but than again.. the french did sell iraq satalite photoes of the region prior to the invasion of kuwait, they also sold them the radar cross sections for their fighters so when they offered them to the (first) coalition they were totaly useless and thus weren't implamented..
As to protesters getting violant, it deppends, I tink some people who are protesting are just realy angery in genneral, and when you are angery you lash out, and when you see cops beating others you get all pissed (wether or not you know why they are hitting someone) than there are also people who go to those things just to cause trouble (anyone remember the WTO riot thig in seattle?)
As to the first atricle, I liked it. It was writen from a perspective that I could never know as I am to young. Actualy, I have always kind have wondered why france was given a perminant eat on the security council, I mean after WWII it could easily be argued that the danish assisted in the war effort more than the french did..
As to the second one, I think the argument is not very good, the analogy of the currant situation to world wars I and II is falty, iraq does not have the capability to develop a threat to the united states or to any other nations that do not directly boarder it, and even then it would only be a minor one and some sort of an act of desperation. When hitler re-militerised the Rhineland it gave him the industrialability to build a powerfull military, I would consider the invasion of kuwait to be a more accurate analogy, but we did stop him there, since than the nation has been under very heavy economic sanctions, to the point that they can't even import things like sewage treatment facilities, they have been smugaling oil out of the country but they don't have the economic power to build a military, and they don't have the capability to obtain that economic power. The argument of a rouge nuke is a pour one, I havn't seen any evidence of such a capability, I would worry more about a north korean nuke being stationed in an american city than an iraqi weapon. a biological or chemical device yes, but not a nuclear weapon. Further more what is so diffrent now than 12 years ago, or 1 year ago or 2? There is no new evidence that has come to light in my opinion to warrant a comparison to WWII or the thret germany posed europe there.
and, not french. 
