I think you are completely correct about why Sarkozy won. ( as commentators here point out he won in spite of being vocally pro-American ) But I think it does show there is a growing realization in France (as in every mature democracy) that sometimes things have gone too far in one direction and a course correction is needed.

I kid a lot about the French and there are certainly things about French academic intellectual culture that madden me ( Derrida and Le Corbusier are the intellectual equivalent of WMD ) but I also have a great affection for the place. I like a complicated culture and France certainly has one. I suspect this course correction is going to be the beginning of some very good stuff for them and I really wish them well.

( as to the pacifism - I think the current trauma regarding immigration and relations with the "developing" world is more the product of Indochine and Algeria than WW II. I was pleased to see the intervention in Cote d'Ivoire shows signs there is still some will to do things that need to be done )


>Again. You are saying what I can not articulate.
>
>Tho I think Sarkosy won not because of their concern for terrorism, but MAINLY because the French people finally got tired of their economy, especially their unemployment. I think they're still pacifists (I hope Sarkozy proves me wrong). WWII has made Europe very passive in dealing with "evil", much like vietnam has made many in the US pacifists.
>
>
>
>>>So I answered your question, now here are mine
>>>Q1: (bfwd from previous post)
>>>How can 2 planes knock down 3 buildings at gravity speed, faster then if you dropped banana from last floor - directly to Isac Newton head ?
>>>As an intelligent and educated person how do you explain that?
>>
>>Well, watching it happen helped. Knowing what it takes to demolish a structure with shaped charges I would be even more surprised if an amount sufficient to collapse those buildings ( I hope you will at least agree they did in fact collapse ) could have been planted in the right places without being detected and then detonated in coordination with planes hitting the buildings( remembering also that both FBI and CIA had offices in those buildings and lost key people on 9/11 ).
>>
>>And then no trace of these explosives were found by the thousands of forensic experts that sifted through the rubble for six month ( or 1000s were in on the conspiracy and then have been kept silent )
>>
>>On the day of the attack I certainly saw the pictures of the back of the plane sticking out of the Pentagon and I know people who saw the planes fuselage being removed from the site. I can't even imagine any other way to put a hole like that into the Pentagon in any case.
>>
>>http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
>>
>>Flight 93 was certainly real and fortunately we didn't get to see it hit Washington.
>>
>>As to the the "American scientist on Greek TV" - well, that of course is a tough one to refute. <g> I have seen American Scientists on American TV proving the impossibility of Television. ( and certainly casting doubt there is a lot of intelligenct life on Earth )
>>
>>>
>>>As for OBL/Al-qaeda;
>>>What I have problem swalowing, is the fact that bunch of enraged,
>>>disoriented muslim radicals, lead by person who can barely walk (OBL) and directly from Afgan training camps high up in Afgan highlands/caves,
>>>can manage to organise such massive attack that require real intelligence, coordination, technology, and foremost well embeded presence on US ground AND to be completely undetected upfront by mighty intelligence agencies of US gov.
>>
>>The really frightening thing about 9/11 was that it was not at all complicated. Hijack four planes on the same day ( certainly easier than on consecutive days ) and fly them into buildings. Where is the complication? If you can read an airline schedule the rest is just being crazy enough to do it. (I do agree it would have been a lot more complicated if you had to first evacuate all the Jews and then coordinate the plane crashes with the Mossad demolitions experts who really destroyed the buildings ) Planes had been hijacked before. Crews were not taught they should fight to the death ( though the passengers on United 93 figured it out on their own )
>>
>>A lot of terrorism is based on decent normal people not being willing to believe someone could be so evil or so crazy.
>>
>>American intelligence agencies are pretty good at finding things they are watching for in open societies ( much tougher in closed societies ) Electronic intelligence is better than people think and human intelligence is getting there. And the successes are the things you don't hear about. It's always been that way. I was thinking today about Elizabeth I and Francis Walsingham, her spymaster, who kept here alive when the Pope made it the duty of every Catholic in Christendom to kill her.
>>
>>Real intelligence successes are not known for a long long time. Trust that in the last 6 years there have been some truly spectacular ones. And they are not the successes of the 7th floor at Langley. There are field people inside and on the outsource who are very very good.
>>
>>But one person with the right access to some of the biological weapons that were left lying around after the fall of the USSR could kill everyone in Cyprus single-handedly and with very little additional technology. It would be unbelievable, but only because one could not imagine why anyone would want to do it. It would be tougher if you were expecting it.
>>
