the USA) share with that nation". Pitt's interview
with Scott Ritter, which forms the backbone of his book, took place in
August 2002, before the Security Council decided to send a team of
weapons inspectors to Iraq once again. An important fact about Ritter
is that he is a heart-and-sould Republican who voted for Bush in 2000;
a patriot with a great record of service to his country, Ritter has
also made the critically acclaimed documentary about Iraq entitled "On
Shifting Sand".

*--- Iraq has been disarmed ---*

Scott Ritter's comments are in sharp contrast to those of the people
who surround Bush. According to Ritter, the UNSCOM inspectors did a
good and thorough job. Since 1998 Iraq has, in effect, been disarmed.
Ninety to 95 per cent of Iraq's WDM capability has been "fundamentally
eliminated", including factories producing chemical, biological and
nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles. Of the remaining
5-10 per cent no reports were made - which, however, does not prove
that Iraq retains them, or that they pose a threat. The Iraqi
production of chemical substances such as Sarin gas, Tabun and VX were
largely destroyed during the Gulf War; the task was later completed by
weapons inspectors. The UNSCOM teams had every incineration plant in
the country working full-time for years to destroy tons of materials,
apart form blowing up bombs, missiles and warheads and emptying SCUD
warheads. "We hunted down this stuff and destroyed it," Ritter said.
If Iraq still has any such substances they would be virtually useless
since such chemical agents only have a shelf-life of five years, after
which they are relatively harmless.

Iraq's anthrax stocks, too, are subject to the same ageing process.
"Iraq was able to produce liquid bulk anthrax. That is without
dispute. Liquid bulk anthrax, even under ideal storage conditions,
"germintates' in three years, becoming useless." In other words, Iraq
has no biological weapons today because both the anthrax and botulinum
toxin are now useless.

Ritter also told Pitt of the discovery by weapons inspectors of two
attaché cases which were taken from Saddam's personal presidential
security group. When the documents in the cases were finally
translated they turned out to concern food-testing and other
precautions to protect Saddam and his closest associates but, says
Ritter, the incident is still cited by US media as an example of
Iraq's continuing weapons programme.

Ritter is critical of some of the UNSCOM personnel and incidents; for
example, Dick Spertel, head of the UN biological inspection team,
prevented biologists from conduction tests in Saddam's presidential
palaces which were said to be used to manufacture biological weapons.
They did not test because they were afraid of finding nothing. "It's
ironic that Dick Spertel has since complained that we have no
information and has called Iraq's potential for biological weapons a
'black hole', " says Ritter. The Iraqis repeatedly asked him to come
and test for biological weapons. If the Iraq case were to be brought
before the International Court of Justice with the evidence that we
now have, the court would find in Iraq's favour, taking into
consideration the fact that Iraq has satified demands to co-operate
with the weapons inspectors.

* --- No link with al Qaeda ---- *

To Ritter the notion of a link between Saddam Hussein and al-qaeda is
absurd. A dictator who has spent 30 years repressing Islamic
fundamentalism would not befriend Osama bin Laden. An Iraqi law, which
carries the death penalty, forbids religious conversion to Wahabism
and Islam. Osama bin Laden is a Wahabi, and hates Saddam; he has even
said he should be killed.

Why then, Pitt asked, does Osama bin Laden use opposition to sanctions
against Iraq as a rally cry ? According to Ritter, because the
sanctions target civilians and not Saddam. That the people are
suffering is an emotive and useful fact.

Did the CIA infiltrate UNSCOM ? Provide the team operated within the
UN mandate there was no problem, says Ritter, but when the CIA was
permitted to use various inspection programmes to spy on Saddam,
Ritter objected on numerous occasions. This was one of the main
reasons behind his resignations in 1998. The situation became heated
between Richard Butler, head of the UNSCOM group, and Iraq, and UNSCOM
was forced out of the country.

* --- Blood-bath --- *

What is Ritter's opinion of the war now threatening ? Based on his
experience, Ritter does not believe the Iraqi President will give up
easily, and the Iraqi people will probably not turn against their
leader. The result will be a blood-bath, he says, and cites what
happened in Grozny when Russians attacked Chechen forces. He believes
it will be worse in Iraq, with more civilian deaths and victims, not
to mention troop casualties.

Could it be described, as Brent Scowcroft has done, as Armageddon ?
According to Ritter there is real potential for the Arab world to
"explode". The world would soon reach the sort of "clash of cultures"
that bin Laden wants. But it is the United States which is turning the
situation into exactly that - a war between the West and Islam - "and
we won't win," says Ritter. "This is a war that has everything bad
about it. There's no good end for this war."

A war against Iraq would serve to destabilize the Middle East and
endanger Israel, Ritter concludes. Far better to start a dialogue with
Iraq and work through diplomacy and seek solutions to the conflict
that way.

Together, Pitt and Ritter present the "stubborn facts" and challenge
readers to judge for themselves.

-----------
Sott Ritter and William R. Pitt, "War againgst Iraq: what team bush
doesn't want you to know. First published in Great Britain by Profile
books 2002 ISBN 1 86197 636 4. First published in USA by Context
Books, New York, ISBN 1893956385.

*UNSCOM: UN Special Commission for the Elimination of Iraq's Weapons
of Mass Destruction, replaced in December 1999 by UNMOVIC, UN
Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission.
waggg
2004-12-12 18:41:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dusty Henson
Fuck'um ... the stinky, sleazy motherfuckers !!! The French are obsessed
with
licking to boots and kissing the ass of Saddam Hussein, their hero !!!
France is no longer wealthy and NO longer a World Power ...
Just World Class COWARDS !!!!!
You're psychotic, right ?
waggg
2004-12-12 18:48:25 UTC
Permalink
http://www.exile.ru/2003-October-02/war_nerd.html

The French,

By Gary Brecher


The new big thing on the web is all these sites with names like "I Hate
France," with supposed datelines of French military history, supposedly
proving how the French are total cowards. Well, I'm going to tell you guys
something you probably don't want to hear: these sites are total bullshit,
the notion that the French are cowards is total bullshit, and anybody who
knows anything about European military history knows damn well that over
the
past thousand years, the French have the most glorious military history in
Europe, maybe the world.
Before you send me more of those death threats, let me finish. I hate
Chirac
too, and his disco foreign minister with the blow-dry 'do and the snotty
smile. But there are two things I hate more than I hate the French:
ignorant
fake war buffs, and people who are ungrateful. And when an American mouths
off about French military history, he's not just being ignorant, he's being
ungrateful. I was raised to think ungrateful people were trash.
When I say ungrateful, I'm talking about the American Revolution. If you're
a true American patriot, then this is the war that matters. Hell, most of
you probably couldn't name three major battles from it, but try going back
to when you read Johnny Tremaine in fourth grade and you might recall a
little place called Yorktown, Virginia, where we bottled up Cornwallis's
army, forced the Brits' surrender and pretty much won the war.
Well, news flash: "we" didn't win that battle, any more than the Northern
Alliance conquered the Taliban. The French army and navy won Yorktown for
us. Americans didn't have the materiel or the training to mount a combined
operation like that, with naval blockade and land siege. It was the French
artillery forces and military engineers who ran the siege, and at sea it
was
a French admiral, de Grasse, who kicked the shit out of the British navy
when they tried to break the siege.
Long before that, in fact as soon as we showed the Brits at Saratoga that
we
could win once in a while, they started pouring in huge shipments of
everything from cannon to uniforms. We'd never have got near Yorktown if it
wasn't for massive French aid.
So how come you bastards don't mention Yorktown in your cheap webpages?
I'll
tell you why: because you're too ignorant to know about it and too
dishonest
to mention it if you did.
The thing that gets to me is why Americans hate the French so much when
they
only did us good and never did us any harm. Like, why not hate the Brits?
They're the ones who killed thousands of Americans in the Revolution, and
thirty years later they came back and attacked us again. That time around
they managed to burn Washington DC to the ground while they were at it. How
come you web jerks never mention that?
Sure, the easy answer is because the Brits are with us now, and the French
aren't. But being a war buff means knowing your history and respecting it.
Well, so much for ungrateful. Now let's talk about ignorant. And that's
what
you are if you think the French can't fight: just plain ignorant.
Appreciation of the French martial spirit is just about the most basic way
you can distinguish real war nerds from fake little teachers'pets.
Let's take the toughest case first: the German invasion, 1940, when the
French Army supposedly disgraced itself against the Wehrmacht. This is the
only real evidence you'll find to call the French cowards, and the more you
know about it, the less it proves. Yeah, the French were scared of Hitler.
Who wasn't? Chamberlain, the British prime minister, all but licked the
Fuhrer's goosesteppers, basically let him have all of Central Europe,
because Britain was terrified of war with Germany. Hell, Stalin signed a
sweetheart deal with Hitler out of sheer terror, and Stalin wasn't a man
who
scared easy.
The French were scared, all right. But they had reason to be. For starters,
they'd barely begun to recover from their last little scrap with the
Germans: a little squabble you might've heard of, called WW I.
WW I was the worst war in history to be a soldier in. WW II was worse if
you
were a civilian, but the trenches of WW I were five years of Hell like
General Sherman never dreamed of. At the end of it a big chunk of northern
France looked like the surface of the moon, only bloodier, nothing but
craters and rats and entrails.
Verdun. Just that name was enough to make Frenchmen and Germans, the few
who
survived it, wake up yelling for years afterward. The French lost 1.5
million men out of a total population of 40 million fighting the Germans
from 1914-1918. A lot of those guys died charging German machine-gun nests
with bayonets. I'd really like to see one of you office smartasses joke
about "surrender monkeys" with a French soldier, 1914 vintage. You'd piss
your dockers.
Shit, we strut around like we're so tough and we can't even handle a few
uppity Iraqi villages. These guys faced the Germans head on for five years,
and we call them cowards? And at the end, it was the Germans, not the
French, who said "calf rope."
When the sequel war came, the French relied on their frontier
fortifications
and used their tanks (which were better than the Germans', one on one)
defensively. The Germans had a newer, better offensive strategy. So they
won. And the French surrendered. Which was damn sensible of them.
This was the WEHRMACHT. In two years, they conquered all of Western Europe
and lost only 30,000 troops in the process. That's less than the casualties
of Gettysburg. You get the picture? Nobody, no army on earth, could've held
off the Germans under the conditions that the French faced them. The French
lost because they had a long land border with Germany. The English survived
because they had the English Channel between them and the Wehrmacht. When
the English Army faced the Wermacht at Dunkirk, well, thanks to spin the
tuck-tail-and-flee result got turned into some heroic tale of a brilliant
British retreat. The fact is, even the Brits behaved like cowards in the
face of the Wermacht, abandoning the French. It's that simple.
Here's a quick sampler of some of my favorite French victories, like an
antidote to those ignorant websites. We'll start way back and move up to
the
20th century.
Tours, 732 AD: The Muslims had already taken Spain and were well on their
way to taking the rest of Europe. The only power with a chance of stopping
them was the French army under Charles "the Hammer" Martel, King of the
Franks (French), who answered to the really cool nickname "the Hammer of
God." It was the French who saved the continent's ass. All the smart money
was on the Muslims: there were 60,000 of them, crazy Jihadis whose cavalry
was faster and deadlier than any in Europe. The French army was heavily
outnumbered and had no cavalry. Fighting in phalanxes, they held against
dozens of cavalry charges and after at least two days of hand-to-hand
combat, finally managed to hack their way to the Muslim center and kill
their commander. The Muslims retreated to Spain, and Europe developed as an
independent civilization.
Orleans, May 1429: Joan of Arc: is she the most insanely cool military
commander in history or what? This French peasant girl gets instructions
from her favorite saints to help out the French against the English
invaders. She goes to the King (well, the Dauphin, but close enough) and
tells him to give her the army and she'll take it from there. And somehow
she convinces him. She takes the army, which has lost every battle it's
been
in lately, to Orleans, which is under English siege. Now Joan is a nice
girl, so she tries to settle things peaceably. She explains in a letter to
the enemy commanders that everything can still be cool, "...provided you
give up France...and go back to your own countries, for God's sake. And if
you do not, wait for the Maid, who will visit you briefly to your great
sorrow." The next day she put on armor, mounted a charger, and prepared to
lead the attack on the besiegers' fortifications. She ordered the gates
opened, but the Mayor refused until Joan explained that she, personally,
would cut off his head. The gates went up, the French sallied out, and Joan
led the first successful attack they'd made in years. The English
strongpoints were taken, the siege was broken, and Joan's career in the
cow-milking trade was over.
Braddock's Defeat (aka Battle of Monongahela) July 1755: Next time you're
driving through the Ohio Valley, remember you're passing near the site of a
great French victory over an Anglo-American force twice its size. General
Edward Braddock marched west from Virginia with 1,500 men--a very large
army
in 18th-c. America. His orders were to seize French land and forts in the
Valley--your basic undeclared land-grab invasion. The French joined the
local tribes to resist, and then set up a classic ambush. It was a
slaughter. More than half of Braddock's force--880 men--were killed or
wounded. The only Anglo officer to escape unhurt was this guy called George
Washington, and even he had two horses shot out from under him. After a few
minutes of non-stop fire from French and Indians hidden in the woods,
Braddock's command came apart like something out of Nam, post-Tet. Braddock
was hit and wounded, but none of his troops would risk getting shot to
rescue him.
Austerlitz, Dec. 1805: You always hear about Austerlitz as "Napoleon's
Greatest Victory," like the little guy personally went out and wiped out
the
combined Russian and Austrian armies. The fact is, ever since the
Revolution
in 1789, French armies had been kicking ass against everybody. They were
free citizens fighting against scared peasant and degenerate mercenaries,
and it was no contest. At Austerlitz, 65,000 French troops took on 90,000
Russians and Austrians and destroyed them. Absolutely annihilated them. The
French lost only 8,000, compared to 29,000 of the enemy. The tactics
Bonaparte used were very risky, and would only have worked with superb
troops: he encouraged the enemy to attack a weak line, then brought up
reinforcements who'd been held out of sight. That kind of tactical plan
takes iron discipline and perfect timing--and the French had it.
Jena, Oct. 1806: just a quick reminder for anybody who thinks the Germans
always beat the French. Napoleon takes on the Prussian army and destroys
it.
27,000 Prussian casualties vs. 5,000 French. Prussian army routed, pursued
for miles by French cavalry.
You, guys might want to remember that the French under Napoleon are still
the only army ever to have taken all of continental Europe, from Moscow to
Madrid. I could keep listing French victories till I had a book. In fact,
it's not a bad idea. A nice big hardback, so you could take it to the
assholes running all the anti-French-military sites and bash their heads in
with it.
waggg
2004-12-12 18:53:26 UTC
Permalink
http://home.thirdage.com/Military/the4th23infmec/vnlb.html

