My point wasn't just to bash France though. It was to point out the absurdity of listening to France's advice on foreign policy.

I got a lot of email on this as well as comments on it. Here's one that asked specific questions that I'd like to address.

1. What nation helped america become independent from the british monarch?

Sure, France helped the United States a couple hundred years ago. How many Frenchman perished in that? A few hundred?  That debt was paid back countless times in World War I.

2. Does france actually do anything to america other than do as the people/voters want and freely oppose their policies?

My point is that there is something wrong with the French culture when it comes to foreign policy. Perhaps they should take notice that they keep losing internationally. It may sometimes be expedient to be against something but in the long haul, you need to stand for something to have long term influence.

3. Has France helped america in the war on terror? The first gulf war? Somalia? Kosavo?

Sure. France has helped. So has Mexico. It's a matter of degree. The French also helped the Germans exterminate its Jewish population in WW2. I realize that sounds harsh but let's keep these actions in perspective.

4. america's track history for "rebuilding" nations has been...well, somewhat poor. Most of the nations that you have helped liberate and rebuilt have turned against you (france has turned against you as much as israel has now). Many of your rebuilding efforts have led to more war, chaos and anarchy and less american involvement. I cite the examples of: Nicuragua, Afganistan (the first time lol), Iraq (the first time as well lol), Argetina, Vietnam, Cambodia (a million died in this one....), Somalia, Kosavo, and a few others in South America. Many of these new leaders turned against america, committed huge genocides, mass sterilization, fund terror and as a smaller crime, steal from international charities.

Let's see, rebuilding of countries.  There was all of Western Europe. Does Western Europe "hate" the United States?

Then there was Japan. They seem to like us too.  And South Korea as another.

Does everyone there like us? Of course not. But they're not hijacking airplanes and crashing them into our buildings either. With any luck, in 50 years the Democratic government of Iraq will be confident enough in its freedom to disagree with US policies in a peaceful way.

But the track record the US has in rebuilding countries is actually remarkably good. Now, do you have a list of countries France has rebuilt? Any?

5. What is wrong with asking for evidence before entering a long, controversial and unpopular (to them) war.

There was plenty of evidence. Remember the whole UN inspections thing? Which gets into another issue that I've seen thrown out lately: That if we had just waited a few more weeks then we might have gotten France's support. No way. There was no indication that things were progressing.  "Why the rush?" Because starting in March the temperatures in Iraq start climbing very high.  By April the temps reach over 100 degrees F.

You want to know my theory as to why things started off disorganized after victory? No one anticipated such a rapid victory. The whole thing was over in a few weeks.  If they had known that Iraq would be so easy to defeat in war, maybe they would have given another couple weeks of time. But they didn't. All they knew is that each day they waited raised the specter of higher casualties because of heat related issues.  Heck, France has already lost over 40 times as many people due to heat in their own country. So certainly, no one in France is in a position to argue against the seriousness of heat to health.

6. I don't feel that the liberation of the people in Iraq is valid for justification for a war. Where was america when 40mil died in China? There are other oppressed areas of the world today that have attacked america, but they still stand and fund terror like Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China. If you insist that it was the caring efforts that brought the war to depose of Saddam, then why were the Iraqi people left in his hands twice? Once was after the first gulf war.

Luckily for France, the United States has considered liberation a justifiable reason to spend blood and treasure.

But I don't consider liberation a major reason for taking out Saddam. It was a nice side effect, but the reason had more to do with putting direct pressure on Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.  Being in Iraq allows the United States infinitely more flexibility with dealing with those countries which, surprise surprise, Iraq has a border with.

The question isn't whether the United States is an angel. It's not.  But France's behavior has been vastly worse in the past century than the United States. Which is particularly remarkable considering its limited ability scope of abilities.

Which dovetails nicely into the karma article. If bad karma were a "root cause" of 9/11, the Eiffel Tower would have been toast long ago. The fact is, there are very very bad people out there. Not every villain is a Star Trek villain where it's not evil as the motive but misunderstanding as the cause. No, really there are just some very very bad people out there who hate things so much they're willing to give their lives in an effort to harm the things they hate. And the United States, representing western culture, is the biggest target.

9/11 wasn't caused by any specific foreign policy decisions. It was the result of a general hatred of western civilization and its gradual encroachment into the Islamic world. One could point out that 9/11 may not have happened if the US wasn't stationing troops in Saudi Arabia. But eventually the Islamonaziklan would have been "provoked" to do what they did. Better that they did it now before they acquired WMD than later so that we can deal with it now rather than later.

But one thing we should know, the US is going to have to follow its own path. It has the most at stake in this and it can't be taking cues from countries like France who have demonstrated time and time again their ineptness in foreign policy.