98MustGT

An anxious French government accelerated its diplomatic bid to save two French reporters held hostage in Iraq on Tuesday as a fresh kidnapper deadline neared for Paris to scrap a ban on Muslim headscarves in schools.

The kidnappers on Monday night gave France a further 24 hours to repeal its ban on headscarves in schools which is part of a broader law aimed at anti-Semitism that bars Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5756110/

Appeasement does not seem to be working

roachboy

i dont suppose that you would care to say anything more about your munich reference there, would you?
perhaps you are of the richard perle school of Deep Thought about international relations?
does that mean you imagine there were no good reasons for any country to have opposed bushwar?
and do you manage to still hold this position given that every element of the bush rationale for war presented to the united nations has turned out to have been a lie/wildly incorrect interpretation of fragmentary/questionable data?
how do you do that? simple denial?

the question of the french law is another matter--i would be happy to discuss it----but not in the context framed by your appeasement remark.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Pacifier

Where do you see appeasement in the fact that france what to get it citizens home alive?

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

smooth

I actually thought the French had framed their law as a nationalistic movement, rather than an anti-semite one.

This seems to speak to the issue of non-appeasement failing--but I'm not sure if I understand what you were trying to convey.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Seaver

In this case it's a non issue. A stupid law might be repealed in return for a life or two. In the case of the countries supporting Iraq, if the war fails it's those murderers who would be in charge. Which is a case of putting a baby infront of you for the rotwiler to bite instead of your arm.

powerclown

This is unbelievable -- you cannot make this stuff up. How stupid do you have to be to take one of your allies hostage!?!?

roachboy

the french are not repealing the law.
rather than bother with the opening, maybe better to redirect the thread:

if you read french, here is a rundown on what has been going on around this over the past hours. the interesting element is the number of countries coming out against the demand....have a look.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,...-377233,0.html

updates are easy enough to find: in french look at le monde or liberation (www.liberation.fr)...

in english, from al jazeera:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...62131337AF.htm

this is actually a quite complicated matter. the political implications domestically for france are interesting.
but you would have to loose the richard perle-like attitude toward the place to see anything.

is there any way to change the title of the thread, btw? it is stupid and it does nothing to advance any conversation on this issue.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

irateplatypus

at least we have someone besides bush to blame for the actions of these poor desparate souls who just want to be left alone by western imperialism.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

98MustGT

It just seemed weird to me that they would take hostages in Iraq over head scarves in France, not over war or occupation, oil etc. Does this seem weird to anyone else?

Roachboy excuse my ignorance but munich?

roachboy

appeasement, 1938....the point at which most of the nonfascist european countries caved into hitler's invasion of czechoslovakia....

it is an old thing that was recycled by the richard perle squad in the period just after the americans lost their attempt to get unsc approval of bushwar... perle is a rightwing hack who enjoyed high visiblity in the period ---he was able to tweeze about the talking head circuit saying incredibly stupid things that people, for some reason, took seriously--it was perle that stirred up one of the more idiotic phenomena of this already idiotic period--the freedom fries thing--such a moron, perle---that he had any influence over anybody is beyond me....

the logic: the americans do not have a coherent case for invading iraq, therefore france sucks.

anyway, i find it increadibly irritating--could you do me a favor, sir, and change the thread title? if you didnt know about the munich analogy, then maybe you didnt know how annoying someone could find what you wrote---thanks.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

scout

We can intellectually argue this for a month, bottom line is the hard-core Arab terrorists groups really don't care what country your from or if the particular country you are from supports the war on terror when it comes to taking hostages.
Most if not all have little if any clue about "appeasement 1938". All they see and understand is what they want to see or more specifically what their particular holy man wants them to see or understand. That's one reason why they only seem negotiate when they are looking down the barrel of a M1A1. This also seems to be part of the reason the dictators in that part of the world are barbaric by Western standards. I hope France is lucky and gets their hostages back safely, I doubt they do but I sincerely hope I'm wrong.
I also sincerely doubt pouring more money in over there to attempt to convince them we are great people will do any good. Each and every one of us donates money to them and their misguided causes every single time we pump our automobiles full of gasoline and it has gotten us nowhere.
And just asking, but wasn't the real reason France, Germany and Russia didn't want to invade Iraq was because they all had secret deals with Saddam and they was all on the take from the Oil for Food programs? Also didn't Saddam Hussein owe billions to those three countries from those secret deals that they stood to lose if Saddam was tossed from power? Didn't it in fact have little to do with "the americans do not have a coherent case for invading iraq"? Even John Kerry admits he would have invaded Iraq with the very same intelligence that Bush seen. John Kerry even says we done the right thing, well on some days, then on others he says we didn't, just depends on what side of the bed he gets out that day of I guess.

