"is that why France had a massive nuclear arsenal and military to aid Germany in case of a soviet invasion in the cold war?"
But that was just it that was the cold war. It was every European country, and the U.S that provided funding to West Germany. Yes France had an active role in setting up defenses, but did the French oppose the USSR
like the U.S did? The U.S had and still does have troops in Germany. Although they are no longer to Protect against the Soviets.
"they still do, more actively then ever. Examples would be the strong stance against the war on Iraq, the French efforts in saving western citizens in various African countries and their peacekeeping and negotiation efforts in multiple parts of the world. "fighting" for what's right does not imply the active use of force, even though that seems to be the only way US people can see it."
Yes the French have had a strong presence in Africa, but now it is the U.S that is stationing troops in Africa to help the government combat extremism. But, what about Haiti? Where was France in 1994? The UN passed all sorts of sanctions to allow Aristide to come back, but it was a 20,000 strong force of Americans that re-installed him. Why didn't France have a hand in this, its their former colony. Unless you want to argue it was originally Spanish back before 1697. Yes the French are there now, along with the U.S and once again I give them credit for that.
As far as Iraq is concerned can you honestly tell me that the French thought it was right to leave Saddam in power? Leave a man that murdered thousands of his own people because the were Kurds, or simply a different sect of Islam? I know were going to hear the argument about WMD and unless we find them, it is not a credible rationale. But the suspicion that they did have them only grew when they threw out the U.N weapons inspectors several time.
"except in those dozens of humanitarian missions in civil war torn areas that do not get much news coverage on the other side of the pond since its about people in bum f*ken Africa anyway and there is no big propaganda rally around it."
The humanitarian missions are admirable, but when has aid and influx of money stopped fighting? The only way to stop fighting is to get the two sides to sit down and talk about peace. When there are several thousand peacekeepers there, It makes a huge difference. This of course is not the sole responsibility of France. Its unreasonable to expect France to put troops wherever there is conflict, they just don't have the resources to do so. America has greater resources, so it much more common that we are dispatching the peace keepers. Unfortunately sometimes American peacekeeping forces are seen as invaders and are attacked. I don't consider when a nations government allows another nations troops to have a base within their borders and invasion. The French may have "dozens of humanitarian missions" in Africa, but they are not alone. http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-saharan_africa/
"mop up what? The ruins that American war mongering left behind due to the inability of any US government of the past decades to look for solutions that do not include the active use of force but prefer the invasion on third world countries to leave behind just another mess? "
I love the American caused ruins of Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, and Kosovo. Because when the U.S deployed to this countries, they just wanted to take them over and throw the entire country into chaos, steal their resources, and oppress their civilians. Most of the time the U.S militarily deploys to a country its to stop fighting, or keep peace. The ones where we invade are to remove a threat, or liberate a people. The U.S doesn't invade countries so we can take their natural resources and profit from it. If you believe that is our intention, where's all the money that should be coming back in? All I see is millions of U.S tax dollars flowing in. If you see money flowing back out, let me know.
"It would be one of the greatest achievements by john Kerry if the US would indeed become the new France and focus on issues and pursue them determined but without the everpresent threat of military force instead of the *lets bomb another country that we cant find on the map" attitude employed by US leaders of the past."
So we should all let John Kerry win the election, so our enemies can do whatever they want. We should let them terrorize the world, determine our policies, and let them choose our leaders. Unfortunately economic sanctions don't motivate someone to stop doing bad things as much as a rifle does.
Zak, I appreciate your comments as this is a forum for discussing our View/Opinions. If people didn't disagree about things there would be no concept of being an individual. Thank you for conducting this in a mature matter. We may not agree on things, but its nice that we are adult enough not to resort to attacking each other.