(4.6.04 23:56) Yes I’ve been to the US military cemetery above Omaha Beach and I’ve been immensely moved by the gravestones of farm boys from the midwest who probably had never seen the sea before being shipped over to Europe. I’ve made myself very unpopular by recommending the trip to dozens of Europeans whose default mode is an unthinking and virulent anti-Americanism. American Imperialism? The only GIs who stayed after 1945 were those preventing a Russian invasion and those buried beneath the soil. So much for empire! But I’ve also visited other memorials in Normandy - most notably at Arromanches commemorating the British effort and the new Canadian museum near Juno beach which is both interesting and controversial. You are right that the US would be foolish to ignore the involvement of other nations - the Brits, Canadians, Poles - even the French. That is why Saving Private Ryan caused such offence on this side of the Atlantic. But I think you are wrong in trying to use this lesson in Iraq. The scandalous UN Oil for food programme shows that senior figures in the French and Russian governments were in Saddam’s pocket (as were a number of well-known Saddamites on the British and European Left!). They would never agree to his toppling because they were making good money from him remaining in power. France and Russia would always be able to use their UN veto to prevent any decisive action. In the end the US had no option other than to go with the coalition of the willing which, contrary to Democratic propaganda, included a number of big hitters - the UK, Australia, Italy etc.

(5.6.04 14:10) My wife and I spent the night at the Churchill Hotel in Arromanche. We later join found a brasserie, and joined some inebriated English Exxon lorrie drivers and their wives who were on holiday. They told funny stories about driving their motor homes on the narrow Norman country lanes. It was a night to remember. Yes, the oil for food program was scandalous, and it was only one reason France, Russia and the rest opposed going after Sadaam. Europe suffered grievously in WWII, and the memories of bombed cities and legions of dead young men are still fresh in the European conscious. If America suffered one 9/11 attack every day for four years, we still wouldn't come close to the carnage experienced by the Russians during the war. The French city of St. Lo alone suffered 20,000 inhabitants dead from American bombing attacks soon after D-Day. The French are plagued by their own unassimilated Muslim population, and would rather deal with the Islamofascist threat in their own way. (Banning head scarves is moronic). The Russian military is already tied down with its own Muslim insurgency. The Germans, well, they're German, and the mere humming of Deutschland Uber Alles can get you dirty looks, let alone bearing arms against foreign enemies. But just because America's erstwhile Allies are corrupted by business dealings, and spooked by past conflicts doesn't mean we don't need them. The WWII alliance was also difficult to maintain, with conflicting personalities and agendas. I supported the war 14 months ago, because I believed the intelligence estimates about WMD, and also thought the Iraqi people would appreciate having the Baathists off their backs. My problem with the war now is the incompetence of the Bush adminstration in administering Iraq, and the lies that were told about WMD. I still think the Middle East is better off without Sadaam, so one could say the US did the right thing for the wrong reasons. But that's not good enough. A superpower like America needs to lead by example, and the Bushies, with their arrogance and incompetence, and their lack of accountability, are not leading. It's a dangerous place for the US be.

jerseycityjoan (11.6.04 02:46) I agree. Most of us are glad to be citizens of the world's one and only superpower. Now we're learning the downside of being #1. God, I hope we learn something from all this.

Name:	Email:
Website:	Email me when further comments are posted Save information (cookie)
Insert emoticons