I agree that judjing a population on one voice or example is wrong, however "go ahead North Korea, do it" is very insensitive. This country was viciously attacked about a year and a half ago and you sound quite callous.

Just because Mr. You're-either-for-me-or-against-me is our president, doesn't make him right about Iraq or North Korea. MOST Americans think containment is a FINE policy!

...because they don't have anything for the other nations to envy (except bratwurst) ? Traumatized Americans tend to considere political opposition as a threat it isn't. Why mix Dominique de Villepin with fashion ? France is STILL a democracy and a foreign affairs minister can not prevent a fashion editor to attend a fashion show. The article doesn't seem to remember that it is much more difficult for a french media to attend a fashion show than it is for an american one, because only a few french are couture customers (too expensive for heavilly taxed people). So cool down and please stop the french bashing, we DO like the american.

I am not threatened by different opinions. My previous post did not even state my beliefs about the Iraq/North Korea situation. All I wanted to get across was that sarcasm and spiteful comments will get us nowhere. My mother is French and I am quite aware that all countries are entitled to their opinions whether or not they agree with the U.S.

Well, I wrote a response, but it looks like it got deleted. Cheers.

Indeed it was. I cannot allow vicious comments about a nation of 300 million people just because you don't consider Americans to be a race. Racism is not about semantic nuances, it's about hate.

It wasn't that bad. I don't hate Americans, just parodying (sort of) the mindset of that woman that wrote that anti-French stuff. I didn't think it was that bad. If anything, my first comment should've been removed. Feel free.

OK, I might have over-reacted, sorry. I don't intend to play the censor-webmaster, so please show more sensitivity next time.

I'm sorry too (that's why I just edited out the offensive bit of my initial comment). I was insensitive, it's just that the anti-French stuff incensed me so much that I got a bit carried away. There's so much outright anti-Europe propoganda coming out of the American media (e.g www.nypost.com) that is so untrue and petty and dangerous it infuriates me. Anyway, I can't remember most of the stuff I wrote this morning. The sentiment behind it wasn't hate, it was more about me getting overly defensive and my attitude problem.

Vita is expressing an opinion, like arses, we've all got one.

Personally, I would rather hear the true thoughts of people, this almost never happens except in the relative anonymity of the internet, even the voices of those who suggest I might be improved by a nuclear blast in my backyard.

The American editor is out of line with her sense of entitlement, though we would be equally upset if on the eve of our vacation our reservations were all denied. She has no reason to slag an entire nation, unless she's really venting about a series of discourtesies.

Freedom of the press is disappearing around the world, the US has a new proposal to spy even more on internet activities. I am afraid we are seeing the very last of free speech in our lifetimes.

Unless your site is endangered, keep Saltyt free to entertain.

Vita,
You sound fairly intelligent; and while I wonder what sort of anti-American propoganda the European media may be spewing, you should know better than to read the NY POST! For gods sakes, they list GOSSIP as one of their main departments! Try reading a variety of less surface-oriented American media, THEN post an opinion. If you'd like, I can list a number of links to US publications where the so-called editorial opinion is slightly more creative than the usual "we saved their butts in Dubya Dubya Two, they owe us" ilk. Thanks!

First off, I want to respond to my first comment (yes, i'm that sad).
Since I edited out most of my first comment, it now looks even worse and makes even less sense. I wasn't suggesting that North Korea should blow up the US, just that if you follow Christine Suppes logic then it's as if it's okay to condemn an entire nation based on one or two experiences. It's like saying 'You're < insert nationality here >, I don't like you, so I think you and your whole country must be just like you, so I think you should all die!' That's what sentiments (like Christines) fuel. I was trying to draw attention to that, rather than literally meaning the USA should be blown-up.

Re. "North Korea, do it" (for timepiece)
I agree with you totally as far as freedom of speech is concerned. I understand why my comment got removed... this isn't my website so it was wrong of me to de-face it with my insensitive, 'radical', not exactly pro-American politics' comments. It's not the first time i've been censored (got removed from a certain diary site for reasons we won't go into). Freedom of speech still exists, I mean I could say whatever I wanted. It's only when my opinions have any kind of audience that the problems start. i'm going wrong somewhere.
Wow. Getting carried away... Sorry about this. Last comment then I'll go away...

Re: Anti-Europe Propaganda: (to kiloran)
Just wanted to clarify... I don't usually read the NY Post (honest). I'd say it's probably the equivalent of tabloid papers around here. Full of rubbish that unfortunately has a massive readership. Don't overestimate people. They read stuff they see in the Daily Mail and, get this, they believe it. So, although fairly intelligent people like you know it's full of nonsense, some don't. If people are exposed to this stuff for long enough, then we know from history what happens. Anyway, assuming you read this, i'd be grateful if you could list some links of some more credible publications, just so I can maybe even back up my opinions next time.

Ordinarily I would simply do as I was told growing up -- "consider the source" -- and ignore these incredibly banal and uninformed remarks... I will try, because I value the First Amendment concept of freedom of expression, to spare other SALTYT readers from a lengthy diatribe (at least this time around ;-))... However, let me remind my friend Jean-Pierre of two points:

1) the man's name is Bush, not "Shrub" (could it be that you are dyslexic, and therefore you simply made an honest mistake??);

2) regardless of what the media in your country may be feeding you, the purpose of going to war with Iraq -- if it does happen, which unfortunately it looks like it will -- is to get rid of a sadistic dictator who has been thumbing his nose at the world for the last twelve years, and NOT because of oil... though I must admit it will be nice when our oil prices here in the States aren't affected in any way by the whims of a madman...

I do want to stress that I myself have absolutely no quarrel with the French or German people as a whole (nor, for that matter, the Iraqi people as a whole)... But I have major problems with the neurotic members of the French, German and other governments who want to continue playing this pea-in-a-cup game (remember the old magic trick, where you had to guess which cup the pea was under?) with the inspections...

There, now see what you made me do? I said I would try not to go long, but, well...

1. If the Oil Companies stopped giving Saddam Hussein money he would not be able to buy any weapon more dangerous than an aspirin.

2. The worlds Oil scientists and engineers say that the world will effectively run out of Oil in twenty to thirty years.

There is some kind of obvious "math" to be done here, is anyone willing to do it?

Ha ha ha!

Seriously:

1: Talk to the European oil companies about giving Saddam insane amounts of money, because the largest sources of oil for the U.S. is (in order): U.S. (imagine that), Canada, Mexico, Argentina. We only get about 7% of our oil from OPEC nations, and only about half of that is from Iraq. Also, forget about him buying weapons. He has them. He admitted that he had them in 1991, and hasn't shown indications of destroying them since then. Hans Blix has made the statement that Iraq has not disarmed. He has made the statement that Saddam does not believe that he should disarm. Therefore, if all of Iraqs money was frozen, he could still kill quite a few people.

2: "The world's oil scientists and engineers" are not strictly in agreement. In addition, the 20-30 years statistic is not a date for when the oil will be gone, but for when the oil will be harder to get to. At that time, oil shales and deeper wells will be required to keep the supply going. At this point in time, it would be more expensive, but not impossible. Also, 20-30 years is the shortest time frame that can be found from a serious source. You could also quote 180 years. The environmentalists wouldn't be happy if you do, but you could.

I believe that it's actually not math that is required for this question. Logic might be more appropriate.

Glad to provide some laughs.

Most americans learn logic in math classes.

I used numbers from the industries', "Oil and Gas Journal".

Thirty years of Oil industry logic has resulted in the US going to war in Iraq again. That is thirty years of the Oil Industry and friends lobbying to prevent the development of energy sources other than Oil. Thirty years of Americans demanding more efficient cars. Thirty years of Americans demanding research, subsidies, and development of other sources, all of which has been fought and prevented, by the Oil industry. Thirty years of huge subsidies to the Oil Industries and their friends.

Project into the future to the time of no Oil. Ask yourself what should have been before that time. Ask if the useful life of Oil could have been extended for better purposes than driving around, such as making useful products.

At a projected war cost of one hundred to two hundred Billion dollars, the US could have bought and installed one hundred to two hundred thousand new Megawatts of wind power, allowing a shift of energy load and freeing up Oil resources for other uses. Or done research and development of other technology.

I have a lot of respect for physicists as being far more capable of thinking rationally and scientifically than the all to easily bought-off politicians. I encourage you to consider other solutions besides the highly hyped and propagandized ones from the Oil Industry and friends.

Sometime in the future the oil will be essentially used up, what will we be doing then? Should we address that problem sooner than later?

The crux of the problem:

What will replace spandex and other hydro-carbon-based products on beautiful women? ;)

That is a problem deserving of serious brainstorming and attention from all scientists and engineers, including physicists.

I am an American (GO USA!!!) but I also have family in Ireland, Scotland, Italy, and France... Basically, we are all related! So, in the words of another American, Mr Rodney King, "Why can't we all just get along???"

Let he(or she) who is without fault cast the first stone...