Have Europeans Given Up?

[Pagliacci]

Weren't the events of 9/11 caused, in part by America's "Can do" attitude? Yes this thread asserts America's positive attitude but when this spills over into arrogance it's not just the other person's problem it's America's too.

It's odd to think that the country that told us all to "be cool, man" in the 60's is now at the forefront of kicking the butt of anything that stands in it's way.

The events leading up to 9/11 isn't in my mind Americas own fault.Terrorists will do their thing no matter their enemies attitude.Shit if the Catholic church had been a terrorist groups enemies they'd have killed the late Mother Teresa,even if she was a paragon of virtue and selflessly dedicated to helping others.

Terrorists doesn't care about logic,they dehumanize their targets and make them conform to their worldview,nothing else has a place in the terrorists world.

 

[April]

being next to a foreign country means you learn what their money looks like, it doesn't give you special insight into their culture. People all over the world still tend to live in a bubble ten feet around themselves -- how do I get to work, to the barber, to the store?

Just popping in here for a moment. Don't mind me.

Excellent point DCL. I've spent over 9 years in Germany, and they still puzzle me. I've had extensive contact with a multitude of nationalities, but very little exchange of cultural ideas, unless you consider asking where the library is a cultural thang. People are comfortable in their bubbles, and it's very difficult to see past the crust.

 

[virginleo20]

by the way I do agree with Pagliacci full heartedly from what i read on his last post.
My previous post was merely a parody/ sarcastic commentray to the statements of the person whom originally began this disgussion.

 

[busybody..]

If this Weren't the events of 9/11 caused, in part by America's "Can do" attitude? is true.......

Then what is the excuse for Bali?

Among other actions?

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Thus they're not European but the US version of what you think is European.

You can apply that to yourselves, too, can't you? I mean, you're not all running around in togas and suits of armor and hiring serfs to work your castle lands, are you? Britanny was once English, then it was French. Cultures overlap, mutate. No one culture can claim opera, parlimentary law, or even King Arthur. Thinking that Americans are removed from "pure" European culture, and the Europeans are not, isn't accurate.

 

[Pechorin]

They don't want American efficiency,no matter how great it is.

Ok so British efficiency isn't exactly top of the pile but American efficiency? In what? Your motor industry is being crucified by foreign manufacturers and your government had to put up import tariffs to protect the steel trade.

 

[busybody..]

Ok so British efficiency isn't exactly top of the pile but American efficiency? In what? Your motor industry is being crucified by foreign manufacturers and your government had to put up import tariffs to protect the steel trade.

See that is your problem.....you are stuck in yesterday.....

It is no longer important for the US to lead in ALL industries.....

But the US leads in Industries that matter.....

Productivity was up 4.7% last year......No other country can say that.....

When an industry becomes a mere commodity....the US adopts to new industry

 

[Pechorin]

Ok educate me. What are the industries that matter?

 

[Pagliacci]

DCL:

I agree with you,but I can't help but play a bit of the devils advocate here.Where on the same continent and thus closer to the "purer strain" of things,you're across the pond and are a bunch of jumped up wannabees that want to prove to us that you're worthy to be part of the club.

The fact that you got your shit together and Europe really would like parts of your shit no matter the cost is something that isn't mentioned by the hard core Euro purists in their seething jeaolusy.


PECHORIN:
I don't really know how to respond to your post.I'm not American.I'm European,Swedish in fact.
Neither am I Anti american even though I find things to criticize,as much as I find things to criticize about the rest of this planets nations.Though the US becomes a target being a superpower and thus in my mind have a greater responsibility since they wield the biggest stick.

Rephrase what you're trying to say and I'll respond.Not tonight though as I'm off for now.


*Edited to fix spelling errors amongst other things*

 

[Pechorin]

If this Weren't the events of 9/11 caused, in part by America's "Can do" attitude? is true.......

Then what is the excuse for Bali?

Among other actions?

Does every Al Quaeda terrorist attack have to have exactly the same reasons behind it?

 

[Pechorin]

Pagliacci

Which bit do I need to rephase? (This is a genuine question not a clever dick response btw)

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

American television hapens to be 500 times more governemnt controlled than anything that most of "liberal" europe might ever have.

