One more little bit of parsing on the Villepin comment re: terrorism didn’t exist in Iraq before the U.S. invasion.

What I want to know is did he actually say this in English for an American audience or was he smart enough to say this in French where only a public so sheltered from reporting could swallow it?

Yes, today in Iraq terrorist attacks by Baathists and Arabs bent on fear of democracy are a daily part of life. When Saddam held the reigns and a quarter million or so were killed, tortured and raped and the entire population lived in abject fear, these kinds of terrorists attacks were non-existent.

I also assume that when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan and al Qaeda ran their camps undisturbed that it was, as far as terrorists attacks are concerned, a very peaceful place.

Look French "leaders" are always a source of amusement and Villepin is as much a crowd pleaser on this front as anyone could hope. What’s shocking is that everything he says sounds perfectly sound to just about all Frenchman.

Oh well, as long as France remains something of a joke (and I don’t think the empire is any threat of returning in the next thousand years or so)then I guess we should just sit back and enjoy the show.

Lest We Forget

Look French "leaders" are always a source of amusement and Villepin is as much a crowd pleaser on this front as anyone could hope. What’s shocking is that everything he says sounds perfectly sound to just about all Frenchman. Oh well, as long as France remains something of a joke...

While the French position on Iraq appeared very Chamberlain-like, let us not forget that the French had a huge financial stake in keeping Saddam right where he was along with the 90s era status quo. Not only was billions in oil contracts at stake, France may have (we still don’t know for sure) a large hand in Iraq’s WMD program.

Hiding behind the two fingered peace sign was a smoke screen, imho.

The French position is laughable, but we must not forget that there are people in our own country that hold similar principles to Villepin. To those people, short term "safety" is the greatest good and war--whether or not it is declared against tyrants like Saddam Hussein, is a horrible crime. This is untenable in the world we know. As Hamilton said in Federalist 10: "If all men were angels, no government would be necessary..." and neither would there be any need for war. War is use of force in the service of righteousness just as is government, properly understood.

What I am saying is that we are acting on the same principles the founders acted on. We did not go to war in Iraq to create a government that enslaved the Iraqi people, just as the Declaration says that governments are created to secure the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our young men and the Iraqi people may be dying. Every death is a tragedy. But, unlike Kerry, I will not cheapen their sacrifice by saying that they died in an imperialist war that we should never have begun in the first place. Momentary security may be worse than it was before the war, but the long run will produce a safer world. Alt clearly outlines this in his essay when he says that the terrorists are being killed by our regular troops. Rather than waiting for terrorists to destroy our peaceful citizens at their workplaces, fighting in Iraq gives us a battlefield on which to engage the enemy and destroy the forces of evil.

War is a continuation of politics by other means. Obviously if the politics differ then the time at which other means must be employed differs also.

By the way, how are you doing Alan? I am stuck at Ft Sill, and as always rethinking my views... drop me an email and tell Templeton to do the same. [email protected]