Mojo_PeiPei

If you don't think the UN had justification for invading Iraq legally through everything layed out by the UN you are naive or just willingly ignoring the overwhelming evidence and truth. Fact of the matter is Saddam violated every resolution ever passed (17), he was still activelly engaging the US military, and the WMD case worst case was a false positive. We knew he had the weapons, thats the brilliance of documentation, Saddam claimed certain weapons, when he claims he destroy's them without proof or more documentation, that is an issue.

France didn't appease Iraq by not going to war, they were just trying to keep their vested illegal interests alive with Saddam.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

OpieCunningham

I didn't realize that our purchasing of their oil was our method of convincing them "we are great people". I wonder how us giving them money for oil so that the dictatorships can continue to control the people is supposed to be perceived as the actions of a "great people".
Maybe. No.

The argument against war does not need to be strong, entirely accurate or 100% effective. That is the role of the argument FOR war. By default, war is not the choice to make - you must prove it is the only option. The Bush administration failed in that task - as was inevitable.

Mojo_PeiPei

Yes it is known that Russia and France, Russia moreso, were on the take in illegal oil for food dealings. Between the government and various ministers billions of barrels of oil were given out of the goodness of Saddam's heart.

More so however France, Russia, and Germany were Saddam's (France and Russia being top two) weapons suppliers. I'm sure everyone here is aware those deals weren't legal either.

Then you have oil and other various contracts, not to mention monetary debt from the Saddam regime.

Plus France/Russia/Germany/ other detractors voting against the war acts as a counter weight to US influence and foreign policy, namely the Wolfowitz doctrine of global oil supply and American military influence in the middle east.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

OpieCunningham

You forgot to mention the other people involved in the illegal U.N. oil for food dealings: Americans.

But that is all besides the point. Whether the reason for the anti-war stance of Russia and France is due to the money they would have lost or whether it is due to the lack of necessity for war has no bearing on whether the Bush administration made the case for war.

If there is no case for war, as there wasn't, there is no need for a case against war.

roachboy

i am not interested in debating the merits (or lack thereof) of the bush case for their iraq war as presented to the united nations, mojo--not with you, not here, not at all.
suffice it to say that i disagree with every single point you posted above.

besides, the thread is about the situation that is developing in france around the kidnappings in particular, and the ways in which those kidnappings are playing into (or not) the contreversies that have been generated by the law passed recently to ban the wearing of veils etc. in public schools. the situation is quite interesting--if you have anything to say about it, go ahead.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

scout

The war was brought here, to our largest city in a most spectacular way, we didn't go looking for trouble. More innocent civilians lost their lives on 9/11 than military personnel did on Dec 7th at Pearl Harbor. Do you remember or have you already forgotten?

smooth

redirect round 3:

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

OpieCunningham

Yes we did. Paying dictators (many of which we installed) in the Middle East for their oil allows them to oppress the people of the Middle East, leading to revolutionary tactics.

The "we didn't do anything wrong!" line is neo-con nonsense.

Seaver

Um.. Saudi Arabian leaders were chosen by the Brits, not us. Saddam only recieved our help after he had placed the coup, and that's because he was a stouch sectarian. Something at the time was of great importance to us and the world (Iran). And if it IS all our fault about their revolutionary tactics why arent they revolting against their own government instead of blaming people on the other side of the world?

And this "America does everything wrong!" this is neo-lib nonsense. We're not completely clean but no one on earth is.

roachboy

one more try:

http://www.courrierinternational.com...ccueil&bloc=01

again, this is in french (sorry)--

it is of course difficult to find american papers that will devote anyting like extensive coverage to a situation like this, particularly not at a moment when most of the front pages of the american papers are devoted to grovelling "reports" on the repellent made-for-tv pagent that is the rnc (the dnc was no better, so...)

besides, this is happening to a country that is not america, so no one gets all john wayne about it. people taken hostage apparently only really matter when they are american. or when they serve what is understood as an american political interest. go figure.

further, the american right obviously has its own (fact-free) interpretation of france and so probably see things in the manner indicated in the title of the thread. not much room for analysis if you start from there.

anyway, the article is from a weekly that is something on the order of the world press review. in this case, it is a small collection of opinion from papers mostly from the middle east and europe. the arab press opinion on this matter is of particular interest.

