To: Fred Levine who wrote (70039 ) 4/28/2003 12:12:23 PM From: runes Respond to of 70976 <<Give me one action the french took that advances justice.>> ...Well they supported, without reservation, the UN resolution that authorized the invasion of Afghanistan (In fact they were the first ones to step up to the plate). And they have done a serious crackdown on Al-Qaida within it's borders and fully cooperated in the sharing of associated intelligence. (You set the bar too low on that one ;-) <<However, when that (self interest) is the sole motive, and other principles are ignored, it is wrong.>> ....If the French were acting only out of self interest then, IMO, they would have been playing kiss-ass from the get-go and then lining up for their share of the spoils. Instead they went the opposite route by standing on principle despite the implied threats and the malicious vitriol. ....And make no mistake about it - the French have become an administration whipping boy. Consider that the Russians are being more obstructionist to GWB's Iraq agenda but you are not hearing talk of boycotting Vodka or Freedom Gin. And that is what worries me. The French. The Dixie chicks. Peter Arnett. Tom Daschel for criticising GWB. Anti-war means anti-troops. There are so many of these whipping boys that are being used to incite anger and redirect the country's focus. And to inhibit others from speaking out. So, no, the French are not the paragons of virtue that they like to pretend to be. But neither are they immoral self-serving treacherous sots who deserve whatever grief that we can heap upon them. As for the accusations of exploiting the Iraqis. If the French are even making that accusation - so what? They certainly are not alone. And we all knew going in that that would be one of the accusations that we would have to disprove. That is always the occupier's burden. ...And, quite frankly, I don't think we are doing a very good job of refuting that. And making France shut-up will not change that situation.