During the Civil War, at the Battle of Bull Run, the entire Union
Army panicked and fled the battlefield. Nothing even remotely
resembling that debacle ever occurred in Vietnam.

In WWII at the Kasserine Pass in Tunisia, elements of the
US Army were overrun by the Germans. In the course of that battle,
Hitler’s General Rommel (The Desert Fox) inflicted
3,100 US casualties, took 3,700 US prisoners and captured
or destroyed 198 American tanks. In Vietnam no US Military
units were overrun and no US Military infantry units or tank
outfits were captured.

WW II again. In the Philippines, US Army Generals
Jonathan Wainwright and Edward King surrendered themselves
and their troops to the Japanese. In Vietnam no US generals,
or US military units ever surrendered.

Before the Normandy invasion ("D" Day, 1944) the US Army
(In WW II the US Army included the Army Air Corps which
today has become the US Airforce) in England filled its
own jails with American soldiers who refused to fight and
then had to rent jail space from the British to handle the
overflow. The US Army in Vietnam never had to rent jail space
from the Vietnamese to incarcerate American soldiers who
refused to fight.

Desertion.

Only about 5,000 men assigned to Vietnam deserted and just 249
of those deserted while in Vietnam. During WW II, in the European
Theater alone, over 20,000 US Military men were convicted of
desertion and, on a comparable percentage basis, the overall
WW II desertion rate was 55 percent higher than in Vietnam.

During the WW II Battle of the Bulge in Europe two regiments
of the US Army’s 106th Division surrendered to the Germans.
Again: In Vietnam no US Army unit ever surrendered.

As for brutality:

During WW II the US Army executed nearly 300 of its own men.
In the European Theater alone, the US Army sentenced 443 American
soldiers to death. Most of these sentences were for the rape and or
murder of civilians.

In the Korean War,

Major General William F. Dean, commander of the 24th Infantry Division,

was taken prisoner of war (POW). In Vietnam no US generals, much less
division commanders, were ever taken prisoner.

During the Korean War the US Army was forced into the longest retreat
in its history. A catastrophic 275 mile withdrawal from the Yalu River
all the way to Pyontaek, 45 miles south of Seoul. In the process they
lost the capital city of Seoul. The US Military in Vietnam was never
compelled into a major retreat nor did it ever abandon Saigon to the
enemy.

The 1st US Marine Division was driven from the Chosin Reservoir
and forced into an emergency evacuation from the Korean port of
Hungnam. There they were joined by other US Army and South Korean
soldiers and the US Navy eventually evacuated 105,000 Allied troops
from that port. In Vietnam there was never any mass evacuation of
US Marine, South Vietnamese or Allied troop units.

--
http://www.w3c.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/loose.dtd

"On January 22, 1813, at Frenchtown, the American troops under
--
http://www.w3c.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/loose.dtd

The Cheseapeake Campaign and the Star-Spangled Banner
The most famous of these destructive raids was the burning of public
buildings including the White House in Washington by Sir George Cockburn,
who succeeded Warren in April in the naval command, and General Robert
Ross.
Ross' account reads:

Judging it of consequence to complete the destruction of the public
buildings with the least possible delay, so that the army might retire
without loss of time, the following buildings were set fire to and consumed
– the capitol, including the Senate house and House of Representation, the
Arsenal, the Dock-Yard, Treasury, War office, President's Palace,
Rope-Walk, and the great bridge across the Potewmac.
President James Madison was forced to flee to Virginia and American morale
was reduced to an all-time low. The expedition was carried out between
August 19 and August 29, 1814, and was well organized and vigorously
executed. On the 24th the American militia, who had collected at
Bladensburg, Maryland, to protect the capital, fled almost before they were
attacked.

The British army, having burned Washington's public buildings, then moved
to capture Baltimore, a key base for American privateers. A subsequent
attack at the Battle of North Point, against Maryland militia, during which
General Ross was killed on September 12, 1814, was repulsed. The British
then attempted to attack Baltimore
by sea September 13, but were unable to reduce Fort McHenry, which was
located in Baltimore harbor. The defence of the fort by American forces
under the command of Colonel George Armistead during the British attack
inspired Francis Scott Key to write a poem, "The Defence of Fort McHenry",
which was set to the tune "To Anacreon in Heaven" and was adopted as "The
Star-Spangled Banner".
--
ETC ...
waggg
2004-12-12 18:54:06 UTC
Permalink
USA = cowards

you know ... winning war because of your giant industry, giant population,
giant country, immense natural ressources, being far from any direct danger
.. wheer is any evidence of courage in it ?

carpet-bombing civilians (WWII, vietnam) nuking cities is not a proof of
courage for the rest of the world, cope with it.
waggg
2004-12-12 18:59:07 UTC
Permalink
BOYCOTT EVERYTHING :

County gets new shipment of flu vaccine

Staff and wire report

LUMBERTON - Robeson County will share in 70,000 doses of flu vaccine that
will be provided to North Carolina health departments in the next two
weeks,
helping to ease a shortage created when shipments were blocked from one of
two vaccine manufacturers.

Bill Smith, director of the Robeson County Health Department, said he
expects to receive 850 of the available doses.

"The state used a formula to determine the amount we would receive," he
said. "We're expecting them to come in early next week. Once we have them
in hand, we'll announce through the media when they will be made available
to the public."

New doses will be distributed to North Carolina counties based on estimates
of high-risk populations and existing vaccine supplies.

Smith said his and other state health departments are urging those not at a
high risk of getting the disease to forego the shot. Health care workers
can't legally bar insistent, lower-risk patients from getting shots but
will
try to persuade them to do otherwise, Smith said.

"Everyone wanting a flu vaccine will have to sign a form attesting that
they
are at high risk," Smith said.

Healthy people have been called on to avoid flu shots this year because the
expected supply of 100 million doses was cut in half when British
regulators
shut down Chiron Corp., one of the world's main flu shot manufacturers.

The government says the 54 million flu shots available should be reserved
for high-risk groups such as youngsters ages 6 to 23 months, people 65 or
older, and anyone living with babies younger than 6 months.

Ann Stephens, director of public relations at Southeastern Regional Medical
Center, said all available doses have been allocated to at-risk SRMC
patients and direct care-givers, and residents of Woodhaven and the Gibson
Cancer Center.

"We don't know if or when we'll be getting more doses," Stephens said. "If
we get enough to where we can make doses available to the public, we'll get
the word out."

Possible pandemic

Aventis Pasteur, another vaccine maker, is supplying most of the doses
ordered for North Carolina. But at the request of the federal Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, Aventis has held back 22.4 million doses
that had not yet been shipped.

Dr. James Kirkpatrick, head of the North Carolina office of public health
preparedness and response, said the new vaccine shipment is part of an
Aventis order already in process, and not from doses that have been held
back.

The state Department of Health and Human Services ordered about 300,000
doses from Aventis, and has received about 147,000 doses. County health
departments made separate purchases.

Officials are bracing for the possibility of a severe flu outbreak that
could infect one million North Carolina residents and kill 3,000 to 7,000
people in the state.

Earlier this month, the state Department of Health and Human Services
released its draft of a plan to respond to the flu pandemic. The plan
predicted shortages of hospital beds and vaccines, closing of businesses
and
schools and restrictions on travel.

A pandemic occurs when epidemics of a new, more resistant strain of the
virus occur simultaneously worldwide, according to the World Health
Organization. An outbreak in 1918 killed more than 500,000 Americans and 20
million to 40 million people worldwide, most of them young, healthy adults.
The last one occurred in 1968-69, when the so-called Hong Kong flu hit,
resulting in 30,000 U.S. deaths.

Some relief

Pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline is in talks with the Food and Drug
Administration about selling its Fluarix influenza vaccine in the United
States to help cope with the expected shortage.

Glaxo is looking at ways to supply doses and increase production at its
main
flu-vaccine plant in Dresden, Germany, said Danielle Halstrom, a
spokeswoman
for the London-based company, which has U.S. headquarters in Philadelphia
and Research Triangle Park, N.C.

The company said its current production capability "does not come close" to
the 46 million to 48 million doses that were lost when Chiron Corp. had to
shutter its vaccine plant in England last week because of concerns over
contamination.

Glaxo currently only has about 500,000 doses available.

When Fluarix was introduced in 1992, the United States had five to 10
vaccine manufacturers. That number has dwindled to two makers of injectible
vaccines: Chiron, based in Emeryville, Ca., and Aventis Pasteur, a unit of
France's Sanofi-Aventis S.A., which has a plant in Swiftwater.

The shutdown of flu vaccine production at Chiron Corp. has slashed supplies
across the nation.

High-risk patients depend on flu shots because the injections are made of
killed influenza virus. Other people have another option: About one million
doses of an inhaled flu vaccine, MedImmune Inc.'s FluMist, will be
available
for healthy 5- to 49-year-olds. It's made from live but weakened influenza
virus.

Officials have discussed the possibility of diluting the flu vaccine, but
there's no data on whether that would still protect high-risk groups. Plus,
most shots come in with a single syringe and cannot be used by two people.
waggg
2004-12-12 18:59:41 UTC
Permalink
==
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002058484_vouchers09.html

Saturday, October 09, 2004 - Page updated at 12:25 A.M.

Americans among beneficiaries in oil scandal

By T. Christian Miller
Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON — Three U.S. citizens, all of whom campaigned against Iraq
sanctions, were among those who received special grants from a
scandal-ridden oil program overseen by Saddam Hussein, according to
congressional officials and a CIA report released this week.
The individuals named were: Texas oil baron Oscar Wyatt, Detroit
businessman Shakir al-Khafaji and Virginia businessman Samir Vincent.
Al-Khafaji's involvement was reported earlier this year by the Financial
Times of London.

Five U.S. corporations were also among the beneficiaries of the so-called
oil vouchers that Saddam gave to top political figures and important
companies to win diplomatic or military favors, the sources said. They
include major companies such as Chevron, Texaco and Exxon Mobil, as well as
smaller companies such as Houston-based Bay Oil USA.

Typically, Saddam would personally approve the issuance of the vouchers,
which provided the holder the right to a certain quantity of Iraqi oil. If
issued to an individual, the vouchers could be sold to a middleman who
would then actually purchase the oil.

The American names were left out of a massive report released to the public
this week by Charles Duelfer, who headed the CIA effort to document
Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Privacy was cited as the reason. A
complete copy with the names included was given to some congressional
representatives on Thursday.

