On August 6, 1945 the American Air Force incinerated Hiroshima, Japan with an atomic bomb. On August 9 Nagasaki was obliterated. The fireballs killed some 175,000 people. They followed months of horror, when American airplanes firebombed civilians and reduced cities to rubble. Facing extermination, the Japanese surrendered unconditionally. The invasion of Japan was cancelled, and countless American lives were saved. The Japanese accepted military occupation, embraced a constitutional government, and renounced war permanently. The effects were so beneficent, so wide-ranging and so long-term, that the bombings must be ranked among the most moral acts ever committed.

The bombings have been called many things-but moral? The purpose of morality, wrote Ayn Rand, is not to suffer and die, but to prosper and live.

How can death on such a scale be considered moral?

The answer begins with Japanese culture. World War II in the Pacific was launched by a nation that esteemed everything hostile to human life.

Japan’s religious-political philosophy held the emperor as a god, subordinated the individual to the state, elevated ritual over rational thought, and adopted suicide as a path to honor. This was truly a Morality of Death. It had gripped Japanese society for three generations. Japan’s war with Russia had ended in 1905 with a negotiated treaty, which left Japan’s militaristic culture intact. The motivations for war were emboldened, and the next generation broke the treaty by attacking Manchuria in 1931 (which was not caused by the oil embargo of 1941).

It was after Japan attacked America that America waged war against Japan-a proper moral response to the violence Japan had initiated. Despite three and a half years of slaughter, surrender was not at hand in mid-1945. Over six million Japanese were still in Asia. Some 12,000 Americans had died on Okinawa alone. Many Japanese leaders hoped to kill enough Americans during an invasion to convince them that the cost was too high. A relentless “Die for the Emperor” propaganda campaign had motivated many Japanese civilians to fight to the death. Volunteers lined up for kamikaze “Divine Wind” suicide missions. Hope of victory kept the Japanese cause alive, until hopeless prostration before American air attacks made the abject renunciation of all war the only alternative to suicide. The Japanese had to choose between the morality of death, and the morality of life.

The bombings marked America’s total victory over a militaristic culture that had murdered millions. To return an entire nation to morality, the Japanese had to be shown the literal meaning of the war they had waged against others. The abstraction “war,” the propaganda of their leaders, their twisted samurai “honor,” their desire to die for the emperor-all of it had to be given concrete form, and thrown in their faces. This is what firebombing Japanese cities accomplished. It showed the Japanese that “this”-point to burning buildings, screaming children scarred unmercifully, piles of corpses, the promise of starvation-”this is what you have done to others. Now it has come for you. Give it up, or die.” This was the only way to show them the true nature of their philosophy, and to beat the truth of the defeat into them.

Yes, Japan was beaten in July of 1945-but had not surrendered. A defeat is a fact; an aggressor’s ability to fight effectively is destroyed.

Surrender is a decision, by the political leadership and the dominant voices in the culture, to recognize the fact of defeat. Surrender is an admission of impotence, the collapse of all hope for victory, and the permanent renunciation of aggression. Such recognition of reality is the first step towards a return to morality. Under the shock of defeat, a stunned silence results. Military officers no longer plan for victory; women no longer bear children for the Reich; young boys no longer play samurai and dream of dying for the emperor-children no longer memorize sword verses from the Koran and pledge themselves to jihad.

To achieve this, the victor must be intransigent. He does not accept terms; he demands prostrate surrender, or death, for everyone if necessary.

Had the United States negotiated in 1945, Japanese troops would have returned to a homeland free of foreign control, met by civilians who had not confronted defeat, under the same leaders who had taken them to war. A negotiated peace would have failed to discredit the ideology of war, and would have left the motivations for the next war intact. We might have fought the Japanese Empire again, twenty years later. Fortunately, the Americans were in no mind to compromise.

President Truman demonstrated his willingness to bomb the Japanese out of existence if they did not surrender. The Potsdam Declaration of July 26, 1945 is stark: “The result of the futile and senseless German resistance to the might of the aroused free peoples of the world stands forth in awful clarity as an example to the people of Japan . . . Following are our terms.