I was speaking of funding, not political influence. But you're wrong about that, too. If anyone has undue influence on American television it certainly isn't the Federal Authority, it's Disney.

Ok ill stop there but to put it short america IS NOT the "home of the free" anymore.

Of course it is, in the sense that the framework and system exists to fight for freedom every day. Those who feel freedom is born unto them, will lose it.

As to smoking.. well i dont smoke but everyone has the right to do as they please.... if it bothers someone it is common courtesy to put the sig out.

Not a credible attitude anymore. States and the Federal government have to pay billions in health care costs due to illnesses caused by smoking, a drug whose addictive nature was not disclosed to the public for years. Secondly, second hand smoke is also a significant health problem for people who simply "choose" not to smoke. Your position is 30 years old, and does not take into account any of this.

The kings and queens etc have absolutely no political power per say they are mere parasites... much like most politicians but with out the leverage.

Yes, but I wasn't making any politcal point about monarchies, so I don't know what your point is.

But then again here in "Freedom land" it seems that people have the same attitudes youmentioned to a corrupt government.. criminal idiot politicians etc... as proof just take a look on how many members of your cogress are going trough some form of litigation as result of their "questionable activities.
Atleast in europe its a "legally corrupt" government system ...

Show me where I wrote that America is the Land of the Happy and Shiny?

I dont evenw ant to go on a rant on fascism and america ....

Good, because it doesn't exist, despite your attempt to widen the definition of "fascism" to include every stupid thing that happens with a gun or a lawbook in America.

As to the trips to the moon etc.. mind you that it was a large number of european scientists whom migrated here from ww2 germany and designed the rockets and made it happen.

My point about the moon was about how it wasn't a miracle, just a problem to solve. If you want to discuss the brilliance of the German scientists, we can, but why?

by the way you dont even want me to go on the fact that this place is much like east germany... considering the fact that one practically needs a government permission before trying to dial out a phone call to a foreign country.

America is like East Germany. Uh-huh. Okay.

As to everythig said above its all true.. though the representation i just gave was a bit of a mix of sarcastic commentary and parody.

I've been a professional writer and comic for over 20 years. You're really bad at parody.

As to the propably comment you will next give of "if you dont like it then leave"..

It's exactly that kind of idiotic thinking that made me just put busybody on Ignore (I think he even puts it in his Sig line). You really ought to get to know me before making an assumption that wrong.

all i can say is that it has nothing to do with the subject at hand and you can shove such nonrelavent logic up where the sun dont shine.

Like I said, welcome to the Board LOL

And be prepared to lose a lot.

 

[Guest]

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Originally posted by Hanns
This person is on your Ignore List.

Poor Hanns is going to get very lonely in the coming months without me to bump his threads LOL.

 

[Guest]

 

[busybody..]

Perlustration Pimps


Remember the "war on poverty"? Like the Vietnam War, it turned out to be a quagmire; expanded welfare programs bred not prosperity but dependency, creating two new classes of Americans: a government-supported underclass and the "poverty pimps," people for whom "the poor are commodity," as Thomas Sowell puts it. They "include not only local politicians, community activists and small-time hustlers, but also people with impressive titles and academic credentials, who likewise milk the larger society, in the name of the poor."

Something similar is going on with those who wish to prolong the war with Iraq by keeping Saddam Hussein in power rather than win it by ousting him. In November the U.N. Security Council unanimously approved Resolution 1441, which gave the Baghdad regime a "final opportunity" to comply with all the previous resolutions or face "serious consequences." The U.N. assigned two teams of inspectors to confirm Iraq's compliance vis-à-vis disarmament, and last week they reported back that Iraq was not in fact complying.

So what should be the "serious consequences"? From Weasel World there comes an answer: More inspectors! "Let us double, let us triple the number of inspectors," said France's Foreign Minister Dominique de Vellepin yesterday, after Colin Powell's presentation. "Let us open more regional offices." Stirs the soul, doesn't it?