Wyatt, who received more money than any other individual, announced in
March 1997 that he would retire and begin lobbying in Washington to lift
sanctions against Iraq and Libya.

Wyatt has had a long relationship with Saddam, dating back to before the
Gulf War when his company Coastal Corp. was a major buyer of Iraqi oil. He
won fame in 1991 by taking his company's plane to Iraq to pick up American
citizens being held hostage during the run-up to the war.

Wyatt received six vouchers made out to him between 1999 and 2003 for 29.7
million barrels of oil that netted him a profit of $12.6 million, according
to the records in Duelfer's report. His company, Coastal, was given
vouchers for 42 million barrels of oil with a profit of $10.1 million
between 1996 and 2000, the Duelfer's report said. Wyatt didn't return a
request for comment.

Al-Khafaji has long led missions to deliver food and medicine to Iraqi
villages.

In 2000, he also provided $400,000 to fund the production of a documentary
by former weapons inspector Scott Ritter that claimed inspections had
succeeded in removing Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, a
then-controversial assertion.

Khafaji was listed as having been awarded 2 million barrels of oil that
provided a profit of $931,000 when they were loaded in 2001, according to
Duelfer's report and congressional investigators. Khafaji was awarded three
more vouchers for 5 million barrels of oil between 2001 and 2003, but he
never collected on them, the records show. Khafaji didn't return calls for
comment, though in the past he has said he didn't support Saddam.



In April, U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Seattle, returned a $5,000
contribution from al-Khafaji, who had accompanied McDermott on his highly
publicized trip to Iraq in 2002.

A nonprofit organization, Life for Relief and Development, paid McDermott's
$5,510 travel expenses for the Iraq trip, according to a disclosure form
filed with the House clerk. Al-Khafaji has been named as a financial
supporter of the organization, though the extent of his support is not
known. The group says it ships humanitarian aid to Iraq.

Mike DeCesare, McDermott's spokesman, said at the time that McDermott
decided to return the contribution immediately upon hearing of al-Khafaji's
alleged involvement in the oil vouchers. He said McDermott was unaware of
al-Khafaji's business dealings with the Iraqi government at the time of the
trip to Iraq.

Vincent, who headed a firm called Phoenix International, in 1999 and 2000
helped to organize a tour through the United States in which Iraqi
religious leaders met with U.S. religious leaders such as New York Cardinal
John O'Conner and the Rev. Billy Graham and political figures such as
former President Carter.

Vincent told a Catholic magazine in 2000 that one of the Iraqi religious
leaders told Graham, "Help our people by using your influence on the
decision-makers in your country to see clearly what they have done to Iraq,
their malicious actions."

Vincent was awarded 1.5 million barrels of oil in 1999 and 2000 that netted
him a profit of $1 million, according to the CIA report. All told, Vincent
and Phoenix were given vouchers for 7.9 million barrels of oil that netted
$2.8 million between 1997 and 2001, the Duelfer report showed. Vincent was
also given four vouchers for 4 million barrels of oil between 2000 and 2003
that he did not use. Vincent could not be reached for comment.

Oil giants San Ramon, Calif.-based Chevron-Texaco and Dallas-based Exxon
Mobil or their predecessor companies were also listed in the Iraqi
documents in Duelfer's reports, congressional investigators said.

Chevron and Texaco, then separate companies, were listed as having
purchased 11.3 million barrels of oil for a profit of $2 million between
1996 and 1999. Mobil, which later merged with Exxon, bought 9.2 million
barrels of oil for a profit of $1.7 million, the records show.

Both companies said yesterday that any oil pumped from Iraq was done in
accordance with applicable U.S. laws and U.N. regulations.

Besides Coastal and Phoenix, the fifth company on the list was Bay Oil, run
by David Chalmers. Chalmers was an ex-business associate of Wyatt's,
according to Platts, an oil-industry trade publication.

Bay Oil bought 5.7 million barrels of oil that netted $1 million under the
oil-voucher program, according to the Duelfer report and congressional
investigators.

Chalmers, who did not receive vouchers personally, did not return phone
calls for comment.

It remains unclear whether any of the companies' transactions were illegal
since all companies named in the report were cleared to purchase oil from
Iraq in the early days of the United Nations' Oil For Food program, which
began in 1996.

But it appears to violate U.N. sanctions for an individual to have been
awarded an oil grant, since petroleum purchased in the program was supposed
to be sold to corporate end users, oil experts said.

House investigators said they planned to look into whether any of the
individuals or companies were awarded the oil contracts in exchange for
carrying out propaganda or other activities for Saddam.

The Oil For Food program is currently the subject of nine separate
investigations, including one by federal prosecutors in New York who have
sent subpoenas to several U.S. oil companies seeking information on their
activity in the program.

"Every American who is involved in allegedly abetting Saddam deserves to be
investigated," said one congressional investigator who is looking into the
program. "It warrants investigation."

The program was poorly monitored, and opportunities for corruption were
rampant, according to those who have studied the U.N. program, under which
Saddam sold oil in return for food and humanitarian aid.

"It's like peeling an onion. We really don't have a good sense of what the
whole thing looks like yet. But obviously, it's not attractive," said
Edward Luck, a professor at Colombia University who has followed the
scandal.

Material on McDermott's relationship with al-Khafaji was provided by
Seattle Times staff reporter Jim Brunner.

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company
waggg
2004-12-12 19:04:32 UTC
Permalink
Before the Second World War
"Francophobia" in the U.S. reverses the earlier pattern of a
"Francophilia."
In patriotic American contexts, France was characterized as the first ally
of the American revolutionaries. When the Marquis de Lafayette toured the
United States in (1824-1825), he was accorded a hero's welcome as the first
American celebrity, and numerous new settlements were named Lafayette,
Fayette and Fayetteville.

Harvard University professor and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of the
Treasury A. Piatt Andrew summed up this Francophile tradition, when he
wrote: "Few in number and limited in their activities, this little band of
American ambulance drivers in France is of course insignificant when
compared with the tens of thousands of young Frenchmen who crossed the
ocean as soldiers and sailors to help America in 1777. To the valor and
devotion of these Frenchmen we owe our very existence as an independent
nation, and nothing that Americans
have done for France during these last hard years of trial can be thought
of---without embarrassment---in relation with what Frenchmen did for us in
those unforgettable years of our peril from 1777 to 1781."
--
--
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h681.html

He entered the French army at an early age, rising to the rank
of captain. Lafayette shared with many of his countrymen an
enthusiasm for the ideals put forth in America's Declaration of
Independence,
and with typical bravado he invested his own funds to outfit a ship and
sailed

for America in April 1777. He landed in South Carolina then headed north to
join the forces of George Washington, with whom he established a lasting
friendship during the travails at Valley Forge.

Serving as an unpaid volunteer on Washington's staff, Lafayette was wounded

at Brandywine and served later at Monmouth and in New Jersey. His service
was
rewarded with a promotion to major general, but in 1779 he returned to
France
to promote America's interests. Later in 1779, Lafayette returned, bearing
news of imminent French naval aid. He also served on the board of judges
that
condemned the spy, John André.

In 1781, Lafayette led American forces in Virginia against both Benedict
Arnold and Lord Cornwallis. Once again, he returned to France and served as
a
diplomatic aid to Benjamin Franklin during the peace negotiations.
--
The French Alliance
Despite their success at the Battle of Saratoga, General Washington was
still
having difficulty getting the states to provide the necessary men and
supplies
for his army. He needed help.

Treaty with France

After the Battle of Saratoga, Congress decided to seek French support in
the
war. They sent Benjamin Franklin, who could speak French, to meet with King
Louis XVI and the French foreign minister.
France wanted to get revenge on Britain for the defeat in the French and
Indian War. They also wanted to ensure that Britain and America don't
resolve
their differences.
In February 1778, France and America signed a treaty which put France at
war
with Britain. This treaty was the first document to officially recognize
America as an independent state.

Spain, an ally of France, joined the alliance a year later.
Britain was now forced to defend its own territory of England against
possible

French and Spanish attacks.
--
To understand the background of the Revolutionary War, it is necessary
to understand the history of the preceding twenty years, and especially
the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763). The Seven Years’ War was fought by
the European colonial powers from Canada to the West Indies and from
Europe to far-flung colonial empires in India and the Phillippines. In
North America, we know the part of the Seven Years' war that was fought
here as the French and Indian Wars. The Seven Years' War was largely a
disaster for France and her allies. In the aftermath of the war, which
resulted in the loss of most French territory in North America and
India, the French instituted sweeping reform of the army and navy. The
French army that landed in Newport in 1781 was the product of this
thorough and fundamental reorganization.

The English victory, however, was dearly bought. The cost of fielding
the army that secured the safety of the English colonies was tremendous.
This expense, together with the continuing cost of protecting these
colonies after the war, led to English demands that the American
colonists contribute to the cost of their own protection. As a result, a
series of Acts of Parliament imposed a variety of taxes on the colonists
during the 1760s and early 1770s. For many colonists, the chains that
had linked them to Britain for almost 150 years became the chains of
servitude, foreign domination and unjust tyranny. These taxes ultimately
fueled the tensions and passions that burst into flames on Lexington
Green on April 19, 1775.

From the outbreak of armed rebellion in 1775, many in France sympathized
with the colonists. Young, idealistic French officers like the Marquis
de Lafayette volunteered their services and in many cases their personal

wealth to help equip, train and lead the fledgling Continental army. The
French government hoped to redress the balance of power that resulted
from the French humiliation in the Seven Years Wars, which gave
considerable economic and military advantages to Britain. While
maintaining formal neutrality, France assisted in supplying arms,
uniforms and other military supplies to the American colonists.

This clandestine assistance became open after the defeat of General
Burgoyne at Saratoga in 1777, which demonstrated the possibility of
British defeat in the conflict and led to French recognition of the
colonies in February 1778. As a result of the victory of the Continental
forces at Saratoga, Benjamin Franklin, who had gone to Paris as
ambassador in 1776, was able to negotiate a Treaty of Amity and Commerce
and a Treaty of Alliance with France. From this point, French support
became increasingly significant. The French extended considerable
financial support to the Congressional forces. France also supplied
vital military arms and supplies, and loaned money to pay for their
purchase.

French military aid was also a decisive factor in the American victory.
French land and sea forces fought on the side of the American colonists
against the British. At the same time, British and French (and to a
lesser extent, Dutch and Spanish) forces fought for colonial wealth and
empire around the world. From 1778 through 1783 -- two years after the
defeat of Cornwallis at Yorktown -- French forces fought the British in
the West Indies, Africa and India.

From the perspective of the American Revolution, however, the high point
of French support is the landing of five battalions of French infantry
and artillery in Rhode Island in 1780. In 1781, these French troops
under the command of Count Rochambeau marched south to Virginia where
they joined Continental forces under Washington and Lafayette.
Cornwallis, encamped on the Yorktown peninsula, hoped to be rescued by
the British navy. A French fleet under the command of Admiral DeGrasse
intercepted and, after a fierce battle lasting several days, defeated
the British fleet and forced it to withdraw. This left the French navy
to land heavy siege cannon and other supplies and trapped Cornwallis on
the Yorktown peninsula.

At that point, the defeat of Cornwallis was essentially a matter of
time. On September 14, 1781, the French and Continental armies completed
their 700 mile march and soon thereafter laid siege to the British
positions.
After a number of weeks and several brief but intense engagements,
Cornwallis, besieged on the peninsula by the large and well-equipped
French-American army, and stricken by dysentery, determined to surrender
his army.

On October 19, 1781, the British forces marched out between the silent
ranks of the Americans and French, arrayed in parallel lines a mile
long, and cast down their arms.

Abbé Robin, who witnessed the surrender, described the victorious
American and French forces present at the ceremony. "Among the
Americans, the wide variety in age -- 12 to 14-year old children stood
side by side with grandfathers -- the absence of uniformity in their
bearing and their ragged clothing made the French allies appear more
splendid by contrast. The latter, in their immaculate white uniforms and
blue braid, gave an impression of martial vigor despite their fatigue.
We were all astonished by the excellent condition of the English troops,
by their number -- we were expecting scarcely 3,000 and they numbered
more than 8,000 -- and by their discipline."

George Woodbridge summed up the Yorktown campaign in the following
words: "The strategy of the campaign was Rochambeau’s; the French fleet
was there as a result of his arrangements; the tactics of the battle
were his; the American army was present because he had lent money to
Washington; in total naval and military participants the French
outnumbered the Americans between three and four to one. Yorktown was
Rochambeau’s victory.