We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay . . . We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces . . . The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.”

The approach worked brilliantly. After the bombs, the Japanese chose wisely.

The method was brutally violent, as it had to be-because the war unleashed by Japan was brutally violent, and only a brutal action could demonstrate its nature. To have shielded Japanese citizens from the meaning of their own actions-the Rape of Nanking and the Bataan Death March-would have been a massive act of dishonesty. It would have left the Japanese unable to reject military aggression the next time it was offered as an elixir of glory.

After the war, many returning Japanese troops were welcomed by their countrymen not as heroes, but with derision. The imperial cause was recognized as bankrupt, and the actions of its soldiers worthy of contempt.

Forced to confront the reality of what they had done, a sense of morality had returned to Japan.

There can be no higher moral action by a nation than to destroy an aggressive dictatorship, to permanently discredit the enemy’s ideology, to stand guard while a replacement is crafted, and then to greet new friends on proper terms. Let those who today march for peace in Germany and Japan admit that their grandparents once marched as passionately for war, and that only total defeat could force them to re-think their place in the world and offer their children something better. Let them thank heaven-the United States-for the bomb.

Some did just that. Hisatsune Sakomizu, chief cabinet secretary of Japan, said after the war: “The atomic bomb was a golden opportunity given by Heaven for Japan to end the war.” He wanted to look like a peaceful man-which became a sensible position only after the Americans had won.

Okura Kimmochi, president of the Technological Research Mobilization Office, wrote before the surrender: “I think it is better for our country to suffer a total defeat than to win total victory . . . in the case of Japan’s total defeat, the armed forces would be abolished, but the Japanese people will rise to the occasion during the next several decades to reform themselves into a truly splendid people . . . the great humiliation [the bomb] is nothing but an admonition administered by Heaven to our country.” But let him thank the American people-not heaven-for it was they who made the choice between the morality of life and the morality of death inescapable.

Americans should be immensely proud of the bomb. It ended a war that had enslaved a continent to a religious-military ideology of slavery and death.

There is no room on earth for this system, its ideas and its advocates.

It took a country that values this world to bomb this system into extinction.

For the Americans to do so while refusing to sacrifice their own troops to save the lives of enemy civilians was a sublimely moral action. This destroyed the foundations of the war, and allowed the Japanese to rebuild their culture along with their cities, as prosperous inhabitants of the earth. Were it true that total victory today creates new attackers tomorrow, we would now be fighting Japanese suicide bombers, while North Korea-where the American army did not impose its will-would be peaceful and prosperous. The facts are otherwise. The need for total victory over the morality of death has never been clearer.

“Lebanon was the last straw. It proves that everything Bin Laden said was true: “They have come to take your land and your resources; they have come to shame your women and disgrace your culture; they have come to humiliate you in front of your children and heap ignominy on your religion.”

Where was he wrong? ”

Lebanon’s Expendable People

By Mike Whitney

07/19/06 “Information Clearing House” — – The most shocking thing about Israel’s assault on Lebanon is the dispassionate precision with which the bombardment has been carried out. From bridge to granary, from granary to power plant, from power plant to factory, from factory to mosque, from mosque to hospital, from hospital to apartment building; each decimated with the calm disdain of a surgeon removing a cancerous tumor. We get no sense of rage in Israel’s behavior, just the calculated savagery of men who see their duty as systematically decapitating an entire civilization and leaving it in ruins.

The destruction of Lebanon is the work of robots not men; unfeeling, remorseless bundles of skin and bone.

No one could have done what these men did in just seven days and be a part of the same human family as you and I.

So far, there is no indication that the captured Israeli soldiers have been hurt or mistreated. The leveling of a once-bustling and prosperous metropolis has been executed while the victims are still safely tucked away in some unknown hiding place. There’s no purpose for Israel’s rampage, the terms for release could have been negotiated in a “prisoner swap” as they have many times before. The bombing is purely a gratuitous act of violence intended to destroy a nation that just recovered from 18 years of Israeli occupation. Now Lebanon has been returned to the Stone Age.