De Vellepin's remarks obviously were prepared in advance, but the Associated Press reports President Jacques Chirac says Powell's evidence is, in the AP's words, "not enough to change [the] French position" (prone?). Chirac, however, is keeping his options open: "We refuse to think that war is inevitable," he says--pointedly not saying Paris won't support it when it comes. (The Washington Post quotes Donald Rumsfeld who also pointedly left France off a list of confirmed neutrals: "I believe Libya, Cuba and Germany are ones that have indicated they won't help in any respect.")

Agence France-Presse, meanwhile, says Sen. John McCain "accused France of opposing military action against Iraq solely to protect its oil interests." McCain told ABC News: "The French seem to go where the oil contracts are

 

[busybody..]

Reporting from Djakovica, Kosovo, the Associated Press provides more reason to doubt the notion that Muslims hate freedom and thus will turn to terrorism in even greater numbers after America liberates Iraq. In Kosovo, the AP reports, "the Muslim majority sees the United States as a savior":

American flags flutter on peasants' homes. A couple grateful for U.S. help in ending Kosovo's war names a daughter in honor of Madeleine Albright.

A six-story-high poster of former President Clinton towers over the capital's main drag, renamed Bill Clinton Boulevard. And the president of Kosovo is building a new compound he calls the White House.

Says Ibrahim Rugova, Kosovo's president: "We like Americans because they're freedom-loving people who are pragmatic and love to help. There is a great respect for America--for the ideal. We are small, but even small friends can be important." Why would anyone expect Iraqis to be any less grateful for their freedom?

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

However, some of us think that rail-roading ourselves into a war with Iraq is not the right strategy. The fallout would cause more problems.

And with tons of chemical and biological weapons missing, an ongoing program close to producing a nuclear explosion, and missles that can fly to Israel and further, many of us feel that the fallout from a pre-emptive strike is nothing compared to the fallout caused an Iraqi attack on its own terms. And they will attack. What do you think all these weapons are for? Parades?

 

[busybody..]

German Justice


The Washington Post reports on the closing arguments in the Hamburg trial of Mounir Motassadeq, an alleged Sept. 11 co-conspirator. "The prosecution team urged a panel of five judges to impose the maximum sentence of 15 years in prison for Motassadeq, 28, a Moroccan, who is charged with more than 3,000 counts of accessory to murder and membership in a terrorist organization."

Fifteen years for 3,000 murders? That amounts to one day, 19 hours and 48 minutes per murder. Who says the Germans don't value human life?

 

[MunchinMark]

I ususally don't quote things so far back in the thread but

No country could invade Fortress Europe in 1944.
America led D-Day. I know. I saw the movie.

No country deafeats an enemy and then builds that country back up.
Thank you Marshall plan.

No country could stand eye to eyes with the Soviets and make them blink.
American policy brought down the Berlin wall and collapsed the communist party.

No one can fight against the Arabs in their deserts.
American beat Iraq in 72 days. No sweat.

No country in history has ever been able to take Afghansitan, including the Russians, and Americans will learn how hard it is to fight an enemy in caves!
Goooooood morning, Kabul!

Honestly, when we hear "you can't end terrorism, you have to live with it", we're just not listening. We're planning. We're moving forward. We're taking positive action.

And you're welcome.

I seriously hope that you were taking the piss. I'd expect crap like that from Busybody.
____________

Right. In Europe we have had a lot of experience of various terrorist groups. We consider them criminals because they live in our societies and commit crimes- like murder. They are not representative of the society they are part of and so are quiet hard to eradicate or even deal with since different groups are often at odds with one another.

After 9/11, the Americans here were saying that it was America that had been attacked, not the world, not an idea. Then we got into a war with Afghanistan. I am pretty sure that the US- government and people in general- see terrorism as an attack, not a crime. Therefore war against an entire society was justifiable to you. Europe was against it because people here saw it as a crime, and criminals should be put on trial. I remember trying to temper militaristic attitudes expressed here on the board by saying that evidence should be shown. Even though I was pretty sure that the Taliban were harbouring Al Qaida I had not seen proof.

In the middle of that dense paragraph is the idea that the US and Europe have very different ideas about what terrorism is and as a result they have different ideas about how to resolve it and whether it can be resolved.