How strange it must have been for these French troops and their
new-found colonial allies, some of whom had fought each other as enemies
barely fifteen years earlier, to stand shoulder to shoulder in armed
conflict with France’s ancient enemy and the colonist’s blood kin! In
the end, these French soldiers became the hard anvil upon which the new
American nation was forged and the chains of British imperial domination
were finally broken.
--
"France's great folly"
Printed on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 @ 14:29:49 CST ( )

By John Chuckman
YellowTimes.org Columnist (Canada)

(YellowTimes.org) – That great bellowing herd, sometimes called middle
America, is now making noises much like those of bull walruses in mating
season. The challenges issued in the form of belches and grunts are
directed
towards the French, a people who have the temerity to stand for principles
other than the one George Bush regards as central to humanity -- that is,
support America or else.

But France's great folly was not in her recent brave efforts to prevent a
needless war. No, it occurred more than two centuries ago when America won
her
independence from the British Empire.

As probably only a few dozen people in middle America even likely
appreciate
thanks to hyper-patriotic history texts, America's Revolutionary War
succeeded
only because the French supplied arms, cash, men, leadership, and a navy.
It
wasn't just help; it was decisive.

There were two key battles in the Revolutionary War. The first was Saratoga
in
1777. That stunning victory over Britain's General John Burgoyne was only
possible because of a secret French gun-running operation, much like those
undertaken by the CIA today, directed by Pierre de Beaumarchais, grand
adventurer and author of The Marriage of Figaro. America then was a
relatively
simple society with little capacity for manufacturing the weapons necessary
to
take on the British army.

Of course, France's secret assistance now may be viewed as the greatest
example of what intelligence people today call "blowback" in Western
history.
It makes the blowback of 9/11 -- directly attributable to the CIA's work in
Afghanistan -- seem tame by comparison. For France played mid-wife to the
birth of something that, a little more than two centuries later, would
arrogantly claim the right to determine the fate of the planet.

The main importance of the victory at Saratoga lay in gaining something the
revolting colonists desperately wanted: a formal treaty with France and a
great bounty of loans, gifts, and military forces. Of course, France's main
interest was to hurt its great rival, Britain, but then it certainly was
not
America's main interest to liberate France in 1944-5.

The deciding battle of the Revolutionary War was Yorktown in 1781, although
a
peace treaty was not settled until 1783. The truth is that Yorktown was
overwhelmingly a French victory. Washington didn't want to attack Yorktown,
but then Washington was a terrible general who lost almost every battle he
fought.

In 1781, Washington was fixated on a battle whose prospect was almost
certain
failure, an attack on New York. It was General Rochambeau's foresight and
planning that made Yorktown possible, but it took a lot of arguing to have
Washington finally agree. One of Washington's most trusted young generals,
the
Marquis de Lafayette, was given a substantial role in the action.

French Admiral de Grasse blocked a British fleet from entering the
Chesapeake
and evacuating the British army at Yorktown. French troops in the thousands
were among the most active. French engineers guided the building of the
entrenchments that sealed the fate of General Cornwallis's army in a
fortified
encampment that had its back to the water and no fleet to help.

The American forces carried French arms, and what pay they received came
from
the French treasury. It was during this last stage of the war that
Americans
massively lost interest. There had never been great enthusiasm, with about
a
third of the population against it from the beginning and another third
indifferent (contrary to myth, revolutions are almost always the work of
minorities) -- the real explanation, along with a stubborn unwillingness to
pay taxes still evident today, behind Washington's chronic lack of
resources
despite his countless pleas for help from the colonial governments. But by
the
late 1770s, Americans had become even more indifferent. It was around this
time that M. Duportail, a French officer serving under Washington, made his
famous observation about there being more enthusiasm for the Revolution in
the
cafes of Paris than he saw in America.

America never repaid the massive loans made by the French. Years later,
when
France underwent the agonies of a much more terrible revolution,
then-President Washington maintained a very cool distance. Even when poor
old
Tom Paine was rotting in a French jail, expecting any day to be executed,
Washington ignored his pleas for assistance. This was the same Tom Paine
whose
Common Sense and Crisis Papers were so important in stirring support for
America's revolution.

Well, despite the great chorus of gastric disturbance just south of here, I
shall proudly continue wearing my beret. After all, it was the wonderful
Ben
Franklin who said that every man has two countries, his own and France.

[John Chuckman is former chief economist for a large Canadian oil company.
He
has many interests and is a lifelong student of history. He writes with a
passionate desire for honesty, the rule of reason, and concern for human
decency. He is a member of no political party and takes exception to what
has
been called America's "culture of complaint" with its habit of reducing
every
important issue to an unproductive argument between two simplistically
defined
groups. John regards it as a badge of honor to have left the United States
as
a poor young man from the South Side of Chicago when the country embarked
on
the pointless murder of something like three million Vietnamese in their
own
land because they happened to embrace the wrong economic loyalties. He
lives
in Canada, which he is fond of calling "the peaceable kingdom."]

John Chuckman encourages your comments: ***@YellowTimes.org

YellowTimes.org is an international news and opinion publication.
YellowTimes.org encourages its material to be reproduced, reprinted, or
broadcast provided that any such reproduction identifies the original
source,
http://www.YellowTimes.org. Internet web links to
http://www.YellowTimes.org
are appreciated.
==
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/H/1990/ch2_p13.htm

An Outline of American History (1990)
Chapter Two
Colonies gain victory and freedom (13/13)

From the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, France had not
been
neutral. The government had been eager for reprisal against England ever
since
the defeat of France in 1763. Moreover, enthusiasm for the American cause
was
high: the French intellectual world was itself in revolt against feudalism
and
privilege. Still, though France had welcomed Benjamin Franklin to the
French
court and had given the United States aid in the form of munitions and
supplies, it had been reluctant to risk direct intervention and open war
with
England.

After Burgoyne's surrender, however, Franklin was able to secure treaties
of
commerce and alliance. Even before this, many French volunteers had sailed
to
America. The most prominent among them was the Marquis de Lafayette, a
young
army officer, who, in the winter of 1779-80, went to Versailles and
persuaded
his government to make a real effort to bring the war to an end. Soon
afterward, Louis XVI sent to America an expeditionary force of 6,000 men
under
the Comte de Rochambeau. In addition, the French fleet aggravated the
difficulties the British were having in supplying and reinforcing their
forces, and Frenchmen joined with American blockade runners in inflicting
severe losses on British commerce.

In 1778, the British were forced to evacuate Philadelphia because of
threatened action by the French fleet. During the same year, in the Ohio
Valley, they suffered a series of setbacks which assured American
domination
of the northwest. Nevertheless, the British continued to press the war in
the
south. Early in 1780 they captured Charleston, the principal southern
seaport,
and overran the Carolina country. The following year they made an effort to
conquer Virginia. But the French fleet, which temporarily gained control of
American coastal waters that summer, ferried Washington's and Rochambeau's
troops in boats down Chesapeake Bay. Their combined armies, totaling 15,000
men, penned in Lord Cornwallis' army of 8,000 at Yorktown on the Virginia
coast. On October 19, 1781, Cornwallis surrendered.

When the news of the American victory at Yorktown reached Europe, the House
of
Commons voted to end the war. Peace negotiations began in April 1782 and
continued through November, when preliminary treaties were signed. These
were
not to take effect until France concluded peace with Great Britain. In
1783,
they were signed as final and definitive. The peace settlement acknowledged
the independence, freedom, and sovereignty of the 13 states, to which it
granted the much coveted territory west to the Mississippi, and set the
northern boundary of the nation nearly as it runs now. The Congress was to
recommend to the states that they restore the confiscated property of the
loyalists.
==
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1312.html

The Yorktown Campaign
Summer and Fall of 1781
From today’s perspective, it is difficult to appreciate the long odds faced
by
Americans and their French allies in the Yorktown campaign of 1781. The
prospects for George Washington and his northern army at the start of the
year
were not bright. They were keeping a lonely vigil outside of New York City,
monitoring the actions of Sir Henry Clinton's vastly superior British
forces.

The situation in the South also was dismal. The Americans had won an
important
victory at Cowpens (January 1781), but later suffered a string of defeats.
The
British commander, Lord Charles Cornwallis, completed his sweep through the
Carolinas and in May entered Virginia to root out the sources of American
resistance.

Further, the American populace was weary of the war, the government was
broke
and soldiers in all theaters were not inclined to commit to lengthy terms
of
service.

Nonetheless, it became evident to Washington and his French allies that a
possible opportunity was developing to trap Cornwallis’s army in a position
where they could not be resupplied or reinforced. To accomplish this,
however,
would require moving two armies, one American and the other French, over
450
miles to Virginia. If those movements were detected early on by the
British,
then the scheme would collapse and a possibly disastrous encounter would
occur
in the North. Further risk was provided by the uncertainty of French naval
aid. If Chesapeake Bay could not be temporarily sealed off from the British
fleet, then Cornwallis would be reinforced by sea and stand an excellent
chance of defeating his exhausted opponent in Virginia.

The gamble paid off for Washington. Events in different locations evolved
in a
manner that enabled the allied armies to march safely to their destination,
while the French navy managed to secure the Chesapeake for a brief time
before
a British relief fleet arrived. These events included:

Cornwallis in Virginia (May - August 1781). Cornwallis conducted raids in
Virginia, refused to send troops to Clinton in New York and fortified a
defensive position taken at Yorktown.

Washington and Rochambeau to Virginia (August - September 1781). Washington
initially favored an attack on British positions in New York in 1781, but
later when his hand was forced, did a masterful job of moving his army to
the
southern theater.

Battle of the Capes (September 5, 1781). Good fortune, solid French
seamanship
and British ineptitude contributed to denying Admiral Graves the
opportunity
to reinforce or evacuate Cornwallis's army at Yorktown.

Siege of Yorktown (October 1781). Cornwallis's confidence in his ability to
hold Yorktown declined as enemy artillery pounded his fortifications,
supplies
and ammunition ran low, and an evacuation attempt failed.

Surrender at Yorktown (October 19, 1781). The failure of Clinton's relief
fleet to arrive, plus the numerical superiority of the Franco-American
forces,
necessitated Cornwallis's capitulation on terms approaching unconditional
surrender.


http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1313.html

Cornwallis in Virginia
May – August 1781
Lord Charles Cornwallis, commander of British forces in the South, was
initially successful in his drive against rebel forces in the Carolinas by
winning a valuable, but costly victory over Nathanael Greene at Guilford
Courthouse (March 1781). Cornwallis then marched his army to the coast for
resupply at Wilmington, North Carolina. British progress in the South was
constantly harassed by guerilla-style attacks, particularly those of
Francis
Marion, Andrew Pickins and Thomas Sumter. It was evident to Cornwallis that
his opponents had a ready source of men and supplies in Virginia, which was
then in rebel hands.

In late April, Cornwallis’s army marched north from Wilmington and arrived
at
Petersburg, Virginia, on May 20. His small force of 1,500 men was
supplemented
by another 4,000 soldiers already in the area, and later by replacements
sent
from New York by Sir Henry Clinton, bringing the southern army to a total
of
about 7,500 men.

The British launched a series of raids in Virginia aimed largely at
attempting
to corner the crafty Marquis de Lafayette. Those efforts were not
successful,
but in June the British under Benastre Tarleton managed to send the
Virginia
government fleeing from Charlottesville and narrowly missed capturing
Governor
Thomas Jefferson.

At this same time, Lafayette’s small army was bolstered when it was
reinforced
by Anthony Wayne and later by Baron von Steuben.

Responding to somewhat confusing orders from Clinton, Cornwallis moved
eastward toward the coast to take up a defensive position between the York
and
James rivers. From there he could be resupplied by Clinton or evacuated for
action in New York or elsewhere. The British army arrived at Yorktown on
August 1 and began to fortify its position there and also across the York
River on Gloucester Point.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1319.html

Washington and Rochambeau March to Virginia
Summer 1781
At meeting at Wethersfield, Connecticut, in May 1781, George Washington
met with Lieutenant General Comte de Rochambeau, the commander of French
land
forces in North America. The French reluctantly agreed to bring their West
Indian fleet into the war on behalf of the Americans, but did not commit to

where the ships would be deployed. Washington wanted this force to be used
in
a coordinated attack on Henry Clinton’s army in the New York City area.
The need for French cooperation was obvious — Washington’s army in the
Hudson Highlands north of Manhattan numbered only about 3,500 men, while
Clinton’s force was more than 14,000.

The crucial decision about where the French Navy would participate was left

to the West Indian commander, François Joseph Paul, Comte de Grasse.
Two options existed: New York and Virginia.

Washington feared that committing his army to a campaign in the
South was an invitation to disaster. Lord Charles Cornwallis,
the British commander in the area, needed only to move his troops
into the interior of the Carolinas, live off the land and wait for
assistance from New York. Clinton could sail an army to Virginia much
more rapidly than Washington could by a forced march.

