I really don't get that either, John. I would feel great about having a leader that could speak to another leader in a foreign language. If Bush speaks Spanish, that's wonderful. If Kerry speaks French, that is one step to having better relations with the EU.
English, French, and German are the three biggest EU languages. Just as people speak German in Germany, southern Denmark, Austria, Switzerland, people also speak French in Belgium, Switzerland, and border areas of France and Italy.
Tony Blair speaks French. Does that somehow make him wine sipping swine?
And where did this animosity towards the French come from?
Yes, they were liberated in 1944, but they weren't the only ones under Hitler's yoke. The Netherlands were occupied as well, as were Denmark and Norway. Then you had countries that just said "Ok, come on in" like Switzerland and Sweden.and then there's the whole eastern half of Europe that was mowed over and thrown in a mass grave
But when this dispute over the Iraq war occurred, it was France who caught the most negativity of the American press, because they somehow owed us the most..

Now I understand that the French have seething anti-American sentiment - probably because they think we are fat and uneducated and violent (which is very true to an extent) and since their ability to speak our langauge is so limited by their own phonetic abilities they are easy to make fun of.
But, hey, the Italians are notorious chauvanists. and the Danes - I don't want to tell you how many times I was told that I was hated because I was an American when I lived in Denmark.
It took awhile to get used to.
But you are right. My friend's Dad - who is a Limbaugh lover and owns, along with many guns, a video collection of Ronlad Reagan's finest moments - calls John Kerry, John French Kerry.
Absolutely nuts isn't it?

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Flicka

HC,

Unfortunately it seems that almost all news has become politicized. These is neither a failure of the Left or the Right, but rather a result of the great division in America.
When it comes to Ted Rall's cartoon, which no doubt offended a lot of people, you have a throwback to 1968-era Lefty activism where the actual soldiers are to be faulted. Rall's cartoon places all of the blame on the administration's policies in the cartoon, but at the same timeTillman is faulted as a "sad idiot."
This is the knee jerk reaction by many on the Left, who do see the United States as a real threat, a rogue state piloted by big energy and military men.

That's true, and it's refreshing to see it admitted. What you say about Bush and the GOP's campagin tactics also has all too much truth in it.

But I was talking about something else, as well.

There are many in the national media who tend to regard miliarty personnle in general as idiots. Even when they are well disposed toward them on some point, there is a strong dose of condescension that they don't appear to be conscious of in it. During the actual Iraq invasion a year ago, some of the 'embeded' reporters were in amazement at the intelligence, dedication, and knowledge of some of the military personnel they were meeting, I think because it never ever occurred to them that such a thing might be. I could hear the surprise in their voices.

The assumption tends to be, too often, that military personnel are in the service because they are uneducated, or financially forced there, or otherwise not really there because they chose to be, or believe in what they are doing.

Now, as with any large organization, you can find examples of anything you want to find there. But the 'they're uneducated hicks' view seems to be the default for much of the American media. They hide it better now than they used to, but I knew as soon as the Tilman story broke that it wouldn't be long before the condescension came through.

Wes Clark said as much in his Rolling Stone interview. He said something to the effect of "your traditional army guy is your poor kid from the south who just got married and can't make ends meet, or your misguided kid from the south who is looking for a change in his life"
The journalists that are over there are probably very high up in their careers (some people would actually like to go there )
They are careerists, and they have probably had little contact with people in the military.
Think about the lesson I had growing up. My father was drafted, and many of his friends died in Vietnam. He was a poor kid, and has always had a bit of a grudge against the government for sending the poor blue collar kids to die for, well for people like George W. Bush.
So I learned the lesson very early on that you shouldn't trust your life in the hands of the government, they are liable to piss it away in some jungle over their own egos.
That might feed into the Ted Rall thing last night - although I saw him on O'Reilly and I have to say he did a poor job of representing himself.
But I noticed that at the same time you had O'Reilly salivating over the evil American left and Ted Rall, you had Paula Whatshername on CNN talking with the woman who took those photos of the coffins and was fired.
There are your two memes.
1) (Fox) the American left make us weak. They are disrespectful. They are ignorant.
2) (CNN) the American government is secretive and is witholding information from its people. They don't want you to know how many people are dying for their mistakes.

That damn Liberal Media is at it again!!! :shock: :shock:

(Posted for discussion purposes only)

Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush



May 5, 2004
Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush
By JIM RUTENBERG

WASHINGTON, May 4 ? The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and Miramax said Tuesday.

The film, "Fahrenheit 911," links Mr. Bush and prominent Saudis ? including the family of Osama bin Laden ? and criticizes Mr. Bush's actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Disney, which bought Miramax more than a decade ago, has a contractual agreement with the Miramax principals, Bob and Harvey Weinstein, allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, like an excessive budget or an NC-17 rating.

Executives at Miramax, who became principal investors in Mr. Moore's project last spring, do not believe that this is one of those cases, people involved in the production of the film said. If a compromise is not reached, these people said, the matter could go to mediation, though neither side is said to want to travel that route.

In a statement, Matthew Hiltzik, a spokesman for Miramax, said: "We're discussing the issue with Disney. We're looking at all of our options and look forward to resolving this amicably."

But Disney executives indicated that they would not budge from their position forbidding Miramax to be the distributor of the film in North America. Overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies, executives said.

"We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax," said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore's agent. "That decision stands."

Disney came under heavy criticism from conservatives last May after the disclosure that Miramax had agreed to finance the film when Icon Productions, Mel Gibson's company, backed out.

Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.

"Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him," Mr. Emanuel said. "He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved."

Disney executives deny that accusation, though they said their displeasure over the deal was made clear to Miramax and Mr. Emanuel.

A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company had the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films if it deemed their distribution to be against the interests of the company. The executive said Mr. Moore's film is deemed to be against Disney's interests not because of the company's business dealings with the government but because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film, which does not have a release date, could alienate many.

(Funny, Disney is always being targeted by the religious right for being too friendly to gay people, and that doesn't seem to have fazed them too much. What's different about this?)

"It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle," this executive said.

Miramax is free to seek another distributor in North America, but such a deal would force it to share profits and be a blow to Harvey Weinstein, a big donor to Democrats.

Mr. Moore, who will present the film at the Cannes film festival this month, criticized Disney's decision in an interview on Tuesday, saying, "At some point the question has to be asked, `Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' "

Mr. Moore's films, like "Roger and Me" and "Bowling for Columbine," are often a political lightning rod, as Mr. Moore sets out to skewer what he says are the misguided priorities of conservatives and big business. They have also often performed well at the box office. His most recent movie, "Bowling for Columbine," took in about $22 million in North America for United Artists. His books, like "Stupid White Men," a jeremiad against the Bush administration that has sold more than a million copies, have also been lucrative.

Mr. Moore does not disagree that "Fahrenheit 911" is highly charged, but he took issue with the description of it as partisan. "If this is partisan in any way it is partisan on the side of the poor and working people in this country who provide fodder for this war machine," he said.

Mr. Moore said the film describes financial connections between the Bush family and its associates and prominent Saudi Arabian families that go back three decades. He said it closely explores the government's role in the evacuation of relatives of Mr. bin Laden from the United States immediately after the 2001 attacks. The film includes comments from American soldiers on the ground in Iraq expressing disillusionment with the war, he said.

Mr. Moore once planned to produce the film with Mr. Gibson's company, but "the project wasn't right for Icon," said Alan Nierob, an Icon spokesman, adding that the decision had nothing to do with politics.

Miramax stepped in immediately. The company had distributed Mr. Moore's 1997 film, "The Big One." In return for providing most of the new film's $6 million budget, Miramax was positioned to distribute it.

While Disney's objections were made clear early on, one executive said the Miramax leadership hoped it would be able to prevail upon Disney to sign off on distribution, which would ideally happen this summer, before the election and when political interest is high.

[quote="Flicka"]
Wes Clark said as much in his Rolling Stone interview. He said something to the effect of "your traditional army guy is your poor kid from the south who just got married and can't make ends meet, or your misguided kid from the south who is looking for a change in his life"
[quote]

Wes Clark's favorite soldier (Wes Clark) is correct to a point. They do tend to be from the lower strata of the socio-economic pyramid, and uneducated into the bargain. They are not dullards however. They are uneducated in the sense that anyone who has only a high school diploma at 18 to 20 years of age is uneducated. By that same reasoning, everyone at Harvard is uneducated. It would interest the good General (and presumably anyone who read that interview) to know that the favorite pastime of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines of all ranks and rates is not, as some would believe, doing stupid things while under the influence of intoxicating beverages or posing Iraqi prisoners in undignified positions, but actually going to school. I am associated with many enlisted Air Force folks right now who are in their mid-to late 20s who are participating in a Masters program in their spare time. They all earned their undergraduate degrees while on active duty as well. They are increasingly the norm and not the exception. This is not Montgomery Clift?s mumble-mouthed Private Pruitt in From Here To Eternity. Today?s military member, both officer and enlisted, is an intelligent, well educated, dedicated ?professional? in their chosen field of endeavor. Had he actually spent time with anyone below the rank of Colonel after putting on his second star, Wesley Clark would have been aware of that fact.