And gee, France and Germany have never been under totalitarian regimes have they? Continental Europe has been pretty much always ravaged by conflict and so tries to avoid it. When was the last time there was a war in mainland North America? When was the last time your fields burned and the dead lined the roads? Its a bit difficult to be as bellicose when the memories are fresh. And they are very fresh in Europe.

Governments are always self-interested. That is one of the reasons thay exist. I do not elect politicians to put your interests ahead of mine and I wouldn't expect anyone else to do it either.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

You're replying to my post out of context. I was making a point about issues that seemed unsolvable or unprecedented but were managed by Americans. I was never emulating the jingonistic sports arena politicking of busybody, and your piss remark was unneccassary considering that our point of view about Europe, as described in your post, is very similair. Except in regard to the Al-Qeda terrorists being regarded as "criminals" only. They are not criminals only. They are insurgents. Foreign soliders of fortune with an edict to cause chaos and topple governments. Not the American government. Western governements. Secular governments. Your government. This isn't a police matter.

 

[busybody..]

Has Saddam lost the Arab Street



On January 7, Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan confidently predicted that "the Arab masses and their vanguard forces" will rise up to confront an American-led invasion of Iraq "by any available means." While Iraqi officials have been known to miscalculate in the past, similar predictions have been made by senior government officials throughout the Arab world. During a televised speech last year, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak went so far as to warn the United States, "If you strike at the Iraqi people because of one or two individuals and leave the Palestinian issue [unresolved], not a single ruler will be able to curb the popular sentiments . . . a state of disorder and chaos may prevail in the region."


Expectations that the Arab street will rise up in protest against an American war in Iraq are informed by three considerations. First, anti-American sentiment is at an all-time high in the Arab world (along with much of the non-Arab world). Second, most observers make explicit or implicit comparisons to the first Gulf War, when mass demonstrations erupted in many Arab countries. Even in Mauritania, on the political and cultural fringe of the Arab world, some 20,000 demonstrators marched on the American and French Embassies in January 1991. Hospitals throughout the Arab world delivered children with names like "Scud Hussein," while street vendors sold out of mass-produced desk ornaments, lapel pins, and wristwatches bearing the Iraqi leader's likeness. Third, pundits point to (relatively) large-scale anti-Israeli demonstrations that have erupted around the Arab world during the current Palestinian uprising against Israel as evidence that a raucous "Arab street" will not passively accept an American war in the Middle East.


An uninitiated observer of Arab politics might be tempted to conclude from Mubarak's bold warning that the Egyptian people are seething with outrage about the prospect of a US march into Baghdad. On the contrary, while demonstrations in support of the Palestinian uprising against Israel have drawn tens of thousands of Egyptians into the streets, efforts to organize mass anti-war demonstrations have been a dismal failure. "The Arab Street is apathetic on the issue of Iraq," says Hisham Qassem, editor-in-chief of the English language daily Cairo Times. "Egyptians main sympathy is with the Palestinians," explains Wahid Abdel Meguid, deputy director of Cairo's Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, "Iraq is a marginal issue for them."


The same is true, to varying degrees, throughout the Arab world. "In stark contrast to the widespread demonstrations that came out in many Western cities to protest US plans for war on Iraq, the Arab street has on the whole been mute and indifferent," observed Jordanian journalist Muna Shuqair, with a hint of disgust. Columbia University Professor Edward Said, one of the leading Arab intellectuals in the United States, expressed astonishment at this phenomenon. "It is impossible to believe," he wrote in a recent article. "How can a region of almost 300 million Arabs wait passively for the blows to fall without attempting a collective roar of resistance? Has the Arab will completely dissolved?"