On July 5, French land forces arrived in the Hudson Valley from their
earlier base in Rhode Island. Lengthy preparations began for a combined
attack on New York. However, in mid-August Washington received a letter
from Admiral de Grasse indicating that the French fleet would be available
for service in Chesapeake Bay by the end of the month and would remain
there
until October 15. The time limit for the fleet’s participation was imposed
by the high point of hurricane season in the Indies.

On August 20, American and French forces began moving south on their
journey
of more than 450 miles. Great efforts were made to make it appear that the
combined armies were headed toward a direct confrontation against Clinton
in
New York coastal areas. If the true intentions were discovered, Clinton
could
send reinforcements by sea to Cornwallis in Virginia.

Washington left a small force behind under the command of William Heath and

the bulk of the Franco-American force moved west and south. They marched
through New Jersey, covering 15 miles a day in good weather. It was not
until
September 1 and 2, when the army reached Philadelphia, that Clinton
realized
what had happened. The British command was disturbed, but not panicky;
they were convinced that the strength of the British fleet would prevent
matters in the southern theater from getting out of hand.

Washington faced another kind of crisis in Philadelphia. Troops had not
been
paid and no funds were available. A mutiny was averted when Robert Morris,
the prime procurer of munitions and money during the war, secured the
needed
funds from Rochambeau.

The armies proceeded to Head of Elk in Maryland and arrived in Baltimore
on September 12. Three days later, Washington and Rochambeau met with the
leader of American forces in the South, the Marquis de Lafayette. On the
17th,

Washington and Rochambeau boarded the Ville de Paris and plotted strategy
with

Admiral de Grasse, who had arrived in the Chesapeake as promised.
It was decided that de Grasse would seal off the mouth of the bay to deny
entry to the anticipated British fleet. Meanwhile, the land forces would
take
up
positions surrounding Cornwallis in Yorktown. Trenches would be constructed
and
artillery set in place.

On September 28, American and French forces left Williamsburg and marched
to the areas surrounding Yorktown, where they initiated a siege of British
fortifications.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1320.html

Battle of the Capes
September 5, 1781
In May 1781, Admiral Comte de Barras arrived in Newport, Rhode Island with
the
long-awaited news that a major French fleet would render assistance to the
American cause in the late summer. That fleet, under the command of
François
Joseph Paul, Comte de Grasse, was en route to the West Indies and would
later
head to North America. De Barras, lacking sufficient strength to confront
the
British, sailed off for temporary refuge in Boston Harbor.

In mid-August, Admiral de Grasse sent word to George Washington that the
French fleet would sail for service in Chesapeake Bay and be available for
joint operations until mid-October. He was unable to make a longer
commitment
because he had to get his ships to safety at the height of the hurricane
season.

On August 25, a number of British ships under the command of Admiral Sir
Samuel Hood arrived in Chesapeake Bay. They searched for French ships and,
finding none, sailed off to New York to join Admiral Thomas Graves' larger
fleet. Graves took command of the combined force and sailed for the
Chesapeake
on August 31, arriving in the area on September 5.

Meanwhile, Admiral de Grasse arrived at the mouth of Chesapeake Bay on
August
28 with a fleet of 24 ships carrying 1,700 guns and 3,000 soldiers. The
land
forces were put ashore several days later and joined with the army of the
Marquis de Lafayette.

On September 5, Graves was astonished to find the French in possession of
Chesapeake Bay. De Grasse realized that conducting naval operations within
the
bay's confines would be difficult and sailed into the Atlantic waters off
the
Virginia coast. Most authorities agree that the inept Graves should have
struck as the French fleet proceeded in single file into open waters; he
did
not, which allowed them to form a battle line.

From one perspective, the two-hour Battle of the Capes ended in a draw. The
British sustained serious damage to six ships, one of which was later
purposely destroyed, and suffered around 300 casualties. The French saw
four
ships significantly damaged, and sustained more than 200 casualties.
Following
the encounter and continuing for the next few days, the two fleets drifted
south in sight of each other, but did not renew hostilities. From another
perspective, despite failing to deliver a knockout blow, De Grasse
succeeded
in his prime assignment — to seal off the mouth of Chesapeake Bay and deny
Cornwallis opportunities for reinforcement or evacuation.

While Graves and de Grasse drifted down the Virginia coast, the smaller
French
fleet of Admiral de Barras arrived from Newport carrying Rochambeau’s
supplies
and cannon, and sailed uncontested into Chesapeake Bay. Graves’ critics
cite
his failure to dispatch seaworthy vessels back to the bay, arguing that the
copper-sheathed bottoms of the British ships gave them a decided edge in
speed
and that they would likely have won a race back to the Chesapeake.

On September 10, Graves broke contact with the French and headed his
battered
fleet back to New York for repairs, leaving the French in total control of
the
Chesapeake and probably sealing Cornwallis's fate.

De Grasse then set about the task of transporting Washington's and
Rochambeau's forces from the northern Bay area to Williamsburg.

Siege of Yorktown
October 1781
Early in September 1781, Lord Charles Cornwallis remained confident about
his
force's security at Yorktown, where British troops had been fortifying
their
position atop a bluff on the south side of the York River. Reinforcement or
evacuation was to be provided by a Royal Naval fleet dispatched from New
York
by Sir Henry Clinton. That sense of assurance, however, was shaken when
word
of the Battle of the Capes arrived. By September 10, Admiral Thomas Graves
was
sailing his badly hammered fleet back to New York for repairs. Whether that
fleet could be restored in time to return to Virginia was a matter of deep
conjecture.

On September 28, the forces of Washington and General Rochambeau departed
from
Williamsburg and marched eastward a short distance to join the Marquis de
Lafayette’s army outside of Yorktown. Two days later, in an attempt to
conserve his strength, Cornwallis pulled in soldiers that had been
stationed
in outer fortified positions, but enabled his enemy to creep forward and
man
those same positions.

The besieging French and American forces desired to dig trenches to allow
movement of big guns closer to British fortifications, but such activity
was
usually accomplished under cover of darkness; clear skies and moonlight had
made the work unsafe. Trenching began in earnest on October 6 and the heavy
bombardment of Yorktown followed three days later, which continued day and
night. Thousands of shells were fired and both sides sustained casualties,
particularly the defenders in Yorktown. Occasional skirmishes occurred
outside
the town where parties of redcoats were discovered foraging for food by
French
or American troops.

On October 14, allied forces stormed two redoubts held by the British.
Alexander Hamilton, who had long lobbied for a command, led one effort and
performed ably; the French succeeded in taking the other position. Guns
were
pulled up to the newly won locations, which could then command all parts of
the besieged town.

The following night, the British attempted to silence some of the cannon
that
were pounding Yorktown. Several hundred soldiers left the fort under the
cover
of an artillery barrage. They experienced some success by killing a number
of
allied soldiers and temporarily disabling a half-dozen cannon.

Cornwallis then discarded his hope for reinforcements and attempted a major
evacuation. He began to ferry his army across the York to British-held
Gloucester Point on the north bank. From there he hoped to make a forced
march
to evade the numerically superior allied armies — leaving his sick and
wounded
soldiers behind. However, a major storm intervened and scattered the
transport
boats after a single crossing. The British army recongregated in Yorktown
in
the knowledge that their fate was sealed.

At 10 a.m. on October 17, Cornwallis signaled to his opponents that he
wanted
to parley and the guns at Yorktown fell silent.

On the same day, Clinton’s fleet, whose repairs had been long delayed by a
lumber shortage, was ready to sail. However, fate still did not cooperate
and
the British vessels had to wait another two days for favorable winds and
tides. On the 19th, the rescue fleet was finally at sea, but hundreds of
miles
to the south, Cornwallis’s sword was being offered to the victors as a
token
of the surrender of the British army at Yorktown.

During the siege, the Americans sustained about 80 casualties, the French
more
than 200 and the British more than 500.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1322.html

Surrender at Yorktown
October 19, 1781
Following an abortive attempt to evacuate his army from Yorktown, Lord
Charles
Cornwallis faced the reality that aid from Sir Henry Clinton would not
arrive
in time. French and American guns resumed bombardment of the British
position
at dawn on October 17. By mid-morning, Cornwallis came to a decision and
sent a drummer to a visible location on the fortification, where he beat
out the
call for a parley. The guns were quickly silenced and a British officer
came
forward to the American lines; he was blindfolded and taken to confer with
George Washington.

Washington refused to make the same mistake that had been made four years
earlier by Horatio Gates in the surrender at Saratoga, where the defeated
soldiers were allowed to return to their homes in exchange for a promise
not
to reenter the war in North America at a later point. The obvious problem
with
such leniency was that those soldiers could be assigned to another theater,
thus replacing soldiers in that location who could then be sent to
America.1

Terms were negotiated on October 18 and included the following provisions:

surrendering soldiers were to march out of their fortification with colors
folded, surrender their arms at a predetermined location, then depart to
detention2
British officers were allowed to keep their side arms and to depart to
Britain, or to a British-occupied American port
officers and soldiers were allowed to retain personal possessions.
In a breech of military etiquette, Cornwallis declined to attend the
surrender
ceremony, claiming illness. The second in command, Brigadier General
Charles
O’Hara, filled that role. To avoid the humiliation of turning over
Cornwallis’
sword to Washington — known contemptuously to many British as “General
Buckskin” — O'Hara attempted to present the token to General Rochambeau.
The
French commander refused to accept the sword and pointed to Washington.
When
O’Hara turned to make the presentation, Washington called on his
second-in-command, General Benjamin Lincoln, to accept. Thus, General
Buckskin
won some satisfaction in the wake of his humiliation at the surrender of
Charleston.
According to a widely recounted report, the defeated army departed to the
strains of The World Turned Upside Down, a popular song whose words in part
expressed the sentiments of the day:

If ponies rode men and grass ate cows,
And cats were chased into holes by the mouse . . .
If summer were spring and the other way round,
Then all the world would be upside down.
In all, more than 7,000 soldiers surrendered at Yorktown. Additionally,
more than 200 artillery pieces and enormous stores of small arms and
ammunition ended up in allied hands. Nevertheless, the last shots of the
war had not been
heard. Fighting, much of it bitter, would continue in the South for a
number of months. In late 1781, the British still had 30,000 soldiers in
America and controlled the vital cities of Charleston, Savannah and New
York. It was not until October 24 that Clinton’s fleet arrived; he was
apprised of the surrender and promptly returned to New York.

1. The Americans did not abide strictly by the terms of the Saratoga
surrender, claiming a technical violation of the agreement, and continued
to hold British and German soldiers in detention in Virginia.

2. Nearly 7,000 soldiers were detained for varying terms in prison camps in
Virginia, Pennsylvania and Maryland.
waggg
2004-12-12 19:05:10 UTC
Permalink
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,11069086%5E401,00.html

Anger over US election 'France-bashing'
From correspondents in Washington

FRANCE'S Ambassador to the United States Jean-David Levitte has condemned
what
he called the France-bashing rhetoric of the US presidential campaign.

"As the French ambassador, I consider that during the last few weeks
we have been a bit too much, as France, the punching bag of the electoral
debate," Levitte said in comments at Johns Hopkins University's School of
Advanced International Studies in Washington.

"I cannot accept to see France, the French citizens, or French companies
used as a tool of the campaign," he said.

Levitte referred specifically to recent press allegations that France
conspired with deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to bilk the
UN Oil for Food program of millions of dollars - an allegation which France

has denied.

"I think it's fair to say that the United Nations did its best," he said.
"It was a good program. Was it perfect? Of course not," he said,
in remarks made in English.

He declined to answer a question about his preference between White House
contenders US President George W Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry.

"It is the privilege of each American to choose his or her president,"
Levitte said. "I'm not an American and I've nothing to say in the electoral
campaign."

"What is important for two friends and allies like the United States
and France is to make sure that whatever the choice... of the American
people, we'll be in a position to work well together," Levitte added.

The ambassador acknowledged that Paris and Washington have disagreed over
the US-led war in Iraq, but said those differences, for the most part,
have been resolved.

"If we have different views about Iraq, on all the other issues we worked
well, and we continue to work well, and it is important after November
the 2nd to continue to do an even better job, if possible," Levitte said.