These people do what they do, because they believe it is important. Just as a stock broker or doctor believes what they do is important. Pat Tillman was merely the extreme case of ?career sacrifice? in this regard. Most male children I knew growing-up would have loved to play a child?s game and earn millions of dollars and the adulation of masses for the privilege. To some, Tillman was nuts for giving it all up for $18K and statistically greater chance of being killed or injured, even in training, than those odds associated with his previous career. Tillman, for reasons best known to him, as they are to all of us who serve/served, believed it was important that he make that career sacrifice. Since few of us give serious consideration to the ?ultimate sacrifice,? I will not presume to know his mind in that regard. One needs to understand however that his case is only a matter of degree. Thousands of senior enlisted and officer personnel forgo much more lucrative careers in the civilian sector after a certain point in their military careers. Their military training and accumulated college degrees make them very attractive hires relative to the fresh-faced college student last seen appearing in the latest installment of Girls Gone Wild. They stay in the military even though they know that by staying, their earning power in the civilian sector decreases with every year in uniform beyond about their 35th birthday. They stay, not because they cannot do anything else, but precisely because they can, and they believe that serving their country, even when the country does not understand them, is more important than financial gain. That the media does not understand this says far more about the Fourth Estate than it does about GI Joe.

Originally Posted by Mike Eagen

They stay in the military even though they know that by staying, their earning power in the civilian sector decreases with every year in uniform beyond about their 35th birthday. They stay, not because they cannot do anything else, but precisely because they can, and they believe that serving their country, even when the country does not understand them, is more important than financial gain. That the media does not understand this says far more about the Fourth Estate than it does about GI Joe.

Mike, I just want to say again that I do appreciate your input here. Wes Clark was off base (as he so often is).

I would add that I think "the media" is actually doing a pretty good job at portraying the US military as a very professional, highly trained organization. The US military knows how to win wars.

Beyond that, I don't think they are nearly as good at occupying a foreign country.

Mike, if I may ask -- I'm very, very concerned about the role of these non-military contracted personnel over in Iraq and how it looks like these folks may have helped perpetrate the worst of the prison abuses. Could you comment on this when you have the time?

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by Mike Eagen

They stay in the military even though they know that by staying, their earning power in the civilian sector decreases with every year in uniform beyond about their 35th birthday. They stay, not because they cannot do anything else, but precisely because they can, and they believe that serving their country, even when the country does not understand them, is more important than financial gain. That the media does not understand this says far more about the Fourth Estate than it does about GI Joe.

Mike, I just want to say again that I do appreciate your input here. Wes Clark was off base (as he so often is).

I would add that I think "the media" is actually doing a pretty good job at portraying the US military as a very professional, highly trained organization. The US military knows how to win wars.

Beyond that, I don't think they are nearly as good at occupying a foreign country.

Mike, if I may ask -- I'm very, very concerned about the role of these non-military contracted personnel over in Iraq and how it looks like these folks may have helped perpetrate the worst of the prison abuses. Could you comment on this when you have the time?

I'd be interested in this, too, Mike. I'd also like to know how you feel about involking a draft. Seems to me we need one so that our wars are not fought entirely by members of a military cult.

--Croak

Originally Posted by Flicka

I would feel great about having a leader that could speak to another leader in a foreign language.

"I would feel great about having a leader that could speak to another (American) in (his native) language (English)."

If Bush speaks Spanish, that's wonderful.

He doesn't. He doesn't speak English either. What is his native language anyway?

And where did this animosity towards the French come from?

Their unwarranted pride. They think they are superior, number one! For example, they were too good to join NATO; they had to steer their own "superior" course between East and West.

But I actually like the French. I fail to understand how they or anybody else can possibly conclude that Jerry Lewis is a comedy genius, but so long as I speak their own language to them, I don't pay for a single round of cognac all night long. And that is AWESOME!

Frenchies, you can keep Sartre, Camus, and foot cheese. But thanks for Yorktown and thanks for all the free cognac!

Originally Posted by Flicka

And where did this animosity towards the French come from?

Because there is a tendency, in both France and America, to see themselves (nationally) as the natural 'center' around which the rest of the West (or sometimes the world) 'should' rotate, and the standard by which the rest of the world should be measured. Manifest Destiny and the French Exception are manifestations of this.

That's why France is so obsessive about English displacing French in EU standard usage, and as the world's major second language. Not so long ago, French was the default second language, and the language of diplomacy and the aristocracy.

It's also why France is so sensitive about the fact that their effective power in the world has slipped so much, relative to America's. If the positions were reversed, the resentment would be, also.

Ever since World War II, a recurring French bugaboo was being perceived as a 'satellite' of America. In terms of military and political power, they nearly were that, and they resented it. America would have resented it too, if it had been France that emerged as the dominant power in the West, and for similar reasons (though the excuses would be different).

That's why France made such a point of insisting that the force du frappe be set up to be targeted either east or west. There was no real chance of them using it against Britain and America, but de Gaulle was reasserting French freedom of action, insisting that France was still a power to be reckoned with. It's also why NATO membership was always such a sticky point.

