The French are trying to rule the world without a shot being fired.
I am so bloody ticked off at the French (and the Germans and Russians to a lesser extent) right now I can't see straight. Where do these sniveling little weasels get off telling anyone what they can and cannot do? They are purposely putting our security at risk for their own interests. All nations act in their own interests and that's fine. However, they are telling the United States that we may not under the guise of the United Nations. The U.N. is ineffectual in matters of war. It can handle things like famine relief and other do-good type of activities, but how many wars have they stopped? Have they stopped the Russians in Chechnya? Did they do anything about the slaughter in Rwanda? Have they gotten the Chinese out of Tibet? Of course not. They might talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk, but they can do nothing. The United Nations is comprised of independent sovereign nations. Unless the U.N. wields complete power as a global government over all nations of the world, all of their posturing is an empty vessel. Which leads me to the European Union. The E.U. is in my opinion a microcosm of the U.N. In order to have an effective coalition, there must be commonality. The thirteen colonies that formed the United States had a common purpose and goal. But more importantly they were similar in makeup and origin. They were all British colonies with similar populations and interests. Now take the European Union, please. (Ba dum bum!) There is no way on God's green earth that this will succeed as a political entity. When it grew from the European Common Market to what it is trying to be today, a single government with a single currency, it doomed itself to failure. Hell, how many different languages are spoken by member nations? They could never declare a single official language. (The French speaking only German or English? Mon dieu!) If something so simple would throw a spanner in the works, how about a matter on importance to national security. Let's use this hypothetical situation: Germany is in deep economical trouble. The Union passes some law (or whatever the E.U. equivalent is) that further cripples the German economy. Do you think that the government of Germany is going to sit by and allow their nation crumble because of the actions of other E.U. members? Nein, mein freund. The fact that a single government is trying to be cobbled together from nations that have hated each other not in the too distant past is laughable. Most of the nations of Europe have embroiled themselves (and the rest of the globe) in two big old wars in the last century. Are we to expect that all of the sudden Spain will succumb to the wishes of Italy? Germany to subordinate to France? Ha! Now take the example of the E.U. to a global scale. The only way a global government can succeed is under a totalitarian regime. Freedom and self-interest would have to be suppressed. Anyone takers?
I was planning a trip to Europe this fall. I wanted to fly into Munich and travel by train to Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam and Berlin. I really do not feel like going to France, Germany and Belgium anymore. (I don't know where the people and government of The Netherlands come down on this issue.) I am terribly disappointed by all of this. It is clear to me that I am not wanted. Maybe I should visit Spain and Portugal or Eastern Europe instead.
Just for the record, here is the list of nations as of March 18 that are part of our so-called unilateral action: Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan. That's just a list of the ones who have publicly declared support, either diplomatic or tangible. There are about a dozen more who for other reasons are showing support anonymously. Yup, we're going alone against the wishes of the entire world. Next false argument, please.
And another thing...
I enjoy political cartoons. I have since I was in high school. It is a fascinating method of political and cultural commentary. The cartoonist can express so much irony, cynicism, support and dissent with just one drawing. One the other hand, sometimes they just draw a hackneyed picture of Bill Clinton with his pants down wearing boxers with hearts on them just like everyone else. Hey, they can't all be gems. The only problem I have is that most political cartoonists do not share my political views. Basically, they are just like all other "artists". There are some exceptions. Michael Ramirez, Gary Varvel, Mike Ritter, Kevin Siers, Gary Brookins, Dick Wright and Chuck Asay are all good, to name a few. That's not to say that I agree with everything they expound, but they seem to be fairly level-headed in their commentary. Which brings me to some of the more hateful ones, Ann Telnaes and Jeff Danziger in particular. No amount of truth shall keep these sketch artists from vomiting forth their bile. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney could discover a cure for cancer and Ann Telnaes would somehow think that it is all about oil and shady business interests. Jesus could come back as a Republican and Jeff Danziger would draw him to look like a demon. It's a shame because both are talented artists. Ms. Telnaes has a beautiful style of drawing. Mr. Danziger's style is a little stranger, as everyone he draws looks evil, but he has a great talent. Go to http://cagle.slate.msn.com/ and see some of the work of the good and bad political cartoonists. You can decide which are which for yourself.
And another thing...