Semi-Daily Journal

"It's not that we hate America and want to see our power diluted or held back or whatever,"

What a sloppy soopy comment. What the heck is this apology supposed to represent? This is snivelling.

Sadly, somebody shies away from facing reality. The envious French are only interested in humiliating the United States. They (and the other Old Europeans) are cowardly, lazy, and without scruples. Furthermore, their moral relativism renders them incapable of thinking and following a logical argument. The homeland of Jacques Derrida and Michael Foucault is a total intellectual mess. The great Raymond Aron has been dead for decades. We would always be worrying about the French shoving a knife in our back.

Do we need assistance in Iraq? Of course we do! But it is the French and their vile allies that are doing everything to make sure we don’t receive any legitimate help. Only recently India and Pakistan said that they must obtain UN approval. Do you know what that really means? This is simply another way of saying that they are waiting for the French and the other Old European clowns to sign off on the mission. Needless to add, the price tag will be very stiff---and unjust.

The UN has a reputation for having incompetent bureaucrats and larcenous undisciplined troops. Also they are reportedly doing a bad job in Bosnia and Kosovo.

In 1993 the UN troops did nothing when the Serbs massacred 100,000 Muslims.

The UN is mostly a crock. It's there to make liberals feel good and the French and the Third World governments feel important.

Mr. Thomson,
I certainly hope your remark is a parody. Indeed, of course it is. Who knows not that the homeland of Jacques Derrida and Michael Foucault is the homeland of so many famous thinkers? And it would be most impressive if a nation of 60 million "cowardly, lazy, and [unscrupulous]" French, with a defence budget of 8% that of the USA, were able to control most of the the rest of the world--including archrivals India, Pakistan, and so on.

Really, rabid denunciations of the population of other countries is among the most disgraceful of vices. It's the online version of dumping garbage in a national park. Non-Americans will read it and fail to detect your irony.

The UN, as an organization, is not capable of dealing with a violent adversary. UN policy and decision making process make it impossible for soldiers under UN command to function in such an environment. If it were a secure peace keeping operation, then the blue helmets would be more than capable. Of coarse, in this scenario the US would not be looking for their help.

Specific examples of this can be seen most recently in the Bosnia failure that lasted five years. It wasn't until the operation came under NATO command that it was resolved. Historically speaking, the UN has never been successful in dealing with armed and actively violent opponents. Why bother asking for their help in this area?

some fun "fair and balanced" stuff on my blog - hoypuhloy.blogspot.com

The other James is pretty much correct. However, the administrative shambles we have in Iraq is stunning. There have been several other cases where the US was obligated to occupy another country, but never has lawlessness and administrative ineptitue like this prevailed for so long. And the DoD's response has been to insist that it would be absurd to expect anything better. No significant measures have been taken--or promised--or discussed--or contemplated--that might contain the violence.

Iraq is being made permanently ungovernable.

This is another example of the Old Europeans parasiting off the United States:

“Army goes on office hours

Budget crunch puts Sweden's military on a 9-to-5 schedule for the rest of the year.
August 18, 2003: 11:15 AM EDT

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Sweden's armed forces will operate only during office hours for the rest of the year to cut costs, military headquarters said.

They also will cut fighter plane patrols to a minimum, keep navy ships in port, mothball armored vehicles and stop using large caliber live ammunition during exercises.”

“A parliamentary defense commission said in a recent report that the likelihood of Sweden facing a military threat in the foreseeable future was very small.”

http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/18/news/funny/army.reut/index.htm

Everybody seems to expect that International troops will be able to save the situation, if only they'd do it.

wishful thinking, I'd say.

This is another example of the Old Europeans parasiting off the United States:

“Army goes on office hours

Budget crunch puts Sweden's military on a 9-to-5 schedule for the rest of the year.
August 18, 2003: 11:15 AM EDT

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Sweden's armed forces will operate only during office hours for the rest of the year to cut costs, military headquarters said.

They also will cut fighter plane patrols to a minimum, keep navy ships in port, mothball armored vehicles and stop using large caliber live ammunition during exercises.”

“A parliamentary defense commission said in a recent report that the likelihood of Sweden facing a military threat in the foreseeable future was very small.”

http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/18/news/funny/army.reut/index.htm

This is another example of the Old Europeans parasiting off the United States:

“Army goes on office hours

Budget crunch puts Sweden's military on a 9-to-5 schedule for the rest of the year.
August 18, 2003: 11:15 AM EDT

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Sweden's armed forces will operate only during office hours for the rest of the year to cut costs, military headquarters said.

They also will cut fighter plane patrols to a minimum, keep navy ships in port, mothball armored vehicles and stop using large caliber live ammunition during exercises.”

“A parliamentary defense commission said in a recent report that the likelihood of Sweden facing a military threat in the foreseeable future was very small.”

http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/18/news/funny/army.reut/index.htm

Um, how exactly is Sweden parasiting off of the United States? Perhaps you think Sweden is a member of NATO? Its not.

Whoops! I mistakenly spammed the site. Sorry about that.

“Um, how exactly is Sweden parasiting off of the United States? Perhaps you think Sweden is a member of NATO? Its not.”

The war on terrorism concerns all of the Western nations. Everybody must do their part. Also, it matters not a whit if Sweden is a member of NATO. The Swedes still know that the United States will pull their fat out of the fire if a crisis develops. Almost certainly, the Swedes delude themselves that the terrorists only wish to harm the “arrogant” United States and not the “peace loving” and “inclusive” citizens of Sweden.

“And it would be most impressive if a nation of 60 million "cowardly, lazy, and [unscrupulous]" French, with a defence budget of 8% that of the USA, were able to control most of the the rest of the world--including archrivals India, Pakistan, and so on.

Really, rabid denunciations of the population of other countries is among the most disgraceful of vices. It's the online version of dumping garbage in a national park. Non-Americans will read it and fail to detect your irony.”

I have more than ample empirical evidence to back up my charges against the majority of French people. For instance, previous to the Iraq invasion---many of the French desired for the evil Saddam Hussein to be victorious over the United States. The socialist French are also bankrupting their economic system via early retirement and a refusal to do any work. Lastly, the French are responsible for the starvation of millions. Their Luddite attitude toward genetically modified crops dooms many of the poor of Third World to a horrible death.

“However, the administrative shambles we have in Iraq is stunning. There have been several other cases where the US was obligated to occupy another country, but never has lawlessness and administrative ineptitude like this prevailed for so long. And the DoD's response has been to insist that it would be absurd to expect anything better. No significant measures have been taken--or promised--or discussed--or contemplated--that might contain the violence.

Iraq is being made permanently ungovernable”

Gosh, I didn’t know that Iraq was such a land of milk and honey under Saddam Hussein. He sure did “contain the violence.” Those Iraqis who were fed through the plastic grinders and had their eyes gouged out sure were contained! Also, according to your premise----Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt were utter failures. There were plenty of mistakes made during our Civil War and fight against the Axis powers in WWII. Can anyone, by the way, cite me an example of perfectly fought war?

dude, you're gay

I can't see why any country would send troops to help relieve the US in Iraq. Why is the rest of the world supposed to free up US forces for more empire-building? Ah, "the war on terror"! The trouble is, this is the war on Iraq, quite a different matter. The "war on terror" is the one that George Bush and friends didn't feel had quite enough political juice to be the main attraction.

Thomson, your first post in this thread was fabulous. Such satire! I could barely believe it was you. Keep up the good work.

Anything else I could say would detract from your post. Kudos again.

So, we undertook an unnecessary and unprovoked war in the face of nearly unanimous international opposition. And now, because the Swedes are unwilling to help us out of the mess we've made of it, they are cowardly, devious, lazy, unscrupulous parasites.

They're laughing at you in Stockholm, David. And most of the rest of the world. Go hyperventilate in the corner, and come back when you're prepared to argue rationally.

In the meantime, an aside to Europeans visiting the site: deepest regrets for the insulting remarks posted re: France and Sweden. I must emphatically insist that they represent a very eccentic opinion in the USA. Europe has been extremely dilligent in assisting the REAL war on terror. And even this were not true, the abuse of the European character is so unjust and silly, to say nothing of vulgar and delusional, that it really has no place here.

Response to David Thompson:

"Only recently India and Pakistan said that they must obtain UN approval. Do you know what that really means? This is simply another way of saying that they are waiting for the French and the other Old European clowns to sign off on the mission."

Nope. It is another way of saying that we see no benefits in getting our boys killed, our Arab goodwill depleted, our citizens annoyed and our exchequers exhausted to mop up a mess on USA's behalf.
A UN approval means that our troops can go in to assist the Iraqis as opposed to assisting the coalition. Dead soldiers and depleted funds are acceptable if the cause is acceptable.

Of course, I wonder how the Indian govt. would have reacted had the Bush administration actually said, 'We need help. Could you help us out please?'
Instead we have been fed hilarious diplomatic double-speak......I never knew there was a point where propaganda turns into satire.

Oh, a small quibble with the original statement: You are right in that Pakistan put forward the UN condition only recently but India has been mentioning the UN approval ever since March, when Mr. Blackwill first raised the issue of deployment of Indian troops in post war Iraq.

Using World War II as a basis. Violence against allied forces stationed in Germany did not cease until 1947. Is it possible the overwhelming victory has given an unrealistic impression of how long it would take to stabilize Iraq? There is the additional problem of outside "forces" from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and Turkey. There is a distinct possibility that the coalition forces are really comming up against a series on non-Iraqi forces.

James MacLean, Mr. Thomson is all parody all the time. He's never out of character.

I posted this in Yglesias and it seems appropriate hre:

So fine, we're going to do it without the worthless UN and the worthless troops from the other worthless countries of the world (except Britain and Poland). Let joy be unconfined!

Oh wait -- that's what the problem was, wasn't it? We really don't want to get stuck with this indefinitely.

Oh well, UN-bashing and France-bashing is too much fun to give up. (And those Pakis! Heh.)

Unrealistic belief's in the UN peace keeping forces is an unfortunate side effect of the attempt to increase the UN's role in the world. Stating the fact that forces under UN guidelines do not fight well is not a bash on an organization whose purpose is to prevent war. The UN has a beaurocrat decision making process over real time military actions. In addition, the UN rules of engagement guarantee a combat advantage to any opponent. These are major reasons why UN soldiers can not fight a war. This is not a dig on the UN. It was not set up to be a military power.