To this day, a recurring (if rarely voiced) fear among the Eurocrats in Brussels is that if a test ever comes when France must choose between their own national self-interest in a serious way and preserving the EU, that they would let the EU go hang. The recent handling of the 'stability pact' regarding deficit spending did not reassure the doubters.

My point is that the reason America and France tend to get on each other's nerves so easily as is that, deep down, they are so much alike.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by Mike Eagen

They stay in the military even though they know that by staying, their earning power in the civilian sector decreases with every year in uniform beyond about their 35th birthday. They stay, not because they cannot do anything else, but precisely because they can, and they believe that serving their country, even when the country does not understand them, is more important than financial gain. That the media does not understand this says far more about the Fourth Estate than it does about GI Joe.

Mike, I just want to say again that I do appreciate your input here. Wes Clark was off base (as he so often is).

I would add that I think "the media" is actually doing a pretty good job at portraying the US military as a very professional, highly trained organization.

They are doing a lot better than they used to. I've noticed that myself. But at the same time, the condescension sometimes shows through, and some of them, I suspect, would really like to find something negative that they could plausibly call a legitimate story.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by Mike Eagen

They stay in the military even though they know that by staying, their earning power in the civilian sector decreases with every year in uniform beyond about their 35th birthday. They stay, not because they cannot do anything else, but precisely because they can, and they believe that serving their country, even when the country does not understand them, is more important than financial gain. That the media does not understand this says far more about the Fourth Estate than it does about GI Joe.

Mike, I just want to say again that I do appreciate your input here. Wes Clark was off base (as he so often is).

I would add that I think "the media" is actually doing a pretty good job at portraying the US military as a very professional, highly trained organization. The US military knows how to win wars.

Beyond that, I don't think they are nearly as good at occupying a foreign country.

Mike, if I may ask -- I'm very, very concerned about the role of these non-military contracted personnel over in Iraq and how it looks like these folks may have helped perpetrate the worst of the prison abuses. Could you comment on this when you have the time?

I'd be interested in this, too, Mike. I'd also like to know how you feel about involking a draft. Seems to me we need one so that our wars are not fought entirely by members of a military cult.

--Croak

Gladly. Some who have been here awhile may remember me railing against the direction I saw the armed forces going in with regard to outsourcing back in the 1998 time-frame. I raised questions then about the appropriateness of the presence of civilians on the battlefield in large numbers, but it seems members of both parties in Congress were hell bent on making this happen. Contractors of a sort have been with us of course for a long time (the merchant marine is a prime example), but the current program that includes such subsystems as the Army?s Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) date only to the early 1990s and carry the involvement to a heretofore unknown level. One of my concerns was the status of such personnel relative to the Geneva Convention. The Convention does take such status into account so long as the personnel are provided with a Geneva Convention Identity Card (analogous to the military ID) which provides them the legal protection afforded by the Convention. That aside, I had great concerns as well vis-?-vis the motivations of such people. Let?s face it, when money is the driving factor, such concepts as chain of command, esprit de corps, and military discipline (which doesn?t really apply in any case) kind of goes out the widow.

In any event, when last I was dealing with this topic in the Pentagon, my understanding was that most civilian ?augmentation? would be in the form of logistics support. I never looked that closely, but I do not recall that work in prisons or in security in a big way was being anticipated. I would have thought then, and I do think now that this is a mistake (although these security contractors are far from amateurs, being mostly former SEALs, Rangers, etc.). However, it is a mistake that, like many other errors in judgment running up to 9/11, had its roots in this quixotic quest to downsize the uniformed military and the intelligence services, and not necessarily a mistake engendered only in the Iraq scenario.

Be that as it may, you get what you pay for, and in this case, the price being paid by the U.S. is the appearance of national policy being dictated by the lowest common denominator, to wit: a bunch of junior people and contractors apparently operating without adequate supervision. I have to laugh at this National Guard one-star running around pleading her case that she didn?t know what was going on and so that should somehow absolve her from any responsibility. You know what? I honestly believe she didn?t know what was going on, but whether she did or didn?t, that is not how the game is played; a fact she knows full well. With high rank and command responsibility in the military, one IS at the mercy of those lowest common denominators and one had better have done a good job of training them or else one is sent packing, and in this case, that might include the additional baggage of ?war crimes? along for the ride. All of us who rise to that level know this, as we have seen the mighty fall more than a time or two along the way because one of our people screwed-up. If you want proof, just look at the number of Navy ship commanding officers that have been ?relieved for cause? in the past year. Trust me, it is large and growing. Why? Who the hell knows, but the bottom line is that when you say, ?I relieve you sir or ma?am? it?s yours, warts and all, and you had better break out the industrial strength Compound W and cure those warts or you will be on the fast track to civilian life, or worse, prison.