Agence France-Presse
waggg
2004-12-12 19:05:33 UTC
Permalink
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17082-2004Nov1.html

French Push Limits in Fight On Terrorism
Wide Prosecutorial Powers Draw Scant Public Dissent

By Craig Whitlock
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, November 2, 2004; Page A01

PARIS -- In many countries of Europe, former inmates of the U.S. military
prison at

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have been relishing their freedom. In Spain, Denmark
and

Britain, recently released detainees have railed in public about their
treatment at

Guantanamo, winning sympathy from local politicians and newspapers. In
Sweden, the

government has agreed to help one Guantanamo veteran sue his American
captors for

damages.

Not so in France, where four prisoners from the U.S. naval base were
arrested as

soon as they arrived home in July, and haven't been heard from since. Under
French

law, they could remain locked up for as long as three years while
authorities

decide whether to put them on trial -- a legal limbo that their attorneys
charge is

not much different than what they faced at Guantanamo.

Armed with some of the strictest anti-terrorism laws and policies in
Europe, the

French government has aggressively targeted Islamic radicals and other
people

deemed a potential terrorist threat. While other Western countries debate
the

proper balance between security and individual rights, France has
experienced scant

public dissent over tactics that would be controversial, if not illegal, in
the

United States and some other countries.

French authorities have expelled a dozen Islamic clerics for allegedly
promoting

hatred or religious extremism, including a Turkish-born imam who officials
said

denied that Muslims were involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the
United

States. Since the start of the school year, the government has been
enforcing a ban

on wearing religious garb in school, a policy aimed largely at preventing
Muslim

girls from wearing veils.

French counterterrorism officials say their preemptive approach has paid
off,

enabling them to disrupt plots before they are carried out and to prevent
radical

cells from forming in the first place. They said tips from informants and
close

cooperation with other intelligence services led them to thwart planned
attacks on

the U.S. Embassy in Paris, French tourist sites on Reunion Island in the
Indian

Ocean and other targets.

"There is a reality today: Under the cover of religion there are
individuals in our

country preaching extremism and calling for violence," Interior Minister
Dominique

de Villepin said at a recent meeting of Islamic leaders in Paris. "It is
essential

to be opposed to it together and by all means."

Thomas M. Sanderson, a terrorism expert with the Center for Strategic and

International Studies in Washington, said France has combined its tough law


enforcement strategy with a softer diplomatic campaign in the Middle East
designed

to bolster ties with Islamic countries.

"You do see France making an effort to cast itself as the friendly Western
power,"

as distinct from the United States, he said. "When it comes to
counterterrorism

operations, France is hard-core. . . . But they are also very cognizant of
what

public diplomacy is all about."

France has embraced a law enforcement strategy that relies heavily on
preemptive

arrests, ethnic profiling and an efficient domestic intelligence-gathering
network.

French anti-terrorism prosecutors and investigators are among the most
powerful in

Europe, backed by laws that allow them to interrogate suspects for days
without

interference from defense attorneys.

The nation pursues such policies at a time when France has become well
known in the

world for criticizing the United States for holding suspected terrorists at


Guantanamo without normal judicial protections. French politicians have
also loudly

protested the U.S. decision to invade Iraq, arguing that it has exacerbated


tensions with the Islamic world and has increased the threat of terrorism.

Despite the political discord over Iraq, France's intelligence and
counterterrorism

officials say they work closely with their American counterparts on
terrorism

investigations.

With the largest Muslim population in Europe, France is being closely
watched in

neighboring countries, many of which are tightening their own anti-terror
and

immigration laws. But even following the Sept. 11 attacks and the March 11
bombings

of commuter trains in Madrid, other European countries have been reluctant
to fully

embrace the French model, part of a legal tradition from the Napoleonic era
that

has always given prosecutors strong powers.

Britain, for instance, typically takes years to extradite terrorism
suspects to

other countries and has respected the free-speech rights of imams who
praise Osama

bin Laden, the al Qaeda leader, and endorse holy war. Until three years
ago,

Germany did not ban membership in a foreign terrorist organization such as
al Qaeda

as long as it didn't operate inside the country.

Many of the anti-terror laws and policies in France date to 1986, when the
country

was grappling with Palestinian and European extremist groups. Since then,
the

government has modified and expanded those laws several times, gradually
giving

authorities expanded powers to deport and detain people.

French Push Limits in Fight On Terrorism


'High Pressure Zones'

Terrorism is "a very new and unprecedented belligerence, a new form of war
and we

should be flexible in how we fight it," said Jean-Louis Bruguiere, a senior
French

anti-terrorism judge. "When you have your enemy in your own territory,
whether in

Europe or in North America, you can't use military forces because it would
be

inappropriate and contrary to the law. So you have to use new forces, new
weapons."

At times, French authorities have pursued terrorism cases outside their
borders,

taking over investigations from countries unwilling or unable to arrest
suspects on

their own.

Last year, Christian Ganczarski, a German national and alleged al Qaeda
operative,

arrived in Saudi Arabia for a religious pilgrimage to Mecca. A Muslim
convert who

became a personal acquaintance of bin Laden, Ganczarski was suspected by
French

authorities of helping to organize the April 2002 bombing of a synagogue in
Djerba,

Tunisia, which killed 21 people.

Saudi officials prepared to deport Ganczarski back to Germany, but when
German

officials indicated they lacked the evidence to arrest him, Saudi
authorities

arranged a detour, putting him on a flight with a connection through Paris.
When

Ganczarski arrived at Charles de Gaulle Airport on June 2, 2003, he was
detained

for questioning by French police.

Seventeen months later Ganczarski remains in a French jail, under
investigation for

alleged conspiracy in the Tunisian attack. French investigators have
claimed

jurisdiction in the case because French nationals were among the casualties
in the

Tunisia attack.

Also last year, French counterterrorism officials tipped off the Australian


government that a visiting French tourist, Willie Brigitte, was allegedly
part of a

terrorist cell in Sydney that was planning attacks during rugby World Cup
events

there. Lacking direct evidence of their own, Australian officials deported
Brigitte

to France in October 2003, where he was arrested. He also remains in jail,
where he

is subject to regular interrogations.

The French anti-terrorism judge overseeing both cases is Bruguiere, an

investigating magistrate who under French law is granted great
prosecutorial

powers, including the ability to sign search warrants, order wiretaps and

interrogate suspects.

Over the past decade, Bruguiere has ordered the arrests of more than 500
people on

suspicion of "conspiracy in relation to terrorism," a broad charge that
gives him

leeway to lock up suspects while he carries out investigations.

"There is no equivalent anywhere else in Europe. This provision is very,
very

efficient for judicial rule in tackling terrorist support networks,"
Bruguiere said

in an interview. "Fighting terrorism is like the weather. You have high
pressure

zones and low pressure zones. Countries that have low pressure zones"
attract

terrorism.

'Erosion of Civil Liberties'

Bruguiere estimated that 90 percent of the defendants he has indicted and
brought

to trial have been convicted. Critics assert, however, that most people
arrested on

orders of anti-terrorism judges in France never face terror-related charges
and

eventually are freed. Official statistics on French terrorism prosecutions
are not

readily available, so it is difficult to assess the outcome of such cases.

William Bourdon, a Paris attorney representing Nizar Sassi and Mourad
Benchellali,

two of the four French nationals released from Guantanamo Bay in July, said
his

clients were rearrested not because they were suspected of any crimes in
France,

but merely because they had gone to Afghanistan before the U.S.-led
invasion in

2001.

Under French law, his clients could remain jailed for up to three years
until

authorities complete their investigation. "What has been done here is
absolutely

unfair," he said. "There's a high level of inhumanity in the decision."

Michel Tubiana, a lawyer and president of the Human Rights League in
France, told

the story of a chicken vendor he once represented to illustrate how easy it
is for

suspects to be arrested under French anti-terror laws.

He said the vendor, Hakim Mokhfi, was detained in June 2002 after
authorities

learned he had gone to a camp in Pakistan before Sept. 11, 2001, and knew a
person

who was an acquaintance of Richard C. Reid, the Briton who pleaded guilty
in the

United States to charges of trying to blow up an American Airlines flight
with

explosives concealed in his shoes in December 2001.

On three occasions over the past five months, Tubiana said, outside judges
assigned

to review the vendor's case have set deadlines for investigating
magistrates to

either indict or release him. The deadlines have passed, but his client
remains

locked up, court documents show. "There is in fact no control" over these

magistrates, he said. "They are all-powerful."

Tubiana cited a new law enacted last year that drops a requirement for
French

anti-terror police to have an eyewitness when carrying out a search
warrant. The

requirement had been intended to prevent the planting of fake evidence.


"There has been a definite erosion of civil liberties in France, and not
just with

terrorism," Tubiana said. "We're seeing things that would have been
unthinkable 10

years ago."

At the same time, Tubiana and other defense attorneys acknowledged that
French

counterterrorism investigators generally make efficient use of the tools at
their

disposal.

The Directorate of Surveillance of the Territory, the domestic intelligence
agency,

employs a large number of Arabic speakers and Muslims to infiltrate radical
groups,

according to anti-terrorism experts here. Police are also quick to use the
threat

of preemptive arrest to persuade suspects to work as street informants.

Targeting Clerics

The French government has also stepped up efforts to crack down on radical
Islamic

clerics. While authorities have long had the right to expel foreigners if
they are

judged a threat to public safety, lawmakers passed a bill this year that
makes it

possible to deport noncitizens for inciting "discrimination, hatred or
violence"

against any group.

The target of the new law: an Algerian-born imam named Abdelkader Bouziane,
a

cleric living in Lyon who was originally expelled from the country in April
after

he publicly urged Muslims to attack U.S. targets in France and later told
an

interviewer that it was permissible for men to engage in polygamy and beat
their

wives. Bouziane was allowed to return after an appellate court ruled in his
favor,

but under the modified law was deported last month to Algeria.

Bruno Le Maire, a senior adviser to the interior minister, said authorities
have

placed about 40 mosques under close surveillance and move quickly whenever
they

find a cleric preaching radicalism.

"There's not a direct link between what these imams say and terrorism, but
there

are indirect links that can be dangerous to democracy and the security of
our

country," he said. "So we have to be very careful with these people."

Other countries, including the United States, have long-standing policies
that

restrict law enforcement agents from infiltrating places of worship. So
far,

however, France's aggressive approach has not led to widespread criticism.

Dalil Boubakeur, rector of the Grand Mosque of Paris, said many Muslims
support the

expulsions and are just as concerned about preventing terrorist attacks as
other

French citizens. "We find the public arrogance of these extremists
completely

intolerable," he said. "Fundamentalism is on the rise. . . . This is a real
danger.

The state should take measures against these types of people that disrupt
society,

not only when there is a terrorist attack, but before."

Special correspondent Maria Gabriella Bonetti contributed to this report.
==
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1101030623-458768,00.html

One Reason To Still Love The French
France's help in the war on terror has been praiseworthy
By BRUCE CRUMLEY AND STEVE ZWICK

Jun. 23, 2003
Subscribe below to instantly access this article - and over 30,000 articles
in the TIME Archive. Your unlimited access will remain free during your
paid subscription to TIME magazine.Many in the U.S. administration deplored
France's intransigence over the war on Iraq. But they have little to
complain about when it comes to the war on terrorism. French authorities
tell TIME that the June 2 arrest near Paris of Christian Ganczarski, 36, a
German alQaeda sympathizer who allegedly traveled often to
terrorist-training camps in Afghanistan, was carried out by French
intelligence services working closely with their U.S. counterparts.
Ganczarski left Germany last November and surfaced in late April in Saudi
Arabia, where authorities decided to expel him. But U.S. officials,...

To continue reading the complete article, login or subscribe below and get
free instant access. Get 12 issues of TIME for only $4.95

The complete article is 276 words long.
waggg
2004-12-12 19:06:20 UTC
Permalink
Who's behind the oil-for-food scandal?
By Jude Wanniski

Jude Wanniski is a former associate editor of The Wall Street Journal,
expert on supply-side economics and founder of Polyconomics, which helps to
interpret the impact of political events on financial markets.


Wednesday 08 December 2004, 14:03 Makka Time, 11:03 GMT

Once it became clear some months ago that Saddam Hussein had been telling
the truth about not having weapons of mass destruction or connections to
al-Qaida, it should have been an embarrassment to the neo-conservatives who
talked President George Bush into war with Iraq.
They were not in the least embarrassed, though, because they had known well
before the invasion that Saddam had done everything he could possibly do to
assure the world that he was no threat to the region, the US and the world.
Their intent all along was no secret: They wanted "regime change" to fit
their plans for an American empire, with a permanent outpost in Baghdad.
To do this, they had to clear out all the obstacles in their path - which
meant open assaults on the international institutions that had been
developed to prevent war, through diplomacy backed by the threat of
sanctions.
This meant demeaning the United Nations, the UN Monitoring, Verification
and
Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) inspectors of chemical and biological
weapons under Hans Blix, and the International Atomic Energy Agency under
Muhammad al-Baradai.
France, Germany, Russia and China had become obstacles to regime change in
Baghdad, either at the UN Security Council or at Nato, or both.
To neutralise them with American public opinion, the neo-cons used their
contacts in the news media to broadcast the argument that these countries
were pursuing selfish interests related to Iraq's oil.
Out of this soup came the "oil-for-food scandal" which now threatens to
bring down UN General-Secretary Kofi Annan and besmirch the UN and its
affiliated institutions.
A headline in the 4 December New York Times warns: "Annan's post at the UN
may be at risk, officials fear."
It's clear enough the neo-cons and the news outlets that do their bidding
are behind the "scandal" story.
In the Times account, Richard Holbrooke, the ambassador to the United
Nations under president Bill Clinton and an Annan backer, said: "The danger
now is that a group of people who want to destroy or paralyse the UN are
beginning to pick up support from some of those whose goal is to reform
it."
Yes, but what's going on? Where's the scandal?

On the surface, there has yet to be found a single person with his hand in
the UN cookie jar. All that has appeared to date are assertions that
various
people associated with the management of the oil-for-food programme in Iraq
and the UN benefited financially through shady transactions.
It is further alleged that UN officials looked the other way as Saddam
Hussein arranged kickbacks of billions of dollars that went into foreign
bank accounts, with inferences that he was using the cash to finance his
military machine and international terrorism, build palaces to aggrandise
himself, all the while diverting money from the intended recipients - the
poor Iraqi people.
To put all this in perspective, remember that Saddam was the duly
constituted head of state in Iraq, his government not only officially
recognised by the US during the Iran/Iraq war, but also was given palpable
support in the war.
Why he invaded Kuwait in 1990 is another story, but it is now absolutely
clear his dispute was only with the emir of Kuwait and not any other
country
in the Middle East.
It has now also been shown that Iraq had met the conditions of the UN
Security Council post-Gulf war resolution which demanded he destroy his
unconventional weapons before economic sanctions could be lifted and the
Iraqi government could resume the sale of oil.
From this vantage point, it was the UN that took possession of the oil
resources of the Iraqi people.
By rough reckoning, I find that if the sanctions had been lifted in 1991
(when they should have been lifted), Iraq would have earned enormous
amounts
of money from the sale of their oil. At an average of $10 a barrel of oil
(bbl) over 14 years, they would have collected $126 billion.
At a more reasonable average over the period of $15 to $20, the Iraqi
government would have been able to pay all its creditors and at the same
time enable the Iraqi people to return to the high living standards they
enjoyed before the Iran-Iraq war (during which, I repeat, the US supported
Iraq).
It was because of the UN economic sanctions that persisted because of
US/British insistence that the oil-for-food programme came into existence
in
1996.
This was partly the result of UN reports that 1.5 million Iraqi civilians
had died because of the malnutrition and disease engendered by the
sanctions.
More directly, it was because president Clinton bombed Iraq in early
September 1996 during his re-election campaign that year, on the
information
that Baghdad had violated the "no-fly zone" over Iraqi Kurdistan.
It turned out Saddam did not violate the "no-fly zone" but had sent troops
on the ground to Kurdistan at the request of the provincial government,
which had come under attack by Iranian-backed Kurds.
The reason? Economic distress, with the region suffering from the same
malnutrition and disease afflicting all of Iraq.

The Kurds are the friends of the neo-conservatives. They had to be helped
out of this distress. Hence, the oil-for-food programme, designed to
relieve
all Iraqi citizens, but mostly Kurds, who would get the lion's share of the
relief from the oil revenues.
I'm not sure about all the details of how the programme was managed in the
years since. But when the neo-cons raised the corruption issue at the UN
through their friends in the news media, Annan finally saw he had to
respond.
He said he would investigate the allegations and persuaded former Federal
Reserve chairman Paul Volcker - arguably the most respected, squeaky clean
political figure in America - to undertake the investigation and make a
report, which is expected sometime next month.
Annan has rejected calls for his resignation coming from a US Republican
Senator Norman Coleman of Minnesota.
Without naming him, it was clearly Coleman to whom he referred at a press
conference last weekend when he said: "My hope had been that once the
independent investigative committee had been set up [under Volcker], we
would all wait for them to do their work and then draw our conclusions and
make judgments. This has not turned out to be the case."
Why were Annan's hopes dashed by Coleman, a freshman senator who chairs the
permanent subcommittee on investigations?
My educated guess is that the neo-cons who continue to have serious
influence on the Bush administration through Vice-President Dick Cheney's
office, knew full well that if the Volcker commission did its job honestly,
it would be able to report that the oil-for-food programme worked pretty
much as it was designed to work.
It would have found that nothing criminal or corrupt was done and that even
Saddam had done nothing any other head of state in his shoes would not have
done under similar circumstances.
It is perfectly obvious that Coleman saw a chance to make a splash with
assertions that corruption at the UN was already a known fact.
His "smoking gun" was the news that Kofi Annan's son received payments of
$150,000 over several years from a company that was a contractor in the
oil-for-food programme.
Where did this news come from? The New York Sun, a tiny newspaper founded
by
Canadian mogul Conrad Black four years ago as a mouthpiece for the
neo-cons.
Richard Perle, the most prominent of the neo-con intellectuals who misled
Bush to war with Iraq, has been a long time partner of Conrad Black and a
director of the Jerusalem Post, one of Black's many media holdings.
Perle is also the guiding light for Rupert Murdoch's Fox News media empire,
plus the National Review, and a galaxy of staff members of both political
parties in the US Congress.
Claudia Rosett, who writes for the Wall Street Journal's editorial page,
was
assigned to take on Volcker and in several articles has practically painted
him as a lapdog of Kofi Annan, at the very least a foot-dragger who should
already be able to condemn the UN for corruption.

The game plan is of course to force Volcker to issue a report that smears
the UN and threatens it with a cut-off of US funds unless there is a house
cleaning.
But what if Volcker finds that the only "wrong" was committed by the
Baghdad
government in selling Iraq's own oil to its neighbours, particularly to
Turkey and Jordan, and that the revenues were deposited in state bank
accounts and used for legitimate state reasons?
We also know the oil that went through the hands of the UN agency set up to
make sure the revenues went to the people, not to the Iraqi government,
also
had to have the cooperation of Baghdad in lifting the oil and delivering
it.
A 2.5% "kickback", as it has been termed by Rosett, Coleman and the neo-con
press corps, can be more properly be termed a "fee" for facilitating this
process.
If these fees were paid into the government, not to numbered bank accounts,
the regime would have to be judged clean on that count by Volcker. He is in
a tight spot.
What about the damning report of Charles Duelfer and his Iraqi Survey
Group,
which announced last month that Saddam Hussein destroyed all of his weapons
of mass destruction and their programmes in 1991?
In his report, he also brought up the oil-for-food programme, which was
never part of his mission when he was appointed by Bush to check further
into Iraq's WMD intentions.

Duelfer, who could not pretend to have found WMD when none existed, clearly
used the oil-for-food programme to distract attention from his central
finding.
The report gratuitously contained the thesis that if Saddam someday wanted
to rebuild his WMD capabilities, he could be using the programme to that
end, with the complicity of the French, Russians, Chinese, United Nations
and major oil companies.
Logic should tell you, though, that the neo-cons have been behind this hoax
from the start, that they never intended to lift the sanctions on Iraq even
while knowing back in 1991 that Saddam almost certainly had complied with
that first UN resolution.

The Iraqis who are in a position to clear all this up and demonstrate that
while certain transactions might appear suspicious on the surface, but can
be fully explained, are not available for testimony.
The regime is under lock and key and not available to Rosett or Coleman.
Volcker presumably has access to them, but is not sharing his findings with
the US Congress, which he is not required to do.
His report to the UN will be made public and judgments can then be made. It
may be there is no scandal at all. Just another trick of the
neo-conservatives to blow away anyone who gets in the way of their plans
for
a global empire.
waggg
2004-12-12 19:07:34 UTC
Permalink
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/daily/2004/0409b.html

In Praise of Cowards
by Bill Bonner
Editor, The Daily Reckoning
Date, 2004

The Daily Reckoning PRESENTS
How did the word 'French' become synonymous with 'yellow-belly'? Bill
Bonner peruses the blood-stained pages of history...

"Rien ne saurait interrompre les actions généreusement bienfaisantes de
la France en Indochine."
(Nothing can stop the generous good works of France in Indochina
[Vietnam].)
- Indo-China Governor-General Pierre Pasquier, 1930

A joke made its way around the Internet following the train bombings in
Madrid:

"In response to the terrorism events in Madrid, the French government
announced a change in its alert status...from 'run' to 'hide.' If the
threat worsens, the French may be forced to increase their level of
security, declaring a move to 'surrender' or 'collaboration' status as
events develop."

One of the many conceits Americans permit themselves is that they
bravely face up to the world's terrorist menace, while others - most
notably, the French - cower in fear.

Elsewhere, in the International Herald Tribune, comes a letter to the
editor in which the writer takes issue with an apparently widespread
report that John Kerry is worried about looking "too French" and that
this is a sign of "weakness" in the eyes of the lumpen voters.

We stop still in our tracks. We hold our breath. There must be a price
to be paid for such arrogant dumbo-ism. But Americans are ready to
believe anything - if it flatters them.

Anyone who has ever cracked open a history book couldn't help but know
that French history is drenched in blood. When it came to butchering
each other, what the Gaullic tribes didn't know about it probably wasn't
worth knowing. And then, there were the wars with the Romans...and with
the English...and religious wars...and wars with between
princes...between kingdoms...wars for no reason. Weakness? Cowardice? A
group of Norman French fighters no bigger than a small-town police force
invaded and captured all of England. Bonaparte took on all of
Europe...and almost beat them all.

General Marbot records an incident in the campaign against Russia in
which a group of French soldiers is cut off from the main force, but
visible from the Emperor's commandpost. Realizing that they could not
expect reinforcements, the brigade sent a message to Bonaparte - 'We,
who are about to die, salute you.' Then, they fought to the last man.

Later this month comes the anniversary of the Battle of Camerone.
Napoleon's nephew sent troops to Mexico in the 1860s. In the action
surrounding the siege of Puebla, a group of 60 French foreign
legionnaires was cut off and confronted by an army of 2,000 Mexicans.
The Mexican commander asked for a surrender. Instead, the French vowed
to fight to the last man. Trapped in an inn, the soldiers had nothing to
eat or drink. Then, the Mexicans set the place on fire.

"In spite of the heat and smoke," explains a report on the Internet,
"the legionnaires resisted, but many of them were killed or injured. By
5 pm on April 30, 1863, only 12 men could still fight with 2nd
Lieutenant Maudet. At this time, the Mexican colonel gathered his
soldiers and told them what a disgrace it would be if they were unable
to defeat such a small number of men. The Mexicans were about to give
the general assault through the holes opened in the walls of the
courtyard...[they] once again asked Lieutenant Maudet to surrender. Once
again, Maudet scornfully refused.

"The final charge was given. Soon, only 5 men were left around Maudet;
Corporal Maine, legionnaires Catteau, Wensel, Constantin, and Leonard.
Each had only one bullet left. In a corner of the courtyard, their backs
against the wall, still facing the enemy, they fixed bayonets. When the
signal was given, they opened fired and fought with their bayonets.
Luitenant Maudet and 2 legionnaires fell, mortally wounded. Maine, along
with his 2 remaining companions, were about to be slaughtered when a
Mexican officer saved them. He shouted: 'Surrender!'

"'We will, only if you promise to allow us to carry and care for our
injured men and if you leave us our guns.'

"'Nothing can be refused to men like you,' answered the officer."

And this spring also marks the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Dien
Bien Phu. Writer Graham Greene visited the French just before the
shooting started. He found them well supplied - with 48,000 bottles of
wine. But after the Vietnamese terrorists captured the airstrips, the
French were cut off and doomed. Still, they held out - hoping a
diplomatic solution could be found. It did not come.

After a 56 day siege, French general de Castries radioed his superior in
Hanoi: "I'm blowing up the installations. The ammunition dumps are
already exploding. Au revoir."

"Well then," came the reply, "au revoir, mon vieux."

After the fall of Indo-China, the French renounced their "civilizing
mission" foreign policy. Now, it is America that tromps over the planet,
claiming to make the world a better place.

But when it comes to blockheaded bellicosity and desperate courage,
Americans have nothing to teach the French.

