I personally would like to see EU countries get more military might. Then they would be open to other solutions other than chattering.

I think if say Germany had a reasonable military today they would have been open to other solutions with regards to Iraq. When endless diplomacy is your ONLY option, one tends to jump through amazing logical hoops to justify that lone option.

I don't see the EU counter balancing the US unless the EU is significantly undemocratic, which it may become. Democracies don't counter balance one another. Let us not forget that the UK has sufficient military might to counter balance the US if it wanted to. No, it's not as powerful but you don't have to be. If UK said "No, you will not invade Iraq." that would have been the end of the story. The nonsense with the UN these past few months was to help Tony Blair. Without the UK, I doubt Bush would have had sufficient domestic support for going into Iraq.

frogboy,

Ivory Coast is a totally different pb since it was a french colony and there is a permanent treaty of mutual assistance in case of the gvt in place has any pb. That's why french troops are permanently based over there. What have been sent to Ivory coast are policemen and NOT military ppl. That makes a big difference. Nothing to see with invasion...
As for oil interest, I've read on several websites that contracts between US and iraki companies were already on negociation. Hmmm.., as you said, we'll see. If you're right, then for sure, it will be a great deception over there.

For you, we deserve that bad feeling from american ppl. Fine, that's your opinion. Being an ally doesn't mean that france must always agree with US gvt. After all, US put a veto to france several years ago and you never saw that kind of reaction inside france.
Sure, you're right to say that UN is useless if all members should always say OK to any US resolution. That's why vote -and democracy- exists. Everyone has the right to express his own opinion and say that he doesn't agree with others.

About lobbying other countries, what do you think about US gvt trying to *buy* yes votes to poor countries ? Was that moral ?

Frogboy, I agree with you that the current permanent members of the security counsil is not up to date with today's world. As you know, the current structure of the UN security consil is a consequence of WW2, with the four winners of the war (GB, US, France, Russia) as permanent members, to which tey also added China. Germany and Japan were excluded because they were then the vilains who lost the war. For sure I believe it needs to be changed to add (not remove) more countries a permanent. But I woud not change the rotating other countries. All countries of this planet should have a say. Besides, you are wrong to say that Cameoun have the same weight was the US, Russia, France, the UK or China. The difference is huge, and everybody knows about it: when a vote is taken, if any permanent member votes against a resoluion, it is automatically rejected. Which is not true for the other rotating 10 members.

And BTW: I have nothing against a more socialist oriented direction. Canada in that way is way more socialist than the US. But I will look more deeply into the proposed EU constitution, but I greatly doubt it proposes a dictator as a EU leader.

Frogboy, our socialistic society is a democracy too. In our country we have more than two parties, and the outcome of our elections make parties to negotiate about the policies and forming of the government. I agree with Thibaud, but it is useless. Europe hasn't been happy with your president since he was elected, he has managed since his presidency to decay the goodwill the US has built since WW2. A president that says: Anyone that is not with us is against us, and then I see people react the same way, isn't a real good basis to earn trust. It is even scary. You are good and I am bad. As I said I accept your the way you feel and your point of view, but I wholeheartedly disagree with your stance. Now that makes me bad. Very scary.

First, when you say "Europe" who do you mean? I have friendsin Eastern Europe woh are pretty pro-US.

Secondly, I am talking about the EU constitution that is being floated around. It is NOT a democracy. Its leaders are appointed by a handful of individuals. Saying the EU is a democracy would be like saying that the US supreme court is "elected".

Lastly, no one is saying you are "bad". You and I can disagree with one another and there are no ill effects. The problem with France is that not only does it disagree with the US, which is their right, but they are working very hard to undermine the US. Tryng to get Turkey to not let the US use its bases there will cost Americans their lives. In effect, France's actions will result in the deaths of Americans.

Mexico doesn't agree with US actions either. But you don't see Mexico trying to pressure Turkey and Saudi Arabia to not let the US use bases there.

I have great fear for the people of Europe because I fear that the EU will be dominated by just a couple of countries. Look at your own post, you speak of Europe as a monolithic entity. Most European governments are on the US side. Of 21 countries in Europe, most of them side with the US.

And "good will" works both ways. You speak as if the US is losing out by not having the "good will" of say France or the Netherlands or something. But it goes both ways. You may no tlike Bush but he has overwhelming support by the American people. In a Reuters poll over the weekend, 40% of Americans consider France either an enemy or an unfriendly nation. That is going to have far reaching effects. I certainly consider France a friend. Not an ally but a friend.

Will EU leaders be elected by elected members? A bit like the US president is elected?

frogboy,

"In effect, France's actions will result in the deaths of Americans". Wow, that one is great ! So we are responsible for war, then we are responsible as well for american deaths ! huh, what's next ? Chaos in the middle-east maybe ?

"It's too bad France didn't work so hard to defeat the Nazis" : Ok, for me topic is closed !

And also, what do you mean by most of the 21 countries in Europe side with the US? In general or in this particular attack of Irak?
Because I doubt it's the latter. I'd like to know the names of the countries who sided officially with the attack of Irak. If you mean that they side with the US in general, I don't think there is such a thing. Countries can be friends with another country, but it doesn't mean that they "side" with it no matter what. I don't think there is such a thing as a "side". Countries in the Europe (or the World) are not divided in two groups: for or against the US. Countries can take their own decisions by themselves when they need it.

Frogboy, post 188 was a question, not an affirmation. I don't have the answer and you haven't given it to me.

OK, case closed for me too.

Frogboy, sorry but I can't discuss this with you without loosing my calm. You are being extremely nasty in your remarks for France. Talk about evil. Your words hurt greatly.

The thing is, whether you are pro-US or anti_US, it shouldn't really matter. But somehow it does affect us. I find that sad. And then people tend to give qualifications to each other. In trade you get sanctioned or some other measures are taken. When we speak of freedom, there really isn't any because one always wants to have its way. There is the difficulty. Gee, this thread goes quick. We might get along perfectly well together Frogboy, and I think you are an easy going person, but somehow when our governments take different stances we might start shooting at each other. That's what I meant. I've seen it happening in former Yugoslavia. Just because of a different descent. It still isn't a stable country. The EU will not work if it will be dominated by Germany, France and UK. It will simply fall apart. With Europe I meant the western countries.

EU leaders are appointed. US Presidents are directly elected by the citizenry.