I'm Confused
Now, perhaps I'm confused because I read the news at the BBC site, or perhaps it is not I who am confused, but those about whom I read. The article in question addresses the rift in Franco-American relations over Iraq in light of the sixtieth anniversary of D-Day. While I realize it may just be one man's opinion, it is presented as representative; so, that's how I shall treat it: here's the quote that has me confused, "We are grateful to them for what the did, make no mistake, but when I look at what is happening in Iraq today, I wonder about America." So, it would seem that it was a good idea to liberate the French people from Nazi oppression and impose a democratic government in Germany, but it was a bad idea to liberate the Iraqi people from Ba'athist oppression and impose a democratic government in Iraq? Perhaps you see now why I am confused.

I see two explanations: 1) The French don't actually oppose our actions in Iraq, they are just peeved that we were able to do it both without them and over their objections. They are whining because France is not the power she used to be. I can understand that. If I was French, and the last thing I had to be proud of was Louis XIV, I'd be in a pissy mood, too. 2) The French believe that it was okay to impose democracy in Germany because the Germans are white. The Iraqis don't deserve democracy because they are brown. It might seem a little much to accuse an entire nation of racism, but perhaps not after you look at how successfully France has assimilated its massive Muslim immigrant population.

Of course, later in the article it cites the Abu Ghraib abuse as a cause of the Franco-American rift (which is a bit of circular reasoning, since the rift existed before the actual invasion, which puts it months before the abuse and a year before the abuse became public knowledge), which I find odd. Make no mistake, my personal feelings are that the soldiers in the photographs should be stripped of their citizenship and exiled to Gitmo, but I find the unique outrage over Abu Ghraib disconcertingly ignorant. At Abu Ghraib, a few rogue Americans humiliated some detainees; this was a crime and they will be punished. During the Second World War (the "good war"), in February 1945, we firebombed the city of Dresden in oblivion. Mostly, because we could. Why do I highlight the firebombing of Dresden and not the repeated firebombings of Tokyo (on the night or March 9-10, 1945, the deathtoll was over 100,000), almost every other major city in Japan*, or Hamburg? Because horrific as they were, all of the other firebombings had legitimate military reasons for being carried out. Dresden? Not so much. And unlike Abu Ghraib, Dresden was firebombed on purpose. The Abu Ghraib MPs were committing criminal acts because they felt like it, the Dresden bomber crews were following legal orders. In the litany of horrors America has committed in the pursuit of a greater good, Abu Ghraib doesn't even make the list.

For more of my thoughts on the current state of the Franco-American friendship, try this.

*By the time the Enola Gay dropped "Fat Man" on Hiroshima and the Boch's Car dropped "Little Boy" on Nagasaki, they were the two largest cities in Japan left standing. They had been intentionally not firebombed to provide a more devastating and thus effective demonstration of the power of atomic weaponry.

Hello, Kitty
Here's a tip, if you want me to pet you, which seems to be what you want since you stop whining when I do pet you, maybe you shouldn't be so bitey.

New Music!
Hooray, seven of my eight CDs arrived from Asian Man Records today! Right now I'm listening to The Peacocks' It's Time For The Peacocks. Finally, something good has come out of Switzerland. Something other than the Swiss Guard, that is; don't mess with Vatican City, man, they'll fuck you up!

Crap
311

H-A-D
Have a rainy day.