Why?

Have the soldiers been tortured or abused as they would have been in American or Israeli care?

I hope not. I hope they are being treated well. I hope they are set free and allowed to walk southward through the scattered-rubble and body parts so they can appreciate what their leaders have done in their names. I hope they are released so that Hezbollah can claim a moral victory over the forces of inhumanity and cynicism that have infected the seats of government in Tel Aviv and Washington.

Whatever chance there may have been for peace is gone now. We have to be realistic. The next generation of Muslims will despise us and everything we stand for. No capital or city will be safe. The US and Israel are sowing dragon’s teeth throughout the Middle East and their bloody harvest will come in the decades ahead. Cheney was right, this war could last 50 years and not end in our lifetime.

Lebanon was the last straw. It proves that everything Bin Laden said was true: “They have come to take your land and your resources; they have come to shame your women and disgrace your culture; they have come to humiliate you in front of your children and heap ignominy on your religion.”

Where was he wrong?

Author and writer Pepe Escobar said it best: “The effect of the Israeli bombing barrage will be to draw newer, thicker waves of moderate Muslims toward political-and radical–Islam. The perception in the Arab street- as well as for most of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims-has been reinforced: the U.S./Israel axis seems to hold a license to kill Arabs with impunity.” (Pepe Escobar, “Leviathan Run Amok” Asia Times)

Escobar’s right. The lives of Muslims mean nothing. They’ve become the “expendable” people whose security simply doesn’t matter. Their wholesale slaughter appears regularly on the evening news while heart-wrenching stories are spun about the suffering of Israeli fathers and mothers who lost loved ones in retaliatory attacks.

Don’t Muslims have mothers and fathers? Is it so important to demonize them that they must be stripped of every trace of humanity including parents?

Where will these “expendable” people go as the world’s resources continue to dry up and their homelands are increasingly besieged?

Indonesia, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Afghanistan; where will they all go? Will they be shunted off to refugee camps or live as prisoners in their own land; be shot like dogs or stand and fight until the end?

How many will chose to join the growing ranks of jihadis and resistance groups plotting and planning to strike back in any way they can? How many will figure that it’s better to die on your feet than live on your knees?

Lebanon has paved the way for a century of war. It’s been ravaged and its people evacuated to settle scores with Hezbollah and create a buffer zone on Israel’s northern flank. The ruined lives are of no consequence. The city will be rebuilt by loans from the World Bank and IMF and the work will be contracted by Halliburton and Bechtel. We’ve seen it all before; the utter destruction of a society so that it can be placed in the hands of the global corporatists. Lebanon will be no exception.

Now that Israel’s northern flank has been “pacified” Olmert can turn his eyes eastward towards Damascus where the ophthalmologist Bashar Al-Assad will have to be toppled to secure pipeline routes from northern Iraq to Haifa. That way Israel will become a major player in this century’s resource wars and a leader in the region.

The geopolitical chess match is unfolding just as it was written years ago by neoconservatives who were dismissed at the time as radicals and lunatics. No one is laughing now. The 12 villagers who were massacred in Srifa yesterday by Israeli bombs aren’t laughing nor are the parents of the 11 children who were vaporized by an Israeli missile while taking a swim in a canal at Oasmia refugee camp.

This is the calculus of human misery; the deliberate killing of innocent people to achieve political objectives. It is no different than terrorism. Bush and Olmert are two men who have absolute confidence in the ability of violence to shape behavior. They are not concerned about the rivers of blood that feed their dreams. After all, those people are “expendable.”

They’re caricatured with hooknoses and humpbacks, as sucking up a sow’s excrement, murdering children for their blood in a recipe for matzoh. They’re scorned for being weak and sneered at for being strong, for passivity and aggression, for segregating themselves and for assimilating to disappear among their secular neighbors. They’re too studious or merely stupid, obsessed with cleanliness or living in filth, hated for their industry and reviled for their sloth. They’re condemned as greedy capitalists and naive communists, as reactionaries and radicals, patriotic nationalists and secular internationalists, for being stateless and for building a thriving state.

Jews are persecuted when they don’t convert and persecuted when they do. The converted are accused of hating themselves, and the unconverted are accused of hating everybody else. Seneca, the Roman tragedian, expressed annoyance at Roman Jews for their observance of a ritual Sabbath: “This meant that Jews were wasting one-seventh of their lives doing nothing.”

Now the Jews of Israel, doing what they have to do to survive, are accused of “acting out of proportion” to the daily assault of Iranian rockets fired by Hezbollah to kill Jews in their homes. The Jews should show restraint. Restraint was what the Jews in Germany showed when the Nazis were organizing the Holocaust and the world wouldn’t believe that what was happening was happening. Restraint is what the rest of the world showed when they dismissed a crazy Austrian paperhanger and his nutty book, “Mein Kampf.” If the rest of the world was willing to ignore Hitler and his boasting and bloviating, why couldn’t the Jews?

Restraint is what you show in disputes with rational people who are willing to compromise, who will give up something in return for something. But restraint can buy time for your uncompromising enemies to enable them to plot the ambush to kill you later. During the Holocaust, certain Jewish leaders, eager to show restraint by trusting their enemies, gave up lists of Jews, a few at a time, to save others a little while longer.

Ariel Sharon, showing restraint, organized the withdrawal from Gaza as a way to achieve peace through strength, a controversial idea but nevertheless credible. You could call it aggressive restraint. All that was wrong with it was that it didn’t work and was perceived as weakness by the enemies of Israel. The only thing Israel got was more rockets on its cities, the elevation of Hamas to power and the kidnapping of its soldiers standing duty in Israeli territory. “When you keep pinching a lion,” Jeffrey Gedmin, director of the Aspen Institute in Berlin, writes in Die Welt, the German daily, “sooner or later he’ll clobber you with his paw.”

Throughout history, others have had a lot of advice for the Jews, cheap at the price. America aside, there was not much else. Anti-Semitism is often personal, and always political. The anti-Semites get away with acting on their prejudice because there’s a political environment where spin is appreciated. Anti-Zionism, the legitimate criticism of Israel politics and policy, is not always anti-Semitism. But it usually is. Once upon a time, the world’s sympathy rested with the Jews. The United Nations approved the creation of Israel; the Jews had suffered so much in the early decades of the 20th century. Israel gave the Jews a new identity, an opportunity to create a country by working the land, bringing it to flower and training men (and women) to fight back when attacked. They succeeded beyond their dreams, beyond the nightmares of their critics. When Israelis survived in the wars of 1948, 1964 and 1967, no thanks to restraint, their global supporters began to fall away. Jews were easier to feel sorry for when they couldn’t fight back.

“Nathan the Wise,” an 18th-century German play by Gotthold Lessing, depicts a flattering portrait of Moses Mendelssohn, the playwright’s famous Jewish friend. When the Sultan Saladin asks Nathan, the Moses figure, to explain his identity, Nathan replies simply: Ich bin ein Mensch — “I am a man.” This line infuriated Hannah Arendt, writing about it after the Holocaust. It characterized the Jew in a private, personal way, she said, ignoring his specific identity subject to political vulnerability. She knew what the Israelis have had to learn the hard way. For a Jew, being a man is not good enough unless it’s backed up by the power to survive.

one bewildered scotsman im disgusted at some of the ignorance from people who are obviously not stupid does America think the whole Islamic world is baying for its destruction aaaahhhhhh im raging wish i never read this pish

Greater Israel: Does it make sense now?