one take seems to be that the french reporters were taken not because they were french but because they were western---that the "islamic army in iraq" has no particular interest in the matter of whether the law regarding the wearing of relgious garb in public schools was or was not in effect in france--most of these papers read the demand as having been formulated after the fact (hey, they're french, what do we do now?) i am curious about this interpretation, where it comes from. the evidence is circumstantial, and is summarized near the beginning of the article.

there are also excerpts from a few "proamerican" press outlets that publish in arabic, most of which repeat something like the "serves em right" line, which, as here, obviously the gateway to a differentiated view of the question at hand. so have a look at it if you like to see maybe how tedious this line is in a different language.

this kidnapping puts the muslim community in france in a really awkward spot. you can see chirac doing things to assuage their concerns like going to a mosque in paris to participate in parayer for the release...on this, the article from le monde above is much better than the one i am posting now.

i imagine the front national will have a field day if these guys are killed. the front national has enlightened politics on matters pertaining to islam that are on par with those of the american neocons. except in france, people who operate from this political position are understood as neofascist, where in the states, they are "conservative."

the relation of the law banning religious garb to the politics of the front national is an interesting matter to consider, if you know anything about french politics--chirac et al argue that it is simply consistent with the principle of a secular state and so is in keeping with the tradition of the republic and not a cave-in to the fn. but the timing is interesting, if you take into account the gradual erosion of traditional forms of natinalist politics in france as a function of many things including the e.u.--and the rise of the fn's fascist-style national essence nonsense--which in this case seems to be operational in the conditions that shaped the promulgation of the law.
so i am not myself sure that i believe chirac on this.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

OpieCunningham

I did not say it was "all our fault". Why do they target us instead of primarily targetting the dictators? There are a number of reasons - but the one you're looking for is that they can overthrow as many local dictators as they please, but they will always be replaced by a new dictator being paid off by Western society. Dictators in the Middle East are a dime a dozen - take out one and a new one grows to replace it by virtue of Western financial support.
Again, I did not say we were completely at fault - but scout's post is stating that "we didn't go looking for trouble" - which is clearly false, unless you consider ignorance of the effects of our actions to be an excuse. I do not. Whether we intended to create trouble or not is irrelevant to the point that our actions HAVE created trouble for the Middle East - and they continue to do so.

scout

This really needs to be a whole other thread so this is my last post on this matter in this thread but I will gladly discuss it in another thread. If you had argued there was a time when most of the dictators there had been "installed" by America then it would be non-argueable. However, there is none left that was "installed" by America. The Shah of Iran hasn't been in power there since the 70's, the monster we created with Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The Royal Saudi family wasn't installed by the US, nor the Iranian leaders. Syria promotes terrorism against us, no way did we "install" them. Jordan, while putting on a good face, stabs us in the back every chance they get, as do the Saudis. We didn't install any leaders in Egypt, or Libya. Turkey has somewhat of a democratic government, so their leaders are voted upon. Isreal is also a democratic government. So conclusively your statement about our "installing" many of their dictators is wrong. Your statement about our money buying their oil keeps them in power is true and I agree 100%. However, this is a religious war to them, they don't hate us for our money, but the tremendous sin we bring to the world. We are the "Great Satan". You think the conservative right here is whacked, they are far left compared to most of these terrorist groups. This is one of the many reasons why pouring more money into the region would be a tee-total waste. We already pour billions into the region every year with oil revenues and foriegn aid, and ultimately it's used against us to further their causes.

OpieCunningham

Well then, assume I simply left out "had" - for the crux of the point remains the same. Also presume by "we" I meant Western society.
Good.
Who is "them"? I presume you refer to the terrorists? I don't believe it is a religious war for them anymore than I believe Bush is fighting this war for his religion. But for both, religion is a tool. The Bin Laden's use it to obtain men to follow orders and offer support. The Bush administration uses it to solidify 30-some-odd percent of conservatives, the Christian Right. This is a war like every other war ever fought - a war of control. The West wants to continue to control the Middle East and the Middle East wants to, initially, shake their controllers and eventually control the West.
It all depends on where the money goes. Almost every penny of the money we spend is handed over to dictators who use it to control the populace - preventing the populace from revolting. Remove the income we provide and the dictatorships will fall. Continue, as we have for decades, in financing the dictatorships and the Terrorist leaders will have a well spring of oppressed people to convert to their last-hope cause: attacking the West.

