1 And why shouldn't European nations take charge of their direction when confronted by the one "European" nation who will not concede any commitment to the EU without a screaming tantrum? And why should you care, you have a president who could care less about Europe. In fact, doesn't discussing Europe an Internationalist? ;-)

2 Hi! I'm just finishing a book by Robert Kagan "Of Paradise and Power". It's a book for grown-ups. Not very big more like a long essay. It's an attempt to show the differences between Europe's and US's view of the world and how to deal with foreign matters. By the way the above comment reflects a rather immature take on current events. P.S. The book should be available at the library. I'm buying a copy. Also you can find him on the net.

3 "In fact, doesn't discussing Europe an Internationalist? ;-)" Huh? I assume you left out the part that makes this sentence coherent. There was a time when, despite differences, western democracies could be counted on to have a common appreciation for the spreading of democracy, especially to trouble spots where dictatorships have proven to be aggressive. Now we have a wedge of Europe that seems to appreciate bribes and commercial interests before such lofty ideals. France demands to lead all of Europe against the United States while America is "infecting" lands once dominated by theocratic dictatorships and cruel tyrants with the blessings of freedom. If France and Germany wish to sell their collective souls for the sake of diverted Food for Oil bribes, contracts and as pathetic salves for their bruised egos, well that is their right. But for the two former WWII allies to demand that all of Europe follow their lead is rather pathetic. France is France and no explanation is needed to explain their fall from somewhat respected hasbeen to defender of totalitarianism, but Germany should know better. Britain has a proud history of defending freedom, often against the French and Germans, and will never sell out. As to whether France can convince Europe to follow its shameful lead, time will tell.

4 That would be Central France, West France and East France, then?

5 Seriously, this is all they've got? More posturing and snivelling from the French government. Shocking!

6 Nice snark you all, but I'm astonished no one has lamented the apparent dropping of valiant Belgium from the original axis in favour of Spain. And Luxembourg! Those two countries were deemed indispensable only a few short months ago ...

7 The response of the European Union to American Unilateral Polices is predictable. NATO is dead and the first casualty of the Bush Doctrine. NATO was originally crafted upon the idea of "collective security" and the idea that "an attack upon one, is an attack upon all". Indeed that idea was incorporated into Article 52 of the United Nations Charter. The second casualty is the emerging SEATO treaties in Asia. Countries there will realign much as the European Community has realigned to present a much less co-operative posture to the United States and its Imperial Designs around the world. You can indeed see France doing in the Ivory Coast pretty much what America is doing in Iraq, which is it say, "unilateral military occupation" of sovereign countries that have oil and gas reserves that others covet. So this is a heads up because Japan will rearm, and it will move to "protect" the oil and gas fields in Indonesia. Now wasn't the world here before, and did everyone forget the lessons of history? Or are we all doomed to relearn its lessons? - Joe Green

8 Joe, this Axis has been formed to fight Tony Blair, i.e., the UK, not GWB. (I know it's fashionable to assume Blair in Bush's puppet, but if so then he was also Clinton's puppet! Having read about the man in the British press, I suspect Blair is very much his own man.) The British economy is still resilient and the French and German ones aren't. The French and German economies are bogged down due to the constraints of regulations and their inability to curtail social spending despite their sluggish economies. Their problems lie within, so naturally they are making up a bogey-man to explain it all away. Lazy thinkers will be happy with that analysis. NATO is less effective as the Warsaw Pact is, you know, gone, but the addition of several new members will prove interesting. If you are interested in Europe, watch Russia as she negotiates a path between the USA and the EU, and don't forget that Putin gave a sideways endorsment of Bush (albeit within diplomatic restraints.) Your SEATO conclusions overlook Australia, which is providing a great deal of leadership in the South Pacific, and also overlooks the participation of the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia and others in the war on terror. Just because the media here downplayed the 2002 attack in Bali as well as the impact of subsequent attacks doesn't mean the countries over there did. East Timor and Bali were turning points in the South Pacific and the repercussions may best be judged in the electoral aftermaths in those countries.