By Abid Ullah Jan

07/19/06 “Information Clearing House” — – As Israel pounds Gaza and Lebanon simultaneously, there are no signs of diplomacy to halt the conflict. Bush says, “the best way to stop the violence is to understand why the violence occurred in the first place.”[1] Canadian prime minister says, “I think Israel’s response under the circumstances has been measured.”[2] Above all, the U.S. vetoed Security Council’s call for a ceasefire.[3] Britain also opposed calling for ceasefire[4] and instead Defense Secretary Des Browne ordered for HMS Illustrious and HMS Bulwark to “make ready” for operations off Lebanon.[5] And Blair accused Syria and Iran.[6]

One would think that the United Nations’ demand for a cease-fire would have been the most logical and humanitarian call these diplomats could have possibly made. The present role by the U.S. and U.K. is by design. Just when it seemed like neoconservatism was ready for a quiet death, the Zionists provided neoconservatives with an opportunity to get the war they’ve always dreamed of.

Exerting influence on the Bush administration is a breeze – all it has to be persuaded to do is do nothing. That is exactly the script followed in U.K and Ottawa. Meanwhile the commentators can work the airwaves and drum home the message that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is orchestrating all the chaos across the Middle East. It will only be a matter of time before Washington quietly gives the green light for Israeli jets to go screaming towards Tehran — at least that’s the vision William Kristol, Michael Ledeen and their cohorts believe is almost within their grasp.

The Israeli justifications for the escalation of war make no sense unless looked from a broader perspective. The real aim is total dominance over the Middle East and establishing greater Israel. In the final days, the British Empire paved the way for the creation of a Zionist state. Today, the United States is facilitating the emergence of a Greater Israel at the cost of its empire.

The blame for the current Israeli war falls entirely on Israel’s friends, who approve occupation, racism, repression and deployment of inhuman methods in the service Zionists hegemonic designs. Myopic thinking and grand deception on the part of the United States and Israel in the last 13 years have led to the beginning of the present final show down in the Middle East.

For 45 years, 1948-93, Zionists’ strategic vision, brilliant planning, Western technological support, and logistical assistance helped it consolidate a state created without any moral, social, political or legal justification. Created on the basis of terrorism, the Zionist state survived through terror and tyranny.

The first American war on Iraq and the unflinching support of pro-Zionists in the U.S. and Europe made Zionists more confident. They started planning for phase two of the project towards establishing Greater Israel. They rightly concluded they had won round one. The Zionists started round two with gaining as much legitimacy as possible with the deceptive U.S.-led “peace process.” They were aware of the inconvenient fact that they cannot fool all people all the time. They were prepared for the day that is before our eyes today.

Most Arab countries gave up their goal to liberate occupied Arab territories and fell into the trap of ‘land for peace’ rhetoric. After the first war on Iraq, emotions long held in check, fatigue and hubris, came flooding out in Arab capitals. Deciding that they had had enough of war and could end the war on some face saving terms, Palestinians and other Arabs went for the deceptions of “the peace process” and “disengagement.” None of the promises made to them were kept. They permitted the Zionist state to earn some legitimacy and buy time for amassing more weapons of mass destruction and putting plans in order to materialize phase two of the Zionist plan for establishing greater Israel.

In this mishmash of delusions, appeasement and retreat, Israel rapidly lost the left over fears, came to plan false Flag operation and effectively used the Israel lobby in the United States to a total war and occupation of Iraq.[7] The earlier fear of a United Arab front has been replaced with a disdain that borders on contempt. Despite the cosmetic withdrawal from Gaza strip, Israel’s policies of apartheid and ethnic cleansing continued unabated.

For the Phase two of the Zionist totalitarian design, Israel had to build on this foundation of 13 years. It requires that Israel return to the callous, bloody and terrorist work of war and aggression. That means renouncing the deceptive plans of compromise, the fake hopes for good will, the drama of withdrawals. After more than 120 years of work, Israel is now just one false flag operation away from expanding the war to the remaining hurdles in its way of materializing the dream of a greater Israel.

Three types of visible forces are fully determined to make the Zionist dream of a greater Israel a reality. The forces with unflinching determination are: Zionists, neo-conservatives and Christian radicals.

The neoconservatives have their own Islamophobic agenda. They are looking for a total war on the Muslim world. Israel is just providing them with an excellent opportunity and excuse to bring the United States into the conflict. For example William Kristal writes in Weekly Standard (July 24, 2006):

Why is this Arab-Israeli war different from all other Arab-Israeli wars? Because it’s not an Arab-Israeli war. Most of Israel’s traditional Arab enemies have checked out of the current conflict. The governments of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia are, to say the least, indifferent to the fate of Hamas and Hezbollah. The Palestine Liberation Organization (Fatah) isn’t a player. The prime mover behind the terrorist groups who have started this war is a non-Arab state, Iran, which wasn’t involved in any of Israel’s previous wars…What’s happening in the Middle East, then, isn’t just another chapter in the Arab-Israeli conflict. What’s happening is an Islamist-Israeli war.[8]

Former CIA man James Woolsey, appeared with John Gibson Today and joining in with the neocon chorus he said the U.S. need to attack Syria. He’s said that we are in World War IV since ‘03 as part of a group calling itself “Americans for Victory Over Terrorism.”[9] The group was founded by former Education Secretary William Bennett, who took part in Wednesday’s event along with Paul Bremer, a U.S. ambassador during the Reagan administration and the former chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism.

Former U.S. speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said on July 16 that he believed the United State is “in the early stages of World War III.”[10] Endorsing his statement, the editorial of the Christian magazine Trumpet concluded: “As extreme as it might sound, this observation by Newt Gingrich is the truth.”[11] Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell,[12] believe Israeli hegemony in the Middle East represents the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy about the coming of Jesus. A prophecy, in their view, can be self-fulfilling: it is, however, their Christian duty to expedite it.[13]

For the Christian Zionists, every rocket that flies into Israel and every bridge that is blown up in Lebanon just brings them one step closer to the end of the world. They consider it unchristian to think only of the innocent Arabs and Israelis instead of the Rapture. Instead of seeing the silver lining in every storm cloud, to Christian Zionists the storm clouds in the Middle East are the silver linings. It is, thus not surprising, to see the U.S. vetoing ceasefire resolution at the Security Council

With the aforementioned background, the fear of the region heading to a greater war is fast turning into reality. Imagine the aftermath of bombing Syria and Iran. Surrounded and squeezed by the United States and its Allies on all sides, frustrated Arab populations would turn on their aging, sell-out rulers in Jordan, Egypt, Yemen, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere. Oppressive regimes in the Muslim world would succumb to public demand, and the United States would expands its bloody occupation to other Arab states under the same pretext of fighting “Islamists” and preventing them from erecting an “Islamic empire.”

In the phase two of Zionist totalitarian design, extermination of Arabs in large numbers will take place. Peace would break out with the leftover terrorized and pacified Arabs, and trade would blossom, with Israel occupying almost all of the Middle East and its tourists spending millions in Baghdad, Damascus, Tehran, and Beirut.

Sounds absurd? No more so, perhaps, after all this talk of the impending world war. There are three well-known and basic causes that have made unprecedented bloodshed in the Middle East inevitable. 1: The incompetent United Nations. 2. The helplessness of the whole world before the Israeli terrorism under the auspices of the U.S. 3. Muslims’ inability to change their status from divided sitting ducks to a united bloc for defending their rights or, at least, making an effective demand for real independence, justice, and equality.

Furthermore, Israel requested the United States numerous times to attack Syria and Iran.[14] “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”[15]—co-authored by Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser—portrayed Syria as the main enemy of Israel, but maintained that the road to Damascus had first to pass through Baghdad. That part of the plan has already been completed. The initial report of U.S.-Israeli plans for aggression in 2003[16] have already turned to reports about possible nuclear attacks on Iran in 2006.[17]

Keeping these realities in mind, it is hardly logical to deny—unless these trends and initiatives are effectively reversed—that an escalation of conflict and unprecedented bloodshed is imminent, and realization of the dream of a Greater Israel—however ephemeral and tyrannical—is now set to take place within a matter of years, not decades.

I would rather not waste my time reading Zionists propaganda.

quote …. “Now we see France drawing closer to all of the dictatorial regimes and those that are heading that way again and we wonder.”

Well …. the rest of the world knows when to jump ship. And this ship ( Israel’s expansionists dream ) is going down baby.

It is time to ask yourself why the entire world (except the US ) hates Israel. And even here in the US we are slowly realizing that we just don’t need Israel’s enemies. One 9-11 is enough for us. Thanks a lot Israel, just look what you gave us !

By: R.A. Hawkins

It certainly is amusing to listen to Chirac as he tells the rest of the world what they should and shouldn’t do. It matters not that we’ve noticed several times that France provided many of the munitions and weapons systems found in Iraq and I seem to remember a certain collection of mirage jets we found over there. Then there was that little ‘Oil for Food’ mess they were caught up in, right along with their buddies from Russia. And I don’t want to leave out that there were some pretty serious allegations regarding the French briefing Iraq on our battle plans.

That country has only won one war in their history. Well actually there were a few of them but they also lost those wars because they were against themselves. Pretty pathetic and not a country we should be listening to when it comes to matters beyond what is and isn’t polite at the dinner table. Wait…. I don’t think they are even up to that. Personally I think they should simply be ignored, yet here they are lecturing the world and pontificating regarding Israel’s retaliation for the kidnappings of their soldiers and the various missile attacks they’ve endured. France is so good at dealing with things like this they had riots in their own cities that brought them to their knees recently.

France has always been a good ally, but never to us. They are what is known as fair weather friends, but I think that sums up much of Europe these days. By that I mean the bigger noisemakers, which I find difficult to take seriously when they refer to anything having to do with Israel. They were the ones that made a point of creating it so just about anything they might have to say regarding Israel I’m inclined to ignore. Not too long ago Europe was up in arms because of a wall the Israelis were building to keep the Palestinians out since they were inclined to go out and paint the town red in their own special way. The European noisemakers went nuts over that fence. Then an amazing thing occurred a few months later. They went to the Israelis to see if they could help them build a fence to keep the former Warsaw Pact citizens on their own side of the border. I would like to add that they were merely an annoyance to the Europeans. They weren’t committing bombings or any such thing.

I think it was Monty Python that said the three primary tenets of the British Royal Navy were buggery, the lash and cheap rum. Somehow I don’t think of England when I read that these days. I’m more inclined to think of any other noisy European nation. I guess I would be inclined to say that their tenets would be just about the same thing. But of all of the European nations making ignorant comments I find the French leader Chirac to be by far the most detestable.

I don’t know if I’ve mentioned this before but France was kind enough to build Iran’s very first submarine for them. That was years ago. The French aren’t our allies and haven’t been since we saved their butts in World War II. They are contrary to whatever we say or do and are closer to Russia and China than they are to us. Because they haven’t gotten a good grip on their own immigration problems they will eventually be even closer to Iran, or just about any taker in the Mid-East.

I think France should be thrown out of the UN Security Council, so that little piggy can just go oui, oui, oui all of the way home. But for that matter I think the UN should be thrown out of our country and forced to set up shop along the border between Israel and the Palestine, or on the Lebanese border. They should have the tallest buildings in the area so as to stop any incoming rounds. They will actually be doing something useful there other than entertaining those of us who know they are nothing but a den of spies.

It has been said of Russia that they are an enigma wrapped in a mystery. Now we see France drawing closer to all of the dictatorial regimes and those that are heading that way again and we wonder. Well no we don’t, not if we all think back a bit. They are like the little weasel that sucks up to the school bully and hopes they are now protected. Their withering ways should be a warning to all of us regarding that which is coming in this world. Until it arrives we can still laugh at their contrary arrogance though. They really are quite amusing, and fortunately on the other side of the world. I just wish that Chirac would mime his own business.

“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”

Mail this article to a friend(s) in two

You miss more way more than that.

Coulters a moron, and a traitor, no wonder you like her.