At the risk of sounding like Phillip Francis Queeg, ?Then there was the Geneva Convention training!? It was published some days ago that these reprobates are claiming that they never got training in the Geneva Convention. They are correct, the Convention runs to some 200 pages and is written by lawyers for lawyers, and as a practical military training document it is worse than useless. That said, the basics are broken down to about an eighth grade level and disseminated starting in boot camp and at regular intervals throughout one?s career. If these people are indeed claiming they have never had training in the Convention then I am forced to conclude that: a) training breakdowns of major proportions have occurred at several junctures over a period of years with these individuals, or; b) they are lying. I think you know where I stand.

On the whole I think there are a number of people here who are in need of punishment and are in fact going to receive it. I further am of the opinion that the Army, once made aware of the problem was taking all of the right steps vis-?-vis due process. To date there are reportedly 20 investigations ongoing and there have already been several Article 32 proceedings (analogous to Grand Jury) that have recommended courts martial and the like. All of this was happening without benefit of major news disclosure. Why do I mention this last point? Simply, I believe the public has a right to know, and I believe the public would have been made aware, but I also believe that there is a time and place for everything, and CBS?s running of that story was neither the time, nor the place. You may or may not agree with why we are there and what we are doing, but I have tried on more than one occasion to make people understand that the folks we are fighting understand both their and our respective strategic centers of gravity far better than most Americans, and CBS has played well to theirs at the risk of ours. More to the point, the resultant inflammation of so called ?Arab street? has probably put more American lives at risk in that theater at a time when the troops have more than enough on their plates. I often wonder how the bastards at 50 Rock sleep at night, but then, that would be expressing more human compassion for their sorry lives than they have shown for my brothers and sisters in uniform. So I say, ?F*** ?em!?

Croak, I have discussed the draft situation at length in the past, but here is the Reader?s Digest version. Retention in all four services, is, counter-intuitively (at least to most civilians) ?up,? especially among troops who have served in Iraq. Enlistments, which had risen post-9/11 have plateau-ed (still at a higher level than pre-9/11), but that has as much to do with an improving economy (as it always does) as it does events ongoing in Iraq. There is still a lot of the strategic reserve that can be tapped before any serious consideration is given to a draft. Recruiters are so far able to recruit to the congressionally mandated end strength. Should an extra 30,000 bump be needed to the Army end strength, the recruiters would have a tougher but not impossible time of it. For one thing, the standards which are actually quite high could be widened to include holders of GEDs rather than the current requirement that one be a high school grad. This is a force shaping tool that has been used since the inception of the All Volunteer Force and I have no doubt it will be used again.

But more to your question regarding whether a draft is a good thing. Notwithstanding your use of pejorative term ?cult? when speaking about career service members, as a former military leader I can say without fear of qualification that I much prefer leading volunteers. As a strictly pragmatic matter, I figure my chances of survival are far better when someone who wants to be there has my back rather than some rich asshole?s son who could give a f*** less whether I or any of his compatriots live or die. On the other hand, I have also said on record that a couple of years in the military (and not some bullshit Kumbaya national service) would do a lot to improve the civic knowledge of the average American. And yes, maybe we wouldn?t be blind and reckless now and then. Moderation in all things is never a bad motto to live by, but I fear that some future administration might suffer from ?paralysis by analysis? when the use of a conscript force is contemplated. This isn?t the 19th or even the later half of the 20th Century anymore, and we can?t hide behind our oceans. One needs to know that the force is ready, willing and able to respond at an instance notice, and not smacked out in their barracks. That is the difference between a ?cult? and a conscript culture. Any of us who have dealt at length with NATO know who the swimmers are. They can be counted on one hand without using all of the fingers and they all have ?cults? vice ranks populated by Joe Shit the Ragman.

From the mailing list. Standard disclaimers apply.

Gore To Launch TV Network

Al Gore "plans to build a youth-oriented cable television network he hopes will become an independent voice in a media industry dominated by large conglomerates," Wired reports.

"Gore led an investor group that bought Newsworld International from Vivendi Universal for an undisclosed sum. He plans to relaunch the yet-unnamed channel to focus on public affairs and entertainment for 18-to-34-year-olds and it will not have a political affiliation."

But it will not be a left-leaning network as some had rumored. "This is not going to be a liberal network, or a Democratic network in any way, shape, or form," Gore insisted.

Digital Spy notes the network "currently reaches around fourteen million households, far behind other more established news networks such as CNN which reaches eighty-six million homes."

CNN notes Gore's investment partner is Democratic fund-raiser Joel Hyatt.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Seems to me we need one so that our wars are not fought entirely by members of a military cult. --Croak

Is limnology a cult? Inquiring minds really want to know! :lol:

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Flicka

And where did this animosity towards the French come from?

Because there is a tendency, in both France and America, to see themselves (nationally) as the natural 'center' around which the rest of the West (or sometimes the world) 'should' rotate, and the standard by which the rest of the world should be measured. Manifest Destiny and the French Exception are manifestations of this.