To bring this somewhat back to the topic - appeasement - it is the definition of appeasement to continue to finance the dictatorships, it appeases the dictators because they are able to hold onto power and it appeases the terrorists because they have a never ending supply of people to convert. It is the definition of appeasement to send 150,000 troops to demolish a country with no attainable goal to the destruction because it requires collaboration with dictators and because it produces thousands of mourning families for the terrorists to convert. Bush's tactics are an absolute no-win scenario. The French may or may not recognize this - but regardless, they did not make the wrong decision.

roachboy

yet another attempt to divert the thread back to actually addressing the matter at hand (weakening quickly in the desire to keep doing this along the way)

another update from le monde:

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,...-377233,0.html

the range of parties, internationally and in iraq, who are trying to pressure the islamic army of iraq to release these people is remarkable. check out the statements from various mullah/imam in iraq in particular.

no-one knows what ia happening on the ground, however. not yet at least.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

scout

There really needs to be another thread started ....

Lebell

OpieCunningham, et al,

Keep it on track.

Start another thread if you want to discuss the war, or better yet, add to one of the hundred or so that already exist.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Seaver

You know, I honestly agreed with almost that entire statement. It was concise and well backed up... until this part. Can you back this up?

What neofascist laws have conservatives passed that is fascist? The closest one to it is the Homeland Security. I dont personally agree with it but lets face it, everytime the US senses it's truely in danger it temporarily restricts liberties. If you dont think we're in danger I like to point out that in 9/11 more people died than at the disaster at Pearl. You can argue how long the temorarily might last which would be valid, but even the Dems passed the law because that's what most Americans wanted.

I can think of a few neofascist laws the left wants inacted. Gun control for one, and most of allmore government control over business (one of the big points of fascism). So throwing around these accusations doesnt help out anyone does it?

OpieCunningham

Left is not the counterpart to Conservative - that's Liberal. Libertarians, very much liberal, are adamantly opposed to gun or business regulations.

Zeld2.0

I think the point is that in many countries of Europe, France included, center is to the left of America's center. By that scale, our 'conservative' would happen to be their 'neofascist.'

Our socialist might be their liberal.

Pacifier

perhaps not neofascist, but i think bush would be considered a "right wing/religious wacko" here. and the chance that someone like ashcroft would have a political career here is almost zero....at least i hope.

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

roachboy

these people appear to have been released, but things are still uncertain:

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,...-377233,0.html


on the neofascist thing: a moderate republican would probably be part of the udf or maybe a gaullist. a democrat whose politics fall within the mainstream of the party would be most likely a gaullist or maybe--maybe--a conservative socialist.
george w bush and the right wing of the republican party these days in the states would map straight onto the front national--particularly in the kind of nationalism they espouse, and in the conflation of national and religious identities--the fn routinely argues that france is a christian/catholic country being destroy inwardly by those nasty muslims, for example---bsuhworld cannot go quite that far because for now they are in power, but the christian right has parallel arguments (aimed mostly at "secularism")....read some stuff by/about jean-marie le pen or bruno megret and the parallels are obvious---or have a look at the most recent of brigitte bardot's autobios (she was married to megret, but i don tknow if she still is) and you'll get a taste of it.

the parallel is pretty alarming, frankly.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Seaver

How? FN has argued that the Christian nation is being destroyed by the muslims. All Bush has ever said was he believes that the US is a Christian nation, which does hold true to the populace (something like 75-80% of Americans) though not the country itself.

roachboy

seaver:

seriously, i could rattle on here about it, but the best way to check this out is to read some of le pen or megret. i'll poke around a bit and see if i can find stuff in english (unless you read french, in which case it's easier)--if i find stuff online, i'll post links.

as for the bush remark above: i noted in the previous post that bush has not said this and i assumed it was a function of actually having a position of power--but that the supporters in the christian right have no such qualms. and i have heard enough commentary from this segment of the right that seems to think that saying this kind of thiing (from the founding fathers being xtian through to the critique of "secularism" to the routine racist nonsense you read and hear about islam) is consistent with bush's beliefs. in this case, i simply take those claims as more accurate than i would be able to be, were i to try to suss out what exactly bush believes or does not believe.

the fn is a minority party in france, and so far has not got close to being in a position of power, so their language does not have to moderate.

the deeper parallels have to do with their conceptions of the nation. both are in line with the glorious history of radical nationalism. this is why i was thinking it would be simplest to read some le pen.

searching for le pen makes me feel like i will be putting myself behind an exhaust pipe--i dont know why, really--i read a fair amount of american right and far right nutcase writings...but there we are.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

roachboy

take a look at this--hope you read french---read through the whole set of proposals and you'll see really clearly what i mean.

http://www.frontnational.com/doc_prop_identite.php

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Locobot

Interesting, but completely wrong. Here's my response,---hope you read swahili

Waheshimu wanawake wajane walio wajane kweli. Lakini mjane aliye na watoto au wajukuu, hao wanapaswa kujifunza kutimiza wajibu wao wa kidini kwa jamaa zao wenyewe na hivyo kuwalipa wazazi wao na wazee wao, kwani hilo ni jambo la kupendeza mbele ya Mungu.