Rhetoric aside, Said is well aware that the muted reaction of the "Arab street" to the impending war with Iraq does not stem from either a lack of willpower or a lack of collective Arab identity. There is every reason to believe that the Arab masses identify strongly with their Iraqi brethren. But the Iraqi people want American troops to liberate their country. According to a recent survey of public opinion in Iraq by the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG), most Iraqis support an American invasion. "I found very few people who were against American intervention," said the ICG researcher who interviewed dozens of Iraqis in Baghdad, Mosul and Najaf for the study. The small minority of Iraqis who expressed opposition to American military action either had a direct stake in the regime or did not trust the United States to follow through on its pledge to oust the Iraqi dictator. Considering that the interviews were conducted in public places (e.g. a beauty parlor), where Iraqis are often reluctant to express opposition to Saddam, the ICG report probably understates popular support for the entry of US troops into the country. Another indication that an American invasion is viewed positively by Iraqis was the massive appreciation of the Baghdad stock market when the UN Security Council passed a resolution in November warning the Iraqi regime of "serious consequences" for failing to cooperate with arms inspectors.


One of the first Arab intellectuals to predict that an outpouring of pro-Saddam sympathies would not materialize in the Arab world was US-based Egyptian political scientist Mamoun Fandy. "No single Arab that I can think of will shed a tear" if Saddam Hussein is ousted, he explained in a September 2002 interview with CNN. "The Arabs will not walk into the attack with the United States, but they will walk in[to] the funeral, and they will be very happy."10


"People look for real heroes who can deliver and Saddam is only a drowning, defeated ruler who is clinging to the wreckage," says Jordanian political analyst Raja Talab, adding that many Arabs blame Saddam for "leading the area to the edge of another catastrophe."11 Open expressions of such hostility to the Iraqi leader remains taboo in many Arab countries, in part because, like Mubarak, Arab heads of state have sought to convince the West that invading Iraq will produce popular unrest and thereby destabilize the region. In reality, Arab leaders are more concerned that the ouster of Saddam will produce popular jubilation - followed by demands for political reforms at home. The claim that the Arab street is bursting at the seams with pro-Saddam sympathies is a convenient justification for increased restrictions on civil liberties.


Most Arab regimes also have more direct interests in the preservation of Saddam's regime. The Kuwaiti government worries about his departure because Iraq's pariah status is an impediment to the country's rearmament. The Saudis fear that the establishment of a pro-US government in Baghdad will diminish their status as a strategic American ally and guarantor of moderate oil prices. Syria's cash-strapped regime has benefited from illicit oil imports from Saddam, which bring in up to $1 billion in annual revenue. Egypt has always competed with Iraq for leadership of the Arab world and does not relish the thought of its rehabilitation.


That most Arabs do not share their governments' reservations about regime change in Baghdad is mainly evident from their tepid response to appeals for action by antiwar campaigners. However, overt expressions of support for Saddam's ouster are becoming more common as war approaches. In early January, Arab intellectuals circulated a petition calling for "the immediate resignation of Saddam Hussein, whose rule for over three decades has been a nightmare for Iraq and the Arab world," and for the "rule of democracy" in Iraq. "There has been a tragic silence on the fate of the Arab world by the Arab world," said Chibli Mallat, a Lebanese professor of international law who signed the petition. "Our lives are at stake with all these chemical weapons." Other signatories include Kuwaiti MP Hassan Jawhar, Egyptian film director Yousri Nasrallah, and Kamel Labidi, a prominent Tunisian journalist and human rights activist.


While the petition framed the call for Iraq regime change as an endeavor to avoid an American-led invasion of Iraq, some intellectuals in the Arab world have begun to express guarded optimism about impending US military action. "I feel a positive outcome might ensue from the coming war," wrote Saudi political analyst Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi. "[It] promises a new free, democratic and stable Iraq instead of today's fragmented dictatorship; a constitutional and tolerant Iraq run by the rule of law; an Iraq at peace with its neighbors; an Iraq that would pursue development in the interests of the prosperity and happiness of its people."

 

[busybody..]

GEORGE WILL WRITES:


"It would be more difficult for the president to wage war against Iraq if the United Nations did not exist. But if the United Nations, having passed 1441, now refuses to authorize war, the United Nations will essentially cease to exist.

There is the outline of a satisfactory outcome: Saddam Hussein removed, the United Nations reduced."


...............The United Nations' power -- like that of France -- grows mostly out the the United States' unaccounted willingness to pretend to take it seriously. But that's getting steadily harder with both.

 

[MunchinMark]

To take the piss is to make fun of something. Hence I said that I really hope that your statements were not made in all seriousness. They carry no explaination (I quoted the entire post, and it itself seemed out of context where it was, I double checked because of the quick moving nature of such debates) are inflamatory and either very specific and wothy of debates in themselves- the first and third- or can be ascribed to other nations too. Even the French, major targets of your argument, have the Arabs in the Desert one.

Al Qaeda do have a political agenda and also support from political circles (probably shrinking like a snowball in the desert now anyway) but they aren't politicians. They are fanatical and, yes, criminal. What their agents have commited are crimes not acts of war, because it is an organisation not a government that is responsible for them. That is the reasoning behind my opinion on this. We can't level bomb Ireland and attack areas where there are known supporters of Republican or Loyalist groups. The Spanish cannot slughter all basques. treating terrorism as a war is not feasable to us.

 

[busybody..]

The French are no Eurowimps

Mark Steyn
National Post


Thursday, January 30, 2003
ADVERTISEMENT


Let's say you're the head of government of a middle-rank power. You have no feelings one way or the other on the morality of things, that being a simplistic Texan cowboy concept. What then should your line on Iraq be?

The first question to ask yourself is: Is Bush serious about war? If your answer is yes, the next question is: Will he win that war?

Answer: Yes, and very quickly. You know that, even if the drooling quagmire predictors of the press don't. So the next question is: How will the Iraqi people feel about it?

Answer: They'll be dancing in the streets. You know that, even if Susan Sarandon and Ed Asner don't. They don't know because, although the "peace" movement claims to be standing shoulder to shoulder with the Iraqi people, no Iraqi person wants to put his shoulder anywhere near them. They know the scale of Saddam's murder and torture. And once the vaults are unpadlocked so will the rest of the world. So the obvious question is: If, for the cost of chipping in a couple of fighter jets, you can pass yourself off as an heroic co-liberator of a monstrous tyranny and position yourself for a big piece of the economic action from the new regime, why not go for it? It would appear to be, in the ghastly vernacular of the cretinous Yanks, a "no-brainer."

Ah, but for those with a big sophisticated Continental brain it's all more complicated than that. There are many idiotic incoherent leaders in the world, several of them francophone (hint), but Jacques Chirac is not among them. Say what you like about M. le President -- call him irresponsible, call him unreliable, throw in shifty, devious, corrupt, and almost absurdly conceited. But he's not stupid. The issue for the French is very straightforward: What's in it for us?

The answer to that may vary, but frame the question as a negative and the reply is always the same: What's not in it for France is that America should emerge with its present pre-eminence even more enhanced. France is in the business of la gloire de la republique, and right now the main obstacle to that is the post-Soviet unipolar geopolitical settlement. They are not temperamentally suited to being anyone's sidekick: If Tony Blair wants to play Athens to America's Rome, or Tonto to Bush's Lone Ranger, or Sandy the dog to Dubya's Little Orphan Annie, fine. The French aren't interested in any awards for Best Supporting Actor.

This isn't quite the same as being a bunch of spineless appeasers. As far as I can see, American pop culture only ever has room for one joke about the French. For three decades, the Single French Joke was that they were the guys who thought Jerry Lewis was a genius. I don't particularly see the harm in that myself, at least when compared to thinking, say, Jean-Paul Sartre is a genius. But, since September 11th, the new Single French Joke has been that they're "cheese-eating surrender monkeys," a phrase introduced on The Simpsons but greatly popularized by Jonah Goldberg of National Review. Jonah, you'll recall, recently flayed us Canadians for being a bunch of northern pussies, but it's a measure of the contempt in which he holds our D-list Dominion that we didn't even merit a pithy four-word sneer-in-a-can.

The trouble is the cheese-eating surrender paradigm is insufficient. If you want to go monkey fishing, there's certainly no shortage of Eurowimps: Since the unpleasantness of 60 years ago, the Germans have become as aggressively and obnoxiously pacifist as they once were militarist; they loathe their own armed forces, never mind anybody else's. But France is one of only five official nuclear powers in the world, a status it takes seriously. When Greenpeace were interfering with French nuclear tests in the Pacific, they blew up the damn boat. Even I, a right-wing detester of the eco-loonies, would balk at killing the buggers.

A few weeks ago, there was a spot of bother in Ivory Coast. Don't ask me what's going on: President Wossname represents the southern Wotchamacallit tribe and they're unpopular with natives in the northern province of Hoogivsadam. Something like that. But next thing you know, French troops have locked down the entire joint and forced both parties into a deeply unpopular peace deal that suits the Quai d'Orsay but nobody else. All of this while the UN is hunkered down in a month-long debate on whether to approve Article IV Sub-section 7.3 (d) of Hans Blix's hotel bill. Ivory Coast is nominally a sovereign state. The French have no more right to treat it as a colony than the British have to treat Iraq as a colony. But they do. And they don't care what you think about it.

So they're not appeasing Saddam. On the matter of Islamic terrorists killing American office workers and American forces killing Iraqi psychopaths, they are equally insouciant. Let's say Saddam has long-range WMDs. If he nuked Montpelier (Vermont), M. Chirac would insist that Bush needed to get a strong Security Council resolution before responding. If he nuked Montpellier (France), Iraq would be a crater by lunchtime.

It's true that for a couple of centuries the French have not performed impressively on the battlefield per se. But even a surrender monkey can wind up king of the swingers. In the Second World War, half of France was occupied, the rest was run by a collaborationist regime; there were a couple of dozen in the French Resistance listening to the BBC under the bed, and a gazillion on the other side, enthusiastically shipping Jews east. And yet, miracle of miracles, in the post-war order France wound up with one of only five UN Security Council vetoes. Canada did far more heavy lifting and was far more deserving of a seat at the top table. But the point is, despite being deeply compromised and tainted, the French came out a big winner.

Their next ingenious wheeze was to co-opt the new Germany, a country with formidable economic muscle but paralyzed by self-doubt. Overlooked in last week's fuss about Schroeder and Chirac's thumbs-down to Bush was the real meat of their confab: the proposal to create a merged Franco-German citizenship. There's already a "European" citizenship, largely meaningless at the moment but intended (or so it was assumed) to be a legal identity that would eventually supersede national citizenship. Now Schroeder and Chirac have effectively announced that at the heart of the European Union will be a Franco-German superstate of 140 million people around which the Dutch and Austrians and other minor satellites cluster like the princely states around British India.

Even the ostensibly risible constitutional proposal that there should be two Presidents of Europe has a kind of sense: one will be, as a general rule, French or, if necessary, German; the other will be some nonentity from Luxembourg or Denmark. Whatever you think of all this, it's not the behaviour of surrender monkeys. A year ago, David Warren dismissed Canada and other fence-sitters as "spectators in their own fates." That's not the French. The startling suggestion that the French government will fund and run state mosques, in order to obstruct the malign spread of Saudi Wahhabism, may sound kooky to American ears. But to sly French Machiavels, it has the potential of neutering the potential Muslim threat as thoroughly as they permanently neutered the German threat.

Meanwhile, the peacenik predisposition of the other Continentals is a useful cover for French ambition. Last year Paavo Lipponen, the Finnish Prime Minister, declared that "the EU must not develop into a military superpower but must become a great power that will not take up arms at any occasion in order to defend its own interests." This sounds insane. But, to France, it has a compelling logic. You can't beat the Americans on the battlefield, but you can tie them down limb by limb in the UN and other supranational bodies.

In other words, this is the war, this is the real battlefield, not the sands of Mesopotamia. And, on this terrain, Americans always lose. Either they win but get no credit, as in Afghanistan. Or they win a temporary constrained victory to be subverted by subsequent French machinations, as in the last Gulf War. This time round, who knows? But through it all France is admirably upfront in its unilateralism: It reserves the right to treat French Africa as its colonies, Middle Eastern dictators as its clients, the European Union as a Greater France and the UN as a kind of global condom to prevent the spread of Americanization. All this it does shamelessly and relatively effectively. It's time the rest of the West was so clear-sighted