That's why France is so obsessive about English displacing French in EU standard usage, and as the world's major second language. Not so long ago, French was the default second language, and the language of diplomacy and the aristocracy.

It's also why France is so sensitive about the fact that their effective power in the world has slipped so much, relative to America's. If the positions were reversed, the resentment would be, also.

Ever since World War II, a recurring French bugaboo was being perceived as a 'satellite' of America. In terms of military and political power, they nearly were that, and they resented it. America would have resented it too, if it had been France that emerged as the dominant power in the West, and for similar reasons (though the excuses would be different).

That's why France made such a point of insisting that the force du frappe be set up to be targeted either east or west. There was no real chance of them using it against Britain and America, but de Gaulle was reasserting French freedom of action, insisting that France was still a power to be reckoned with. It's also why NATO membership was always such a sticky point.

To this day, a recurring (if rarely voiced) fear among the Eurocrats in Brussels is that if a test ever comes when France must choose between their own national self-interest in a serious way and preserving the EU, that they would let the EU go hang. The recent handling of the 'stability pact' regarding deficit spending did not reassure the doubters.

My point is that the reason America and France tend to get on each other's nerves so easily as is that, deep down, they are so much alike.

You have to wonder if that moment in 1066, when the French speaking Normans usurped the Anglo-Saxon monarchy, and became the wealthy, erudite upper class, still has an imprint in the minds of English speakers. Perhaps that is why the Frenchman is still seen as "cultured, refined, and snooty."
English is probably the leading EU language - basically thanks to the UK, Ireland, and Scandinavia - where English is very much a second language although the Nordic Council still uses Swedish.
But in the south, as far as I've noticed, English is still not as prevalent. The French, as well as the Italians, and Spanish, don't speak English that well.
I wonder if those three countries - which are among the largest in the EU - will have any kind of lingual impact.
I do think the eastern expansion will have an effect on that. Polish, Czech, and Slovak are mutually intelligible languages, and Slovenian isn't that different. Perhaps we will see more slavic languages in EU dialogues.

Originally Posted by Mike Eagen

All of this was happening without benefit of major news disclosure. Why do I mention this last point? Simply, I believe the public has a right to know, and I believe the public would have been made aware, but I also believe that there is a time and place for everything, and CBS’s running of that story was neither the time, nor the place. You may or may not agree with why we are there and what we are doing, but I have tried on more than one occasion to make people understand that the folks we are fighting understand both their and our respective strategic centers of gravity far better than most Americans, and CBS has played well to theirs at the risk of ours. More to the point, the resultant inflammation of so called “Arab street” has probably put more American lives at risk in that theater at a time when the troops have more than enough on their plates. I often wonder how the bastards at 50 Rock sleep at night, but then, that would be expressing more human compassion for their sorry lives than they have shown for my brothers and sisters in uniform. So I say, “F*** ‘em!”

Thank you for your reply, Mike.

I would just add that, whether or not I (or any other American citizen) supports the war, it is being conducted in our name, and our tax dollars are going to pay for it. I believe it is my right to see what those dollars are purchasing. CBS, Sy Hersh, or whoever it is -- they are doing their jobs in telling us what's going on. This goes beyond whether or not Americans support this particular war. This is a matter of basic human decency and how it has been violated.

I can't help going back to my studies of social psychology and thinking once more about the work that Stanley Milgram did about blind obedience and the work that Philip Zimbardo did with his college student prisoner/guard experiment. Any time you find yourself in a position where you have control over a vulnerable population, you are in danger of becoming a perpetrator yourself. This is really no different than the stories you read about abuses in nursing homes and group homes.

I say this because I have been in that caretaker/controller position myself, and I have seen abuse, and I have experienced the temptation to abuse.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

I would just add that, whether or not I (or any other American citizen) supports the war, it is being conducted in our name, and our tax dollars are going to pay for it. I believe it is my right to see what those dollars are purchasing. CBS, Sy Hersh, or whoever it is -- they are doing their jobs in telling us what's going on. This goes beyond whether or not Americans support this particular war. This is a matter of basic human decency and how it has been violated.

Then I can only conclude madam that you are a hell of a lot more cold blooded than I when it comes to sacrificing our personnel in uniform, because whether you want to believe it or not, that is what you are endorsing in your support of these people and institutions at this particular juncture. More will die because CBS, etc. are "doing their jobs." BTW, I am one cold blooded SOB so I think I know one when I see one.

A Meme

Originally Posted by Mike Eagen

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

I would just add that, whether or not I (or any other American citizen) supports the war, it is being conducted in our name, and our tax dollars are going to pay for it. I believe it is my right to see what those dollars are purchasing. CBS, Sy Hersh, or whoever it is -- they are doing their jobs in telling us what's going on. This goes beyond whether or not Americans support this particular war. This is a matter of basic human decency and how it has been violated.