Mwanamke mjane kweli, asiye na mtu wa kumsaidia, amemwekea Mungu tumaini lake na huendelea kusali na kumwomba msaada usiku na mchana. Lakini mwanamke ambaye huishi maisha ya anasa, huyo amekufa, ingawa yu hai. Wape maagizo haya, wasije wakawa na lawama. Lakini kama mtu hawatunzi watu wa jamaa yake, hasa wale wa nyumbani kwake, basi, mtu huyo ameikana imani, na ni mbaya zaidi kuliko mtu asiyeamini.

Usimtie katika orodha ya wajane, mjane yeyote ambaye hajatimiza miaka sitini. Tena awe amepata kuolewa mara moja tu, na awe mwenye sifa nzuri: aliyewalea watoto wake vizuri, aliyewakaribisha wageni nyumbani kwake, aliyewaosha miguu watu wa Mungu, aliyewasaidia watu wenye taabu, na aliyejitolea kufanya mambo mema. Usiwaandikishe wajane vijana, kwani kama tamaa zao za maumbile zikizidi kuwa na nguvu zaidi kuliko kujitolea kwao kwa Kristo watataka kuolewa tena, na wataonekana kukosa uaminifu kuhusu ahadi yao ya pale awali. Wajane kama hao huanza kupoteza wakati wao wakizurura nyumba hata nyumba; tena ubaya zaidi ni kwamba huanza kuwasengenya watu, na kujitia katika mambo ya watu wengine, huku wakisema mambo ambayo hawangepaswa kusema.

Kwa hiyo ningependelea wajane vijana waolewe, wapate watoto na kutunza nyumba zao ili adui zetu wasipewe nafasi ya kusema mambo maovu juu yetu. Kwa maana wajane wengine wamekwisha potoka na kumfuata Shetani. Lakini kama mama Mkristo anao wajane katika jamaa yake, yeye anapaswa kuwatunza na si kuliachilia kanisa mzigo huo, ili kanisa liweze kuwatunza wajane wale waliobaki peke yao kabisa. Wazee wanaowaongoza watu vizuri wanastahili kupata riziki maradufu, hasa wale wanaofanya bidii katika kuhubiri na kufundisha.

Maana Maandiko Matakatifu yasema: "Usimfunge ng`ombe kinywa anapopura nafaka." na tena "Mfanyakazi astahili malipo yake." Usikubali kupokea mashtaka dhidi ya mzee owakilishwa na mashahidi wawili au watatu. Wale wanaotenda dhambi waonye hadharani, ili wengine wapate kuogopa. Nakuamuru mbele ya Mungu, mbele ya Kristo Yesu, na mbele ya malaika watakatifu uyazingatie maagizo haya bila kuacha hata moja, wala kumpendelea mtu yeyote katika kila unachotenda.

Usiharakishe kumwekea mtu yeyote mikono kwa ajili ya kumtumikia Bwana. Usishiriki dhambi za wengine; jiweke katika hali safi. Usinywe maji tu, bali unywe divai kidogo kwa ajili ya tumbo lako, kwani unaugua mara kwa mara. Dhambi za watu wengine huonekana waziwazi, nazo zawatangulia kwenye hukumu; lakini dhambi za wengine huonekana tu baadaye. Vivyo hivyo, matendo mema huonekana waziwazi, na hata yale ambayo si dhahiri hayawezi kufichika.

Diamond

Appeasement won't work with people who want nothing more than to have their religion be that of the worlds. It's the extremists who take extreme measures. Have you seen the French take hostages to make a point?
Winston Churchill knew appeasement wouldn't work against Hitler, it won't work against any extremist.

Supersonic

shucks, and it worked so well with germany in the late 1930's

wonder when the french will finally learn

powerclown

. . . . . .

Sun Tzu

Im only asking because Im probably missing some data; wasn’t France Saddam's enemy?

The answer may not be that simple because of the multidimensional issues.

THis kidnapping practice is getting out of hand. They seem to think now they will be able to take any foreign national and change policies. Or their just angry people that love that temporary moment of feeling empowered.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking