PDA

View Full Version : American propaganda


Mercury Rising
Feb 11th, 2003, 11:47 AM
The propaganda is going hard these days.

http://www.nypost.com/images/front021003.gif

HOW DARE THE FRENCH FORGET

February 10, 2003 -- COLLEVILLE-SUR-MER, France - They stand only 3 feet high, but they're towering mountains of sacrifice.
I'm standing in the American Cemetery. Gray clouds hang low as if in mourning for the nearly 10,000 young Americans buried beneath crosses and Stars of David that stretch as far as the eye can see.

The air is chill, but I feel an unnatural glow of rage - I want to kick the collective butts of France.

These kids died to save the French from a tyrant named Adolf Hitler.

And now, as more American kids are poised to fight and die to save the world from an equally vile tyrant, Saddam Hussein, where are the French?

Hiding. Chickening out. Proclaiming, Vive les wimps!

The French, amazingly, never learned the lesson of what happens to appeasers.

They may not remember - but Caroline Buck does.

"When I look at these graves, it makes me want to cry," Buck, who lives in San Antonio, told me as she dabbed her eyes with a handkerchief.

"My father joined the Merchant Marines during WWII at the age of 17. Those soldiers out there under that ground were just kids. They were here to save France, and if it wasn't for them, the French might have ended up speaking German," she said.

Well, what do you know. They're now speaking the same anti-war language as the Germans - in a European chorus of cowards.

Buck's husband, Ron, an engineer, remembered his father flying over France against the Germans in planes nicknamed "The Black Widows" because they flew at night.

"I think this whole anti-American thing is sad," he said. "I don't know whether it's television or an older generation dying out, but after our soldiers did so much for France, well, look at these graves. Surely they remember."

Sorry. They don't.

I read these names with tears in my eyes and fury in my heart:

"Walter F. Rober, Pvt., 358 Inf., 90 Div., New York, July 13, 1944; Angelo Cauca, Pvt., 8 Inf., 4 Div., New Jersey, June 21, 1944; John Hernandez, Pvt., 8 Inf., 4 Div., Nebraska, June 23, 1944."

These names mean nothing to the French, 91 percent of whom, according to a poll, are against President Bush's plans to make Saddam a dark mark in history.

But then again, the French are against everything, including that curious American habit of showering every day.

But wait a minute.

It seems our brave allies are now putting all their French toast in one basket.

They have a 12,000-man contingent training, they say. And it's equipped with one - count it - one amphibious-assault vessel.

Give me a break.

I know some veterans who would say that if the French are in training, they are training to throw up their arms in surrender.

B. Rice Aston, from Houston, the president-general of the Sons of the American Revolution, was visiting here with fellow members.

As he approached the monument in the cemetery, he said: "Remember what Henry Kissinger said. The French are prickly. If you're at the top of the ladder, they sometimes want to shake it for you to fall off."

You walk another hundred yards near hallowed turf: "George Uttering, Pvt., 12 Inf., 4 Div., New York, June 7, 1944; Ramond Carey, 2 Lt., 319, 82 Airborne, New York, July 4, 1944; Ercal W. Netzer, Pfc., 22 Inf., West Virginia, June 7, 1944."

As the sun tries to peek through those mourning clouds, I meet Jessica Silverman, a student from George Washington University, studying here in France. As a college student, she never has been gung-ho for any war.

But Jessica, of Maine, told me, "Nothing has happened to me, but we have been told something that is a little disturbing.

"We have been told that if we face any kind of a threat, we should say we're Canadians, not Americans."

Now isn't that just fine, Americans in France having to pretend they're not Americans.

If they had done that in 1944, the French would have replaced "La Marseillaise" with the Nazi anthem, "Deutchland Uber Alles."

It chills the bone when the French government and so many of its citizens steadfastly try to undermine Bush, even sneer at him, when so many of them were saved by the nation he leads - with the greatest band of brothers on earth.

seabiscuit
Feb 11th, 2003, 01:55 PM
first of all the Belgium leadership is a disgrace for tyring to block attempts to protect Turkey...second, the article forgets to mention how the French helped in the revolutionary war--America as it once was (not anymore) most likely would not have been if not for the help of the French

seabiscuit
Feb 11th, 2003, 04:01 PM
An Open Letter to the French Legation to the United Nations
by Alan Turin

Two-hundred twenty five years ago when France was still governed by the ancien regime your country extended itself on behalf of patriots fighting here for their liberty and independence from England.

Perhaps without the French navy and direct material support to our cause from France herself, American liberty and independence, might have been secured.

What is indisputable was that French support was critical and France came through.

In 1918 when General Pershing arrived in France he acknowledged part of that debt by declaring, "Lafayette, nous sommes ici." Today I have family who are grateful to the United States for ousting the Nazis from France.

France, a kingdom then, invested in a future of democratic-republican liberty in 1778 and it has paid dividends for you.

I am asking France to invest in America again.

What I am asking France to do is what you are already inclined to do.

Exercise your veto at the UN Security Council to deny a war resolution against Iraq.

What I ask France to do for the United States is prevent an imperial war. Put a different way: save America from homegrown imperialists whose fevered nightmare vision threatens this country’s founding ideal: a nation conceived in liberty.

Our constitution has been perverted, usurped and ignored on the question of war. For a generation the rationale of centralizing foreign policy in the Presidency was a "cold war" against a military and diplomatic foe. That threat passed over a decade ago.

That cold war apparatus having lost its justifying mission now searches for a war to justify a mission.

Most Americans oppose going to war without UN and allied support. This war would plunge the Middle East into wider war and blowback terrorism into Europe, the Americas and wider.

It is contrary to France’s interest to see the American empire stagger into the wider disaster of war that will unleash forces that no regime can either contain or foresee.

It is in the interest of France and Europe for America to move to a republican [lower-case "R"] foreign policy and away from empire.

A veto by France against an Iraq war resolution would be an act of statesmanship that future generations would mark as a turning point toward civilization and retreat from the long march into barbarism that began with the Great War.

Yes, you would feel the ire of the present regime. Already the honor of France is being smeared here. Smile at such: there are institutional strengths within France that will sustain you in the gale of abuse. Yes they will "Cry havoc! And let loose the poodles of war." You might reply, "Chacun a son betise."

Remember that when one is delirious, one takes no offense to the ravings of the ill. There is no worse delirium than empire. France has walked that path and paid its price. In the name of humanity, sympathy and blood spilt as allies: I ask France to do what you are already inclined to do.

French blood was shed to help free America over two hundred years ago. Surely France is strong enough to endure the ravings that would come.

Aidez-nous, Lafayette.

gentenaire
Feb 11th, 2003, 04:08 PM
First af all, Belgium will help defend Turkey in case of a war, but that's beside the point. Our government simply decided to choose the side of the people, who generally oppose war, because we've got elections coming up.

Anyway, it's time to stop all this freedom crap, save the world BS, everyone knows what it's all about. The USA is attacking France for doing the exact same thing they're doing. France is defending the exact same thing as the USA. The only difference is that for France it's achieved by not going to war, for the USA it's achieved by going to war.

France will sway in the end, don't worry. France knows only too well that there will be a war, Bush decided that long ago, and it's better to be the American side since they'll be the ones deviding the 'wealth' afterwards.

In the end, innocent Iraqis will be killed and we'll all benefit.

And :rolleyes: @ the article: "How to add to the already existing prejudices"
So the French don't shower, do they? That's new to me.

Mercury Rising
Feb 11th, 2003, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by seabiscuit
first of all the Belgium leadership is a disgrace for tyring to block attempts to protect Turkey...second, the article forgets to mention how the French helped in the revolutionary war--America as it once was (not anymore) most likely would not have been if not for the help of the French
:rolleyes: the American leadership is a disgrace for the whole fucking world. I totally support our government's decision. Not everybody should kiss Bush's ass :mad:

Kiwi_Boy
Feb 11th, 2003, 05:56 PM
i thought this was a free world :confused: ....i also thought countries had the right to make their own minds up :confused:
.....or is that just america these day's??????

.....i think that "newspaper" page above is just sickening,how could they use their own war hero's as propaganda to get their own way like a 2 year old infant.france is france not another state of america,i wish they could respect that.

matthias
Feb 11th, 2003, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by Noodles
:rolleyes: the American leadership is a disgrace for the whole fucking world. I totally support our government's decision. Not everybody should kiss Bush's ass :mad:

well said !!!

3MTA3
Feb 11th, 2003, 06:08 PM
I find it appalling that the NY Post used WWII to further the misrepresentation of European countries. Many in the USA want to allow the inspectors more time. But as our election process shows, the majority is still a minority. We can only hope for a quick end to the war that is coming. If this does not happen, I fear the worst.

ys
Feb 11th, 2003, 06:26 PM
I don't care about propaganda. ANd I know how much it means - means nothing. But if you think that demarche by the sweet threesome ( France, Germany, Russia ) is anything but propaganda, you are the one confused.

I don't care what is US's real agenda at this war will be. I have no sympathy for Mr. Bush or that corrupted character Ms. Rice, and everyone knows what are their motives. But I also know that strict abiding by international laws in all situations is a way into nowhere, way to a catastrophe. And I know that Iraq will be a better place without Saddam, I am sure that Iraqis will live better without Saddam, and this world will be a better and safer place without Saddam, and totally, there will be less victims if he is taken out now, not later. And I don't care what will be a pretext for taking him out..

bmomomax
Feb 11th, 2003, 07:16 PM
ys, when someone decides that the world would be a better place without Bush? Or Sharon? Or any head of state? The US is setting a dangerous precedent - as evidenced by N. Korea's statement last week - Why is pre-emptive strike only the prerogative of the US?

Perhaps the Iraqi people (as well as Cuban) would be better off if the embargo were lifted so that they can import and export and make decent livings.

Maybe the Iraqi people would be better off if the US HAD NOT HELPED HUSSEIN IN THE FIRST PLACE.

ys
Feb 11th, 2003, 07:27 PM
Maybe the Iraqi people would be better off if the US HAD NOT HELPED HUSSEIN IN THE FIRST PLACE.

What's done - done. We are talking about a future..

The US is setting a dangerous precedent - as evidenced by N. Korea's statement last week -


Which precedent? Do you really think that all those international organisations, UN,EU, etc have any logics behind them and any meaning at all? Think about that.

We ( under flag of UN ) are now demanding for Saddam to disarm from all weapons of mass destruction, which we see as a threat to US and other countries, right? But the only real pretext for that demand still remains Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Can you see any logical link between Saddam invading Kuwait and our demand about his WMDs? I can't.

What if he wouldn't have invaded Kuwait at the first place? Would the need to disarm him be any less if he wouldn't? Of course, not. So, what would we be doing now in that case? Just shows that international laws won't prevent the problem. It would rather help the problem to develop even further.



Why is pre-emptive strike only the prerogative of the US?

It has never been the prerogative of US.

ptkten
Feb 11th, 2003, 10:27 PM
Dumb article about the French :rolleyes:

It just perpetuates stereotypes of them in the U.S.

However, it would be better of France and Belgium not to boycott Turkey getting help, I don't see what the point of that is besides having a greater rift between them and the U.S. and leaving Turkey hanging. Even if they don't think the U.S. should go to war, not helping Turkey is not the way to go.

Iconoclast
Feb 11th, 2003, 11:04 PM
The French-German-Belgian position:

Turkey has requested us to help with precautionary measures in case of a war with Iraq. We are going to veto a decision to help them because it is not yet certain that a war will break out, and we are at the same time working hard to find a peaceful solution. Sending Patriot missile batteries to Turkey will escalate the conflict. We do want to help Turkey, but not as this time.

The US and its supporters:

Turkey, a member of our NATO club, is afraid it might be targeted by Iraqi Scud missiles in the case of a war. As the option of war is still on the table, we should fulfill Turkey's request and put defensive measures in place. Iraq attacked Israel, which did not take part in the Gulf War, with 39 missiles in 1991. This time Saddam may employ chemical weapons in similar attacks, if he is desperate and about to be disposed in a second Gulf War.

- I think it's very clear who are playing politics here. And it's also very clear that this does serious harm to NATO. Installing Patriot missiles in Turkey is not even a tertiary issue in the current conflict. I doubt the Iraqi leadership will even pay notice, although I'm sure they will rejoice at the NATO crisis, which has been triggered by something that really shouldn't have been an issue. When Turkey feels threatened and asks for help, solely for defensive purposes, I think the other NATO members are obliged to do a bit more than filibustering the issue.

xan
Feb 11th, 2003, 11:24 PM
What does serious harm to NATO is trying to drag it into lining up in an unprovoked attack on Iraq that most people in Europe don't agree with.

There is NO threat to Turkey at the moment. The only threat would arise if Turkey was used as a base to attack and kill Iraqis. That is nothing to do with DEFENSE, which is what NATO is supposed to be about.

The trouble is that arrogant politicians in the US and UK have decided they can trample over the UN Charter and international law, and that everyone else's role is to follow and applaud.

The US wanted us to get involved in Vietnam as well.

Iconoclast
Feb 12th, 2003, 12:06 AM
I think it's up to Turkey to determine if its feels threatened or not. And apparently they do. In fact, they want to make the same kind of preparations as Israel has already made, or is in the process of carrying out. Patriot batteries are solely for air defense.

The issue of the U.S. utilizing military bases in Turkey doesn't have anything to do with this NATO decision. That wasn't what Germany, France, and Beligum vetoed.

Saddam tried to deliver a few Scud missiles to Bahrain and Saudi Arabia during Gulf War I, so it doesn't seem unlikely that he would target Turkey, another Muslim country, this time.

As for violating international law, I'm sure Baghdad could lend its expertise.

seabiscuit
Feb 12th, 2003, 12:12 AM
Turkey has very real concerns of another Kurdish uprising after this war plays out--a Marxist/Leninist plot to break apart Turkey that is well supported by many places in Europe

xan
Feb 12th, 2003, 12:18 AM
Well, Turkey has been oppressing the Kurds for decades. They're persecuted, forbidden all freedoms, not even allowed to speak their own language. The Turks have already driven out the Greeks and Armenians. At the moment they are in illegal occupation of half of Cyprus, after ethnically cleansing the local inhabitants in defiance of UN resolutions.

Funny these people are our friends??

harloo
Feb 12th, 2003, 12:35 AM
I just think every country is using the "not in my country" theory. Since no acts of terroist violence has occured where they dwell then they are anti war. However, let Sadam kill 4,000 of their people and they will be calling the U.S. in a hot flash. Oh, they will be ready to kill Sadam and bomb Iraq. LOL.

I am anti-war, and I think the U.S. is handling this wrong. But I don't understand what other choice their is, because Sadam and Bin Laden have proven that they are dangerous. The event on 9/11 has proven that, however I don't know if an all out war is the answer. Sadam doesn't care anyways, because he will rally up his support and fight til the end. He seems to have alot of support in his country, and his terriost camps are alive and well.

I feel that the French should not feel obligated to join in on the war, but I will say that if something breaks out in their country terrorist related then I don't wan't to hear it.

I feel like Sadam will never reliquish his power. He will continue his ruthless dictatorship, and pass his legacy to his son. Whether the U.S. can stop him and Bin Laden is the question. It didn't work during the "Gulf War" and attacking Afghanistan has had minimal affects on the structure of the government. Who will win? One can only guess.

Iconoclast
Feb 12th, 2003, 12:36 AM
The word you are looking for is 'Realpolitik'. They were a useful ally during the Cold War. And now they are viewed as a bridgehead to the Middle East.

As far as the Kurds go, their situation has improved somewhat in recent years, after Turkey captured Öcalan and moved closer to the EU. PKK are no angels I might add, but otherwise you have no argument from me.

Their treatment of Kurds has been nothing short of despicable. And the genocide of Armenians, which most of the world seems to have forgotten about, even worse, even though it was in the dying days of the Ottoman era.

Cyprus is another embarrassment. Don't really know how they can make any demands of the EU before pulling out from there first.

Playa
Feb 12th, 2003, 12:38 AM
second, the article forgets to mention how the French helped in the revolutionary war--America as it once was (not anymore) most likely would not have been if not for the help of the French

No ! Lafayette lost his first battle and his army was destroyed by the brits.
check your facts.


there is no way a brutal dictaror , a butsher such as saddam Hussein
should control half of the oil's reserve in the world and blackmaill
the "civilisation".
He has weapon of mass destruction.
the french don't care about that, that's what i was trying to say last week. they have the biggest oil interrest in IRAK after RUSSIA.

i have to agree with the current article.

2284
Feb 12th, 2003, 12:42 AM
That is totally fucked! The US media would also like people to believe that US soldiers protected Australia during WW2, but the reality is that all the soldiers did was drink alcohol and womanise

Playa
Feb 12th, 2003, 12:45 AM
Seriously untilled ,how old are you?

seabiscuit
Feb 12th, 2003, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by Playa
Seriously unti[t]led ,how old are you?

hmmm--not old enough to use that lanquauge:angel:

and untitled (who i still say should get a title) nowadays we have UN peacekeepers who are involved in slave-sex trade and abuse of teenagers--see the situation in Bosnia where a whistleblower blew the cover off these dispicable events

seabiscuit
Feb 12th, 2003, 12:55 AM
and one must distinguish between treatment of Kurds and treatment of the Kurdish PKK, the latter are Marxist terrorist revolutionaries claiming to want independence but really want to overthrow the Turkish Republic

Iconoclast
Feb 12th, 2003, 01:02 AM
That's true, seabiscuit. But we can't exactly accuse various Turkish governments of being particularly keen on promoting Kurdish culture and language. To put it midly.

ys
Feb 12th, 2003, 02:23 AM
there is no way a brutal dictaror , a butsher such as saddam Hussein should control half of the oil's reserve in the world and blackmaill the "civilisation".

Less than quarter of the oil reserve. And that's given that all Iraq and Middle East was well searched for oil reserves, and what is known is what they have, while half of Russia and other Soviet Republic hasn't been explored yet. As I said, before, it is not Iraq, it's Saudi Arabia, who got huge reserves and blackmails the whole world. And we need Iraq's reserves not to depend on Saudis, who are the biggest evil on Middle East, even if our friends on paper. Besides, Saddam is tyrrant and isn't good for his own country. More than enough reasons to take him out, even leaving alone all propaganda bullshit.

He has weapon of mass destruction.


He might, but if we'd have had a smoking-gun proof, you'd watching be watching CNN-Tomahawk show by now.. Even if he
doesn't have those WMD, we need him down, and we have a capacity to do that. That's all that matters..

the french don't care about that, that's what i was trying to say last week. they have the biggest oil interrest in IRAK after RUSSIA.


Everyone has oil interests there, and nobody can enjoy the benefits of those interests. But even if the French would be able to have it, do you think that would make the petrol prices in Paris lower than they are? Nope, but it would make gas prices in NY go down.. Keep in mind, all oil interests aside, France is the only big player in this game with serious domestic Arabic influence - there are plenty of Algerians and Maroccans in France, so France can't afford the hardline that US can.. Anyways, it doesn't change the fact that their blocking Turkey help is really uncalled for...


i have to agree with the current article.


No need to agree with bullshit to be right in principle. And in principle you are right..

gentenaire
Feb 12th, 2003, 06:14 AM
Originally posted by ys
As I said, before, it is not Iraq, it's Saudi Arabia, who got huge reserves and blackmails the whole world. And we need Iraq's reserves not to depend on Saudis, who are the biggest evil on Middle East, even if our friends on paper.

Exactly!
So far there's no proven link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. There are plenty of links between Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia. But they can't deal with them now because that would mean the US would lose their biggest oil ally. So the first step is to get control over the Iraqi oil reserves (Iraq comes second after Saudi Arabia), only then it's safe to deal with Saudi Arabia. And in case that fails, there's always Russia so the US is trying to be on good terms with the Russians.

So what's going to happen is, the USA will bomb Iraq, will probably win pretty quickly (and show to the world that there aren't nearly as much WMD in Iraq as the USA claims. You must be the world's biggest fools to send people to attack a country with a whole arsenal of chemical and nuclear weapons), some new puppet regime will be installed in Iraq, the oil is safe (and those who co-operated with the US will be rewarded). Then Saudi Arabia will be next.

Mercury Rising
Feb 12th, 2003, 08:13 AM
I only hope Saddam will blow up all the oil in his country when the US attacks.

gentenaire
Feb 12th, 2003, 08:18 AM
No, you don't, Noodles. I highly doubt you'd like to pay double for everything after the war.

Halardfan
Feb 12th, 2003, 08:55 AM
First I want to empahsise that America did play a vital role in World war 2, they were a crucial part of the liberation of Europe...BUT I can't STAND it when WW2 is brought up by people on the American right...who talk about appeasment and French surrender, and look at the later part of the war for proof of the US saving the world...ignoring America own role early in the war...

Sept 1, 1939 - Nazis invade Poland.

Sept 3, 1939 - Britain, France, Commonwelath countires allies etc...declare war on Germany

Sept 4, 1939 - British Royal Air Force attacks the German Navy.

Sept 5, 1939 - United States proclaims neutrality; German troops cross the Vistula River in Poland

Following few months - Country after country falls.

May 10, 1940 - Germany invades France, Holland, Belgium, Luxemburg.

Jun 4 1940 - The evacuation at Dunkirk ends. 338,000 allied troops were rescued. Churchill declares that Britain will never surrender. Allies desperate for US intervention. It doesn't come.

Next year and a half, allies fight on, over the skies of Britain, in North Africa, in the Atlantic, then Russia...

Dec 6 1941 - The massive Russian counter attack near Moscow begins. The Germans are pushed back.

Dec 7 1941 - The Japanese navy attacks Pearl Harbor and the Phillipines. The US at war with Japan.

Dec 11 1941 - Germany and Italy declare war on the USA.

RayDay
Feb 12th, 2003, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by untitled2284
That is totally fucked! The US media would also like people to believe that US soldiers protected Australia during WW2, but the reality is that all the soldiers did was drink alcohol and womanise

Yes and many ppl don't know this but Australia repelled a Japanese Invasion force in New Guinea

joneg2
Feb 12th, 2003, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by ys
I don't care about propaganda. ANd I know how much it means - means nothing. But if you think that demarche by the sweet threesome ( France, Germany, Russia ) is anything but propaganda, you are the one confused.

I don't care what is US's real agenda at this war will be. I have no sympathy for Mr. Bush or that corrupted character Ms. Rice, and everyone knows what are their motives. But I also know that strict abiding by international laws in all situations is a way into nowhere, way to a catastrophe. And I know that Iraq will be a better place without Saddam, I am sure that Iraqis will live better without Saddam, and this world will be a better and safer place without Saddam, and totally, there will be less victims if he is taken out now, not later. And I don't care what will be a pretext for taking him out..

Well said!!!

joneg2
Feb 12th, 2003, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by untitled2284
That is totally fucked! The US media would also like people to believe that US soldiers protected Australia during WW2, but the reality is that all the soldiers did was drink alcohol and womanise

Solid American G.I's... ;)

seabiscuit
Feb 12th, 2003, 02:29 PM
Joseph Sobran's latest article:
<http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/030128.shtml>

The states of Europe are reluctant to support an American war on Iraq. So are most European people. For this the hawkish press in this country is accusing them of “anti-Americanism.”

As the columnist Richard Cohen puts it, “These European critics need to be reminded ... that America saved Europe from the Nazis and from the Communists and asked nothing in return.” Nothing, it seems, except an eternally grateful subservience.

Actually, Americans weren’t quite so selfless. During both World War II and the Cold War, they were told that their own freedom depended on saving Europe’s freedom. They were strongly opposed to entering World War II until Pearl Harbor — by which time more than 100,000 of those allegedly cowardly Frenchmen had died fighting Germany, only to be conquered. Yet to hear today’s hawks tell it, the French surrendered without a struggle and welcomed Hitler to Paris; and today they are spurning their benefactors — us Americans — who are nobly trying to save them from today’s Hitler, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.

Well, the French remember the first Hitler, and they don’t see the analogy. They think the United States is pushing for a needless war against a regime that poses no threat to them, let alone to the United States, which, with typical Gallic effrontery and ethnocentrism, they consider to be across the Atlantic, out of reach of Iraq. They see nothing to be gained by such a war, but they see dangers for everyone; and they don’t want to be dragged into it. This is now “anti-Americanism.”

The Germans share these views. They too are “anti-American.”

Think of that! We save their freedom for them, and they insist on acting like free countries! Did our brave soldiers die so that they could disagree with us?

The Pope opposes this war. He must be anti-American too. And guess what? General Norman Schwarzkopf, hero of the 1991 Gulf War, is very dubious about this one. And here you thought he was a patriot.

Millions of people in this world, some of them in Europe, really are anti-American. They wish nothing but harm to this country; they curse its name. But the millions of other Europeans — and Americans — who want to prevent this war are chiefly driven by humane concern for everyone who is likely to suffer. They are anti-war for pro-American reasons. If you try to stop a friend from getting into a drunken brawl, you don’t become his enemy. When he sobers up, he will regard you as a better friend than he knew.

North Korea’s bloated fanatic, Kim Jong Il, is a far more despicable tyrant than Saddam Hussein, which is saying something. He is also viciously anti-American. It’s conceivable, even probable, that he would be delighted by a U.S. war on Iraq, because of its likely baneful results for America.

It’s juvenile to equate critics with enemies. A critic may warn you that you are driving dangerously. An enemy would rather see you have a serious accident. A true friend will sometimes be a critic, even an angry critic. Our European friends are now exasperated with us. Instead of heeding their passionate pleas, our rulers ridicule them as “old Europe” for refusing to cooperate in a dubiously conceived military adventure whose outcome nobody can know.

Two world wars ended with consequences all the belligerents failed to foresee. If anyone really won, it was, both times, the Communists. The first war enabled them to overthrow the tsars and conquer Russia; the second one enabled them to extend their empire over much of Christian Europe. Even Stalin must have been happily surprised when, after a mighty close shave, he emerged as an emperor.

Yet to this day, the optimistic illusion persists that “we” won both wars. But neither time could the results be judged on the day the enemy ceremonially surrendered. History isn’t measured by ceremonies, which are only brief pauses in infinitely complex and continuous events.

Except for Secretary of State Colin Powell, nobody in the Bush administration seems even slightly aware that history will keep moving unpredictably, as it always does, after the United States marches triumphantly into Baghdad.

“Experience keeps a dear school,” Benjamin Franklin said, “but a fool will learn in no other.” The Europeans have learned bitter lessons in that school; Americans are just now enrolling.

Mercury Rising
Feb 12th, 2003, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by Beggin' Beguine
No, you don't, Noodles. I highly doubt you'd like to pay double for everything after the war.
Oh yes, I DO mean that, you can call me nuts, but it's a feeling I always had. I'll never buy a car as long as it runs on oil, my house will not need oil. If the oil disappears, they will finally have to use the energy resources that allready excist but are worked against by the oil mob.

gentenaire
Feb 13th, 2003, 10:21 AM
So you're never in a car, Noodles? You never buy anything made out of plastic? What's your computer made out of? Wood?

Lynx
Feb 13th, 2003, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by seabiscuit
first of all the Belgium leadership is a disgrace for tyring to block attempts to protect Turkey. ...The Belgium leadership is not trying anything of the kind.

In the Nato a decision must be unanimous. The US - after persuading a very reluctant Turkey that it should participate in a war against Iraq, promising Turkey Nato protection - urged the Nato to offer Turkey that protection. Since it was promised on the basis of an attack on Iraq however (and since the request for protection didn't come from a threatened Turkey), several Nato-members opposed such an offer (as is their right).

To nevertheless force such a decision, the US decided - with the complicity of the secretary-general George Robertson, btw - to use the rule "those who keep silent, agree with us" (apparently there is such a rule in the Nato), forcing thereby every country which did NOT agree to state such explicitly in a letter, which had to be submitted in a matter of days. It was meant as an intimidation... and it mostly worked. It IS much easier to keep quiet - much easier than to put yourself on the spot, and be vilified for it by the US, as was more than foreseeable.

The only countries which did NOT succumb to the massive pressure from the US and allies (the UK and Spain, to name a few), are, as we all know by now, France, Germany and Belgium. It is not their fault that the Nato looks divided (nor is it the first time!) If anybody is to blame for the fact that the disagreement in the Nato was revealed, it has to be those who have tried to force a decision.

Belgium is NOT blocking attempts to protect Turkey. Belgium is trying to avoid a war in which it does not believe. Belgium is also trying to make it easier for Turkey to resist American pressure. Virtually ALL the Turkish ppl in Belgium praise the Belgium government for it's decision.


What, now, has been the reaction of the US ? They attacked the opposing countries, of course --- and most of all that perfidious Belgium, that minimi minimorum... 'cause, like every experienced bully, they know it's easiest to pick on the little guy. For France and Germany they still saw some excuses; not so for Belgium.


My admiration for the W. Bush administration was never very high. It is now below zero, and beyond contempt.

***
I like to thank all the Americans who have sent e-mails to the Belgian Embassy to congratulate Belgium on it's courageous stance.
Thanks also to seabiscuit for posting the article of Joseph Sobran.

seabiscuit
Feb 13th, 2003, 02:19 PM
Lynx, if this is indeed the case then good...but of course I'm suspicious of everything out of Belgium since it headquarters the Establishment of the new world order, which brings much more than one evil...i'd wished Belgium took a hard stance on the previous administrations strong-arming NATO attack on Belgrade--i won't and cannot trust anyone opposing this action on Iraq who also gave their support to the illegal & immoral destruction of Serbia, which the Establishment and their Global Court has been trying hard to entrench their control over all soveign nations...my admiration for the Bush administration has been below zero for quite a while as it's clear such is being run by the established elite that castigated Buchanan for tyring to expose the Bush family "Skull & Bones" foriegn policy...however today as a some columist's like Sobran understand that to be against the Establishment means being anti-American in the newspeak of today...if Belgium stance is that of trying to help Turkey than I'm all for it but if memory serves me correct they were not exactly defending Turkey's government in their attempt to destroy the PKK...