Then I can only conclude madam that you are a hell of a lot more cold blooded than I when it comes to sacrificing our personnel in uniform, because whether you want to believe it or not, that is what you are endorsing in your support of these people and institutions at this particular juncture. More will die because CBS, etc. are "doing their jobs." BTW, I am one cold blooded SOB so I think I know one when I see one.

Oh bullsh*t. The point is that not one of those poor suckers should have died in Iraq because not a one of them should have ever been sent to Iraq in the first place. The sooner they are out of there the sooner they are safe. If everybody just stopped the demand to get those poor guys the hell out of there, that would only give our "masters" a free hand to continue killing them off there indefinitely, again for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Our "masters" could then look upon the American people and say "SUCKERS!" and "STUPID RUBES!" while justifiably lauging their asses off.

Those troops never should have been sent there in the first place so they should not be there now. Bring EVERY LAST ONE of those poor sods home IMMEDIATELY. That is the HIGHEST defense of the troops because it is the ONLY demand that they all continue living and loving their wives, children, parents, girlfriends, and beer drinking buddies instead of continuing to be sacrificed illegitimately to the Mammon-worship of our verminous Machiavellian/Luciferian "masters" in the White House. Bring them home and bring them home NOW.




Kiff, keep it up. Our system is now such a joke that it will not do a damn bit of good, but at least somebody still gives a damn about what is right, good, and just. You will note that "conservatives" have suddenly forfeited the role of "moral guardian" out of political expediency.

Mike Eagen:

Re: There is a time and place for everything...

Earlier today, confronted with the opinion that Rumsfeld should resign because the scandal was kept "under-the-radar", I expressed (I think) much the same opinion: that this whole affair has now become propaganda for our enemies, and more service members will die because of it.

Therefore, every week the issue was kept out of the glare of the media saved American lives.

If Rumsfeld resigns (which I doubt will happen, and doubt would be appropriate), it should not be because this was handled without the media circus. (Not informing the president is a different matter.)

Of course, the guilty should be punished, but that was going to happen anyway.

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

Originally Posted by Mike Eagen

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

I would just add that, whether or not I (or any other American citizen) supports the war, it is being conducted in our name, and our tax dollars are going to pay for it. I believe it is my right to see what those dollars are purchasing. CBS, Sy Hersh, or whoever it is -- they are doing their jobs in telling us what's going on. This goes beyond whether or not Americans support this particular war. This is a matter of basic human decency and how it has been violated.

Then I can only conclude madam that you are a hell of a lot more cold blooded than I when it comes to sacrificing our personnel in uniform, because whether you want to believe it or not, that is what you are endorsing in your support of these people and institutions at this particular juncture. More will die because CBS, etc. are "doing their jobs." BTW, I am one cold blooded SOB so I think I know one when I see one.

Oh bullsh*t. The point is that not one of those poor suckers should have died in Iraq because not a one of them should have ever been sent to Iraq in the first place. The sooner they are out of there the sooner they are safe. If everybody just stopped the demand to get those poor guys the hell out of there, that would only give our "masters" a free hand to continue killing them off there indefinitely, again for no legitimate reason whatsoever. Our "masters" could then look upon the American people and say "SUCKERS!" and "STUPID RUBES!" while justifiably lauging their asses off.

Those troops never should have been sent there in the first place so they should not be there now. Bring EVERY LAST ONE of those poor sods home IMMEDIATELY. That is the HIGHEST defense of the troops because it is the ONLY demand that they all continue living and loving their wives, children, parents, girlfriends, and beer drinking buddies instead of continuing to be sacrificed illegitimately to the Mammon-worship of our verminous Machiavellian/Luciferian "masters" in the White House. Bring them home and bring them home NOW.




Kiff, keep it up. Our system is now such a joke that it will not do a damn bit of good, but at least somebody still gives a damn about what is right, good, and just. You will note that "conservatives" have suddenly forfeited the role of "moral guardian" out of political expediency.

This is a not totally unexpected over-the-top diatribe that bears little resemblance to the reality of national security affairs with which I am familiar. But thank you for your contribution to national defense just the same.

Originally Posted by Mike Eagen

This is a not totally unexpected over-the-top diatribe that bears little resemblance to the reality of national security affairs with which I am familiar. But thank you for your contribution to national defense just the same.

There is nothing over the top about it. And, btw, the content of your response is typical for you (evasive and irrelevant argument from authority, etc.) and it unfortunately reinforces the fundamental dishonesty which you routinely exhibit here. You would have everybody here suspend all thought and just accept every word you say without question, even though the propaganda you regularly propagate as truth bears no resemblance to reality.

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

Originally Posted by Mike Eagen

This is a not totally unexpected over-the-top diatribe that bears little resemblance to the reality of national security affairs with which I am familiar. But thank you for your contribution to national defense just the same.

There is nothing over the top about it. And, btw, the content of your response is typical for you (evasive and irrelevant argument from authority, etc.) and it unfortunately reinforces the fundamental dishonesty which you routinely exhibit here. You would have everybody here suspend all thought and just accept every word you say without question, even though the propaganda you regularly propagate as truth bears no resemblance to reality.

The over-the-top performance is really Captain Eagen. He deserves an Oscar for his candid portray of a fascist with a heart of gold.
Mike, if you are fighting a war to defend a free press, then you must live with that free press. If you send soldiers over there who force their prisoners to give each other blowjobs and take photos of it to show their friends, then that is as much a reflection on your society as those burned corpses in Fallujah are a reflection on theirs.
You have to love and accept your country, Captain, worts and all, if you are going to be a true patriot and not be led down the easy path into fascism where the government controls the airwaves for the good of the people.
Remember, fascism doesn't happen over night, and it doesn't happen without the support of the public.
Violence and suppression of voices like ours (for our own benefit) will only increase as the split between your philosophy and ours diverges and external pressures make you more hysterical.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by Mike Eagen

All of this was happening without benefit of major news disclosure. Why do I mention this last point? Simply, I believe the public has a right to know, and I believe the public would have been made aware, but I also believe that there is a time and place for everything, and CBS?s running of that story was neither the time, nor the place. You may or may not agree with why we are there and what we are doing, but I have tried on more than one occasion to make people understand that the folks we are fighting understand both their and our respective strategic centers of gravity far better than most Americans, and CBS has played well to theirs at the risk of ours. More to the point, the resultant inflammation of so called ?Arab street? has probably put more American lives at risk in that theater at a time when the troops have more than enough on their plates. I often wonder how the bastards at 50 Rock sleep at night, but then, that would be expressing more human compassion for their sorry lives than they have shown for my brothers and sisters in uniform. So I say, ?F*** ?em!?

Thank you for your reply, Mike.

I would just add that, whether or not I (or any other American citizen) supports the war, it is being conducted in our name, and our tax dollars are going to pay for it. I believe it is my right to see what those dollars are purchasing. CBS, Sy Hersh, or whoever it is -- they are doing their jobs in telling us what's going on.

The story is legitimate, but they're 'doing their jobs' in playing up the sensational angle for all its worth, to maximize ratings, and in hiopes of damaging the Bush Administration. Let's not kid ourselves about their motivations.

In wartime, their actions increase the death rate among the military personnel and American civilians (and for that matter innocent bystanders) if they don't do their work very carefully. They are morally bound to a tighter standard in war coverage than in other matters.

The story could have been covered quite effectively without the semi-hysterical tone and the 'drip-drip' (quite intentional) of the photographs. Even the photos could have been shown, but note that they pick out, not the ones that make the point of the story best, but the ones that seem most lurid, esp. the ones with the females in them.

Note, too, the endless whine of 'why won't Bush apologize' that was being reiterated by almost every major news outlet in the last 24 hours. Why, or whether, Bush apologizes, and for what, is none of the media's concern, they're supposed to be covering a story, not editorializing about it. That they are making such a fuss about so trivial a detail betrays the actual agenda at work.

Originally Posted by Flicka

The over-the-top performance is really Captain Eagen. He deserves an Oscar for his candid portray of a fascist with a heart of gold.
Mike, if you are fighting a war to defend a free press, then you must live with that free press.

Right. And above all, truth (and truth alone) can defend itself against all comers. Those who adhere to truth, an objective standard apart from, and often at odds with, their own personal whims and desires, never feel an urge to censor such things. If the mission is founded upon truth, it will succeed no matter what is said about it in the media. On the other hand, if the mission is founded, not on truth, but on man's selfish desires, then it can and should fail such that justice is served. Those who wish to censor such truthful and important information are necessarily enemies of truth and, as such, have no credibility about anything. Obviously they should be ignored.

You know folks, unlike most of you, I don?t pretend to know much. My knowledge base is admittedly limited to the art of war, and I?ve long since quit caring what people think of me. But when I know a thing to be true, I say so. And I know that doing the type of reporting that CBS did is helping to get American service personnel killed. Some of you want to cut and run. That?s fine. It is your right to voice that opinion and vote in a manner to make that dream come true. But until such time as an order is given to execute that retreat, don?t try to tell me that this sort of reportage is not damaging to those on the ground because you are quite wrong. So at the risk of sounding like another over-the-top O-6, it appears to me that some of you can?t handle the truth and it really irritates you when someone rubs your nose in it. Please do continue to wag your collective fingers at me though; it forces me to pause to consider the source.

Jack did rock in that scene.