In comparison to Napoleon's grand campaigns, America's early wars were
piddling, tawdry affairs. Its wars against the Mexicans and Spaniards,
for example, were more sordid than glorious. Even its Revolutionary War
was merely a minor engagement in comparison to the Napoleonic wars, and
only won because the French intervened at a crucial moment to pull
Americans' chestnuts out of the fire. Here, we quote Charles W. Eliot's
history, in which he describes how the patriots had fallen "into a
condition of despondency from which nothing but the steadfastness of
Washington and the Continental army and the aid from France saved them."

In WWI, the French battered themselves against the Germans for two years
- and suffered more casualties than America had in all its wars put
together - before the Pershing ever set foot in France. Again, in WWII,
Americans waited until the combatants had been softened up...before
entering the war with an extraordinary advantage in fresh soldiers and
almost unlimited supplies.

Americans have no history. Probably just as well. The French, on the
other hand, have too much. Practically every street in Paris reminds
them of a slaughter somewhere. Upon the Arc de Triomphe, Les Invalides,
and dozens of other piles of stone, the names of towns in Germany,
Spain, Italy, Poland, Russia...or North Africa...are inscribed. Each one
marks the deaths of thousands of French soldiers - gone early to their
graves for who-remembers-what important national purpose. Every town in
France, even the most remote and forlorn little burg, has at its center
a pillar of granite or marble - with the names of the men whose bodies
were torn to bit by flying lead or corroded by some battlefield disease.
A whole race of orphans grew up after WWI...and special seats on the
subway were designated for those "mutilated in war" including thousands
of "sans gueules" - men who had had their jaws blown away and yet
survived, too horrible to look upon.

The French have had enough of war - at least for now. Let them enjoy a
well-earned cowardice. We will get our chance.

Regards,

Bill Bonner
The Daily Reckoning
waggg
2004-12-12 19:08:01 UTC
Permalink
Are you referring to this kind of cowardice ?

http://www.napoleonguide.com/battle_nile.htm

The Nile
1 August 1798

<blabah>

The Nile was a stunning victory for Nelson with only four enemy
vessels escaping.

Note:

Courage and determination have never been more impressively
characterised than those of Dupetit Thouars, captain of the
Tonnant, during the Battle of the Nile. Thouars had his right
arm shot away, then the left and finally one of his legs was taken
off by a cannonball. Refusing to give up command, he insisted on
being put in a tub of bran that was on deck and led his men until
he collapsed from blood loss. One of his final orders was to nail
the Tricolour to the mast so it could not taken down in surrender.

--

Or maybe about this kind ?


General Marbot records an incident in the campaign against Russia in
which a group of French soldiers is cut off from the main force, but
visible from the Emperor's commandpost. Realizing that they could not
expect reinforcements, the brigade sent a message to Bonaparte - 'We,
who are about to die, salute you.' Then, they fought to the last man.

Later this month comes the anniversary of the Battle of Camerone.
Napoleon's nephew sent troops to Mexico in the 1860s. In the action
surrounding the siege of Puebla, a group of 60 French foreign
legionnaires was cut off and confronted by an army of 2,000 Mexicans.
The Mexican commander asked for a surrender. Instead, the French vowed

to fight to the last man. Trapped in an inn, the soldiers had nothing
to eat or drink. Then, the Mexicans set the place on fire.

"In spite of the heat and smoke," explains a report on the Internet,
"the legionnaires resisted, but many of them were killed or injured.
By 5 pm on April 30, 1863, only 12 men could still fight with 2nd
Lieutenant Maudet. At this time, the Mexican colonel gathered his
soldiers and told them what a disgrace it would be if they were unable

to defeat such a small number of men. The Mexicans were about to give
the general assault through the holes opened in the walls of the
courtyard...[they] once again asked Lieutenant Maudet to surrender.
Once again, Maudet scornfully refused.

"The final charge was given. Soon, only 5 men were left around Maudet;

Corporal Maine, legionnaires Catteau, Wensel, Constantin, and Leonard.

Each had only one bullet left. In a corner of the courtyard, their
backs against the wall, still facing the enemy, they fixed bayonets.
When the signal was given, they opened fired and fought with their
bayonets.
Luitenant Maudet and 2 legionnaires fell, mortally wounded. Maine,
along with his 2 remaining companions, were about to be slaughtered
when a Mexican officer saved them. He shouted: 'Surrender!'

"'We will, only if you promise to allow us to carry and care for our
injured men and if you leave us our guns.'

"'Nothing can be refused to men like you,' answered the officer."

And this spring also marks the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Dien
Bien Phu. Writer Graham Greene visited the French just before the
shooting started. He found them well supplied - with 48,000 bottles of

wine. But after the Vietnamese terrorists captured the airstrips, the
French were cut off and doomed. Still, they held out - hoping a
diplomatic solution could be found. It did not come.

After a 56 day siege, French general de Castries radioed his superior
in Hanoi: "I'm blowing up the installations. The ammunition dumps are
already exploding. Au revoir."

"Well then," came the reply, "au revoir, mon vieux."
--
excerpt from :

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/daily/2004/0409b.html
waggg
2004-12-12 19:19:48 UTC
Permalink
boycott / trade France USA.

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c4279.html
--
http://wichita.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/2004/07/19/daily11.html

Airbus reports $7B sale at air show
David Dinell
Tuesday has turned out to be a busy day for the Boeing Co.'s chief rival,
Airbus. The aircraft maker said it has signed a $7 billion deal to deliver
24 jets to Middle Eastern carrier Etihad Airways.


The deal also includes four of Airbus' new 550-seat A380 jets. The wings
for that jumbo jet are being designed at an Airbus facility in Wichita's
Old Town district.

The deal was announced at the Farnborough International Air Show, where
more than 300,000 are estimated to view displays from 1,300 exhibitors.

The $7 billion sale surpasses a $2.9 billion deal the Boeing Co. reported
Monday at the air show. Aircraft manufacturers typically use air shows as
venues for announcing major deals, which usually have been in the works for
months before.

© 2004 American City Business Journals Inc.

--
In May, there some success for Washington when American troops attacked and
captured Fort George, which overlooked the mouth of the Niagara River.
The 700 British defenders retreated followed by some 2100 Americans. The
pursuers may have been too eager to follow the redcoats and were caught by
surprise when the British abruptly turned around and stood at Stony Creek.
Despite their huge advantage in numbers the Americans were routed.
--
In March 2003, O'Reilly called for a boycott of French products and
services sold in the United States due to President Jacques Chirac's stance
on the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The boycott is focused on high-profile French
products such as cheese, wine, cosmetics, and bottled water, in addition to
French-owned companies conducting business in the U.S., such as Air France.
[19] (http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/community/contactcenter.jsp)

Critics contend that that any effect the boycott has on France's $1.65
trillion (USD) GDP would be minimal. O'Reilly counters this by saying that
French exports to America have declined significantly. State Rep. Mark B.
Cohen of Philadelphia, a leading opponent of a proposal to legally ban the
sale of French wine in Pennsylvania, appeared on The O'Reilly Factor on May
8, 2003, and expressed "surprise" that he received only favorable responses
from O'Reilly's audience. "O'Reilly's ability to rally them for an
anti-free trade position was clearly limited," he said. However, O'Reilly
himself was opposed to legal bans on French products, saying he preferred
citizen boycotts. "You might have convinced me," he told Cohen on the air.

On April 27, 2004, O'Reilly said on The Factor that the Paris Business
Review stated that France had lost "millions of dollars", suggesting that
this was because of his boycott. Subsequent investigations by various
watchdog groups, specifically Media Matters, showed that there is no
publication of that name in France. O'Reilly has since stated that it was a
publication by a different name that he got the information from; however,
he has not named this publication.

A little more than a year after his call for the boycott, O'Reilly stated
that his claims regarding France's supposed financial problems were backed
by U.S. government data. [20]
(http://www.nydailynews.com/07-06-2004/news/ideas_opinions/story/209331p-180428c.html)
However, statistics given by Media Matters show only a $288 million (USD),
or 6%, drop in imports to the U.S. from France during the first two months
of O'Reilly's boycott when compared to the same time period (March and
April) of the previous year, and that even larger drops had occurred prior
to O'Reilly's boycott. They also state that "it is meaningless to draw
conclusions from only two months of data". [21]
(http://www.mediamatters.org/items/200407080001)
waggg
2004-12-12 19:24:16 UTC
Permalink
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10874-2003Apr11?language=printer

The Ghosts of 1991

By Peter W. Galbraith
Saturday, April 12, 2003; Page A19


Can it be that the events of 2003 in Iraq have finally dispelled the ghosts
of 1991? The answer may not be quite as obvious as the welcoming throngs
make it seem.

Just 12 years ago, the Shiite Muslims who constitute a majority in Iraq and
in the city of Baghdad were betrayed by the United States -- an act that
may have cost them as many as 100,000 lives. That recent history -- of
which the Shiites are understandably a good deal less forgetful than we --
explains why the Shiites in the south initially greeted invading American
and British forces with a good deal more reserve than expected. And as the
continuing turmoil in southern towns and cities makes clear, building a
democratic state in Iraq over the long term will depend to a large degree
on how strong and lasting a trust we can build among these people.

The spontaneous Shiite uprising of 1991 consumed the southern part of Iraq
right up to the approaches to Baghdad. Rebels came to U.S. troops, who were
then deployed in the Euphrates Valley, begging for U.S. intervention. The
Shiite political parties sent emissaries to the few Americans who would see
them. To this day, I am haunted by the desperation in the appeals made to
me by one group, as they realized time was running out for their
countrymen.

Many of the problems we face now and in the future with Shiites likely have
to do with the way the first Bush administration responded to those
appeals. On Feb. 15, 1991, President George H.W. Bush called on the Iraqi
military and people to overthrow Saddam Hussein. On March 3, an Iraqi tank
commander returning from Kuwait fired a shell through one of the portraits
of Hussein in Basra's main square, igniting the southern uprising. A week
later, Kurdish rebels ended Hussein's control over much of the north.

But although Bush had called for the rebellion, his administration was
caught unprepared when it happened. The administration knew little about
those in the Iraqi opposition because, as a matter of policy, it refused to
talk to them. Policymakers tended to see Iraq's main ethnic groups in
caricature: The Shiites were feared as pro-Iranian and the Kurds as
anti-Turkish. Indeed, the U.S. administration seemed to prefer the
continuation of the Baath regime (albeit without Hussein) to the success of
the rebellion. As one National Security Council official told me at the
time: "Our policy is to get rid of Saddam, not his regime."

The practical expression of this policy came in the decisions made by the
military on the ground. U.S. commanders spurned the rebels' plea for help.
The United States allowed Iraq to send Republican Guard units into southern
cities and to fly helicopter gunships. (This in spite of a ban on flights,
articulated by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf with considerable swagger: "You fly,
you die.") The consequences were devastating. Hussein's forces leveled the
historical centers of the Shiite towns, bombarded sacred Shiite shrines and
executed thousands on the spot. By some estimates, 100,000 people died in
reprisal killings between March and September. Many of these atrocities
were committed in proximity to American troops, who were under orders not
to intervene.

In recent years Baghdad has shortchanged the south in the distribution of
food and medicine, contributing to severe malnutrition among vulnerable
populations. Some 100 Shiite clerics have been murdered, including four
senior ayatollahs. Draining the marshes displaced 400,000 Marsh Arabs,
destroying a culture that is one of the world's oldest, as well as causing
immeasurable ecological damage.

The first Bush administration's decision to abandon the March uprising was
a mistake of historic proportions. With U.S. help, or even neutrality, the
March uprising could have succeeded, thus avoiding the need for a second
costly war. (Bush's defenders insist the United States had no mandate to
carry the war to Baghdad, but this is beside the point. The uprising
started after the Gulf War ended, and the United States was positioned to
easily down Iraqi helicopters and halt Iraqi tanks.)

The current President Bush cannot escape these ghosts. An American may
understand what happened in 1991 as carelessness -- inexcusable but not
malicious. An Iraqi Shiite saw a superpower that called for a rebellion and
then ensured its failure. Naturally, he assumed this was intentional. In
the months and years to come, many Shiites may take a lot of convincing
about U.S. motives and reliability.

President George W. Bush has done much right that his father did wrong. His
administration has been in constant contact with the Iraqi opposition.
Humanitarian supplies are being rushed to southern Iraq, and clear warnings
were issued against those who might have committed atrocities in the first
days of the invasion. Unfortunately, the president carries a national and
family legacy that many Iraqis associate with deadly betrayal. Overcoming
that legacy has only begun. It is one of the critical challenges that lie
ahead.

The writer, a former U.S. ambassador to Croatia, is a professor at the
National War College. He was in rebel-held Iraq during the 1991 uprising.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...