>>But playing defense is not the way to prevent attacks. That is why preemptive and aggressive measures are considered essential in asymetric warfare.
>>
>>>
>>>So Q2:
>>>How does complicated and coordinated action (attack) of this proportions can take place on US ground without any sattelite or ground sniff dogs noticing anything suspicios
>>
>>Sniffer dogs would have indeed picked up explosive in the Pentagon or Twin Towers. There would be no surveillance that would detect anything wrong with 4 aircraft doing what they were designed to do right up until some crazy person pointed them at buildings. Remember, hijacking was always before the stealing of airplanes and hostages. This was crazy brought to a whole new level. ( See Voltaire below )
>>
>>>
>>>Q3:
>>>Where is the plane that hit Pentagon ? We all saw explosion broadcasted
>>>on the news, but no plain not so ever. This was immediately strange to me
>>>back then, but then questionmark faded away as I was watching horrible pictures of falling towers and all the rest.
>>>
>>>And finally, most important Q4: (also bfwd from prev post)
>>>Don't you think that mightiest military power of all times, should
>>>do little bit more of a research before attacking array of countries,
>>>and that better mechanisms safeguarding against devostating astray shots
>>>should be put in place, rather then reacting 'human' at every
>>>'catalysing' event of tmrw ?
>>>
>>
>>Well, you could phrase this question another way: don't you think people should think twice before attacking the homeland of the most powerful nation on earth which they claim is populated by crazy cowboys with a propensity for violence?
>>
>>When crowds dance in the streets chanting Death to America does it ever occur to them we might start to take them seriously? When I saw Palestinians cheering at the fall of the Twin Towers chanting Death to America my first thought was "Where is a helicopter gunship when you really need it." I am rather tired of chanting zealots who think that somehow we have to play by the rules but they don't. If indeed the gloves are off they are going to find they won't like it. We are only having problems in Iraq because we actually do care about not killing people who are not part of the fight. Obviously the many other factions involved have no such reservations. The biggest danger to Iraqis is certainly not Americans, but some very home-grown craziness.
>>
>>Afghanistan wasn't even a close call. The amazing thing is we didn't just go in and completely lay waste to the place then completely leave. We don't really have it in us to be as ruthless as it would take before the medieval mentality of our enemies would truly understand consequences but as Japan found in 1945 the more we are pushed the easier that becomes.
>>
>>If there were to ever be another attack on the US like 9/11 I think you would see patience has run out. The next batch of prisoners will be appealing to Amnesty International to be transferred to Gitmo or a secret CIA prison in Eastern Europe. And if there is an attack on France those held by the French will be asking to be turned over to the Americans.
>>
>>Those who think America is the Great Satan can't have it both ways. If they have declared a blood feud with no quarter, then they must expect the same. We owe them nothing. If they think we are the center of all evil then they certainly should expect to be treated accordingly.
>>
>>Bin Laden said himself that they knew after Somalia that we were weak and would not fight. I think he may realize now that he miscalculated. But believe me, there are many who still want to see Delta Force and whatever it takes go into Waziristan and finish this. It isn't over. We do not forget easily and I think mistaking having better things to do with an inability to respond to terrorism was a major miscalculation based on a complete misunderstanding of us as a people.
>>
>>I think the next big terror attack will be in Europe. And I think you'll see that the reaction will be very similar to ours - and much more difficult for the indigenous Muslim population there than it was here.
>>
>>For many reasons Europe is much more vulnerable than we were and I'm afraid the most difficult period is ahead. I think France senses that - hence Sarko over Sego - and France still has a pretty good intelligence network that knows how to do what must be done. I know at least among the security services in Britain there are few remaining illusions and the Dutch have certainly gotten a taste of the downside of political correctness. A major attack in Europe and I guarentee you France won't be asking the UN or the EU or anybody else for permission to whatever it thinks is in its own national interest and I for one will be waving the tricolor in support.
>>
>>I think it is important that those who have been standing on the sidelines in the ME start dialing the crazies back if they really care about not being assumed to be part of the problem instead of part of the solution. A response of "Oh yes, the terrorism is terrible ... but of course I can see their point" is not sufficient.
>>
>>But nothing will focus public attention - or anger - like more nihilistic craziness from people who think God is whispering in their ears.
>>
>>I think the situation is much more serious than people want to acknowledge. I also know there are some very very good people the public never hears about who are working very hard to allow those who just want to live a normal life survive.
>>
>>"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell