Why Paris-Berlin Axis Succor Arabs...Hate Israel & US

[ullr]

Historian Bat Ye'or writes:

"[The last three decades of building] complex ties between the Arab-Muslim world and the EU was, at its core, conditioned by an anti-Israeli and anti-American policy, the Arab ambition being to detach Europe from its Atlantic ally. As Palestinian and Islamic terrorism developed, the EU — anxious to save its growing and multiple interests in the Muslim world — accused Israel and U.S. policy of provoking it. Rather than confronting Islamic terrorism, European leaders resorted to appeasement by condemning Israel. Anti-Zionism, integrated into the developing Euro-Arab relations became a European sub-culture of hate, denigration and disinformation, nourished by the inner dynamic of the Euro-Arab Dialogue that led to the rise of Eurabia. Opposing views were silenced to maintain a monolithic façade of Islamic correctness in the press and publications. From September 2000, the outburst of Palestinian terrorism within Israel triggered a violent antisemitic wave in Europe as if it had become the heart of Arabism.
[SNIP1]
"Today the Iraqi crisis confronts the EU governments with three decades of pusillanimous policy based on oil, markets, short-term economic gains, and an imperialist ambition of domination. It is practically impossible now in Europe to control Islamic terrorism either from within or without. Nor can the EU accept the destruction of the multifarious symbiosis created by all European political parties with the Arab and Muslim world, to the detriment of their own country's security. Europe has undergone a profound structural and demographic change, which is not yet fully perceived by Europeans, even less by Americans. This transformation of a Judeo-Christian based-civilization and culture by strong trends of Islamization is creating social, political and cultural grounds for confrontations that could provoke dangerous social implosions."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6262

THE US enemy obviously includes the Euro-arab hegemonic establishment!!!

 

[Guest]

 

[Linedrive]

The looming war in Iraq has pitted the United States against fellow charter members of the U.N. Security Council and NATO alliance, France and Germany. This rift reached a fever pitch when the Paris-Munich alliance announced it would block an American-led NATO military operation to defend Turkey. The decision marks the first time one NATO country has refused to come to the defense of another member country. It also undermines the alliance’s credibility and the very fabric of its charter, which states an armed attack on one member nation will be recognized as an armed attack on all. An economic boycott of French and German products, coupled with the threat of permanent U.S. military base closures, will send a clear message of outrage from the American people over their disloyalty.

Paris’ reluctance to support possible U.S. military action in Iraq or even the defense of a NATO ally should come as no surprise. In 1966, France announced its withdrawal from the alliance’s ‘integrated military structure,’ and since has consistently demurred on U.S.-led NATO initiatives. During the 1980’s Cold War debate over missile deployments the French repeatedly frustrated NATO’s attempts to counter Soviet missiles threats. More recently, the French blocked a plan to extend the alliance’s presence in Macedonia another six-months. It’s no secret the French want to see the creation of a European Union ‘rapid reaction force’ to replace an American-dominated NATO.

In the Middle East, the French are unreliable allies. Recall 1986, when two fatigued U.S. pilots lost their lives after France refused to allow our bombers to fly over French airspace in our attempt to take out Libya’s terrorist leader, Moammar Gadhafi. Our pilots were forced to fly an additional six hours from Great Britain to the targets in Tripoli because of French resistance. During Desert Storm, the French were reluctant allies at best. French forces assisted in Kuwait only and refused to enter Iraq. They also refuse to participate in the enforcement of the no-fly zones.

The French oppose our Iraqi policy not for any philosophical or moral reasons but because they are in bed with Saddam militarily and economically. Iraq’s atomic reactor Osirak, destroyed by an Israeli air strike in 1981, had been built and maintained by French technicians as part of a nuclear contract signed with Hussein in 1975. In exchange, the French were guaranteed a dependable supply of cheap oil. Amazingly, even after Hussein admitted the reactor was a means to obtaining nuclear weapons, France continued work on the Iraqi nuclear program.

The French also outfitted Hussein’s military with advanced Mirage aircraft and armaments. In March 1987 a Mirage F-1 fighter fired French Exocet missiles into the hull of the USS Stark killing 37 Navy seaman. Will U.S. troops encounter similar French-made weaponry in the forthcoming action to topple Saddam Hussein?

Today, the French maintain an increasingly lucrative trade relationship with Iraq. The so-called “Oil for Food Program” has enabled France to secure over $3 billion in import contracts with Iraq, and a French company has contracted with Baghdad to develop Iraq’s northern oil fields when sanctions are lifted. Iraq’s known oil reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia’s in size and future profitability.

While Germany has managed to increase its exports to Iraq to well over 600 million Euros annually, Germany’s opposition to the war is driven by internal politics. Last September’s parliamentary elections were an anti-war referendum. Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s Social Democrats retained power on the strength of Schroeder’s anti-American rhetoric and the Green party’s ability to draw enough votes to form a coalition government. Schroeder’s ‘red-green’ coalition won 47 percent of the vote, hardly a mandate.

In a desperate move to keep his coalition together, Schroeder has adopted the Green Party’s hard-line anti-American stance. But even that may not keep him in power; last month’s devastating regional election losses for the Social Democrats proves Schroeder’s coalition government is in serious trouble.

Schroeder and Jacque Chirac now risk collapsing the NATO alliance. The announcement concerning Turkey’s defense preparations prompted President Bush to deplore French and German actions as “shortsighted” and certain to “affect the alliance in a negative way.” Secretary of State Powell set an even more ominous tone, stating NATO is on the verge of “breaking itself up.”

As Americans, we ought to repay French and German disloyalty with a boycott of their goods. Annual French exports to the United States such as civilian aircraft engines, art, antiques, perfumes and cosmetics, and wine total $28 billion. German exports to America including passenger cars, beer, and bakery goods total $61 billion. Now is the time for a national boycott, including the threat of base closures, to demonstrate American resolve. In the 20th Century, failed French and German foreign policy cost hundreds of thousands of American lives. The French and German people must understand that actions have consequences. If they can’t bring themselves to do the right thing, let’s make them choose between losing a few Iraqi dinar or billions of American dollars.

David N. Bossie is the President of Citizens United, a grassroots advocacy organization that is launching a national campaign to boycott French and German products. Mr. Bossie is also the former Chief Investigator for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.

http://www.citizensunited.org


WINE AND CHAMPAGNE--DOZENS OF COMPANIES- EACH LABELED
AS A PRODUCT OF FRANCE
DOM PERIGNON CHAMPAIGNE
CHEESE, LABELED A PRODUCT OF FRANCE
DANNON YOGURT
LOREAL MAKE-UP
EVIAN BOTTLED WATER
PERRIER SPARKLING WATER
CHRISTIAN DIOR
CHANEL PERFUME
LANCOME MAKE-UP
TOTAL GASOLINE STATIONS
FINA GASOLINE STATIONS
LE COQ SPORTIF, SPORTING GOODS
LVMH-DONNA KARAN INTERNATIONAL
LOUIS VUITTON
GIVENCHY PERFUME
VIVENDI-SEAGRAM AUDIOVISUAL
PERNOD RICARD SA-SEAGRAM SPIRITS
SODEXHO
SOCIETE GENERALE
PATRICK SHOES
CHRISTIAN LACROIX, LEATHER GOODS AND FASHION

GERMAN PRODUCTS

SIEMANS
DEUTSCHE BANK
MERCEDES
BMW
VOLKSWAGEN
BECK’S BIER
ST. PAULI GIRL BIER
DAIMLER/CHRYSLER
BERTELSMANN-RANDOM HOUSE

 

[teddybear4play]

"Chirac At Center Of Europe's Axis Of Weasels"
Mark Steyn, Chicago Sun-Times
Sunday, February 16, 2003

Saddam Hussein is what Alfred Hitchcock called the MacGuffin. Like the top-secret formula in The 39 Steps or the uranium in Notorious, he's the pretext for the movie, but he's not really what the movie's about. Despite the best efforts of the French and Germans, the old butcher will be gone in a few weeks. The real debate in Washington is about the speed and scale of post-Saddam Middle Eastern reform: There are legitimate differences about that but the ''post-Saddam'' bit of it is taken for granted. As noted in this space many months ago, he's being taken out first because he's the weak link in the chain of Arab despots. All the other stuff -- the chemical weapons, the ties to Islamist terrorism, the material breaches -- is true but ancillary.

Likewise, for M. Chirac, Herr Schroeder and their little Belgian chum, it's not really about Saddam, either. To be sure, they would like him to remain President-for-Life and their joke ''plan'' to send in blue-helmeted UN troops was designed to achieve just that. This isn't because, as some have argued, they're worried that when the Yanks open up the filing cabinets they're going to find a lot of invoices from France and Germany. As must surely be clear after these last two weeks, Messrs. Chirac and Schroeder don't embarrass easily. The wily Continentals will shrug off whatever turns up in Saddam's basement: It's just business, nothing personal, c'mon, we're all men of the world here, right?

No, for them what this movie is about is much closer to home. To the dozy ''experts'' on this side of the Atlantic, the notion of a ''split'' between America and ''Europe'' is so appealing they don't seem to care that the only real split is between Chirac, Schroeder and Belgium's Manekin Pis, on the one hand, and everybody else. America has never been isolated. Oh, sure, concede the cynics, Bush's Anglosphere poodles in Britain and Australia are snuffling his gusset, but no one else.

Well, there's those seven Continental countries that signed that letter to the Wall Street Journal. Hah! Scoffed Robert Scheer of the Los Angeles Times, nothing but a bunch of nations ''you can buy on eBay.'' Really? Italy? Spain?

Next, the Vilnius Group got on board: That's pretty much every country in the Baltic and Eastern Europe. ''Everyone's feeling better. Albania signed on,'' sneered Mark Shields on CNN.

Oh, dear, oh, dear. Are there no foreigners good enough for Shields, Scheer and the other ''multilateralists''? Brits, Aussies, Italians, Poles, Lithuanians: none of 'em count. During the Great War, Irving Berlin wrote a song about a proud mother watching her son march in the parade: ''They Were All Out Of Step But Jim.'' In this war, according to the picky multilateralists, they're all out of step but Jacques. Well, President Chirac can do the math: On the Continent of Europe, the majority of nations support the Anglo-American position; the Franco-German position is supported by Belgium, and the rapid crumbling of support for the Schroeder government at home suggests, if he's not careful, that the axis of weasels is going to be down to Paris and Brussels, Monsieur Evil et Mini-Moi. Chirac is playing a high-stakes game--Schroeder is merely the dumb moll who's along for the ride and way out of her league--and it's important to understand that the swaggering Texan gunslinger is a mere proxy for his real target: Tony Blair.

To the French, something very astonishing has happened: ''Europe'' was supposed to be France writ large, a European ''union'' built in France's image. To that end, they took it for granted that the entire Continent would inevitably come to be as semi-detached from NATO as the French have been since 1966. To Chirac, Tony Blair is the odd man out, with his strange Anglo-Saxon hang-ups about the transatlantic alliance. But as has become obvious to the Czechs, Poles, Bulgars, Romanians and everybody else, it's Chirac who's the misfit.

What to do about this appalling lese-majeste?

Answer: Get rid of Blair.

Sounds crazy? Not necessarily. Look what happened a month before the last Gulf War. Margaret Thatcher: riding high in October, shot down in November. She went to a big EU get-together, fired off a couple of rhetorical volleys that the Eurodefeatists in her own party found a little too vulgar, and next thing you know she was being carried out by the handles. The fact that she was George Bush's buddy availed her naught. Arguably, this changed the course of the war: It was Maggie who'd stiffened Bush's spine after the seizure of Kuwait in August 1990, famously telling him ''this is no time to go wobbly''; I think it's safe to assume that she would have advised the president that calling it quits before Baghdad and leaving the thug on his throne was wobbliness of the worst kind, and she may well have carried the day. But by that time she'd been gone three months and the talk was all emollient blather about ''no-fly zones'' and ''UN-designated safe havens.''

So look at it from Chirac's point of view: Why shouldn't that happen again? Blair's line on Iraq is unpopular with his own parliamentary party and its supporters throughout the country. Why not put the skids under him? Who knows what could happen in three or four weeks? But let Blair emerge from an Anglo-American war on Iraq with his world view resoundingly confirmed, and it's possible that Europe will develop in ways that are not in France's interest.

The EU is far more important to Chirac than NATO is. The EU is a French creation, NATO an American one. So the French decision to block Turkey's request for mutual aid is entirely consistent with its long-term priorities: It has no objection to NATO as a moribund talking-shop, but it has zero interest in supporting it as a serious operational mutual defense pact dominated by the Anglo-Americans. For Turkey, on the other hand, NATO membership is an indispensable component of its national identity--as a modern, secular, Western Muslim nation. To flip the finger at Turkey is to risk doing grave damage not just to NATO but to one of the few functioning Islamic states. I think it's very difficult, after the Franco-German-Belgian mischief-making, to carry on dignifying them even nominally as ''allies.''

The French have an interest in a Europe that's a counterweight to America, but none at all in a Europe that's as pro-American as Blair and the Vilnius Group are. For them, that's what the picture's about--and Saddam and Turkey and NATO are just MacGuffins.

If Chirac's vision of Europe prevails, we can pretty much guarantee, from his performance this last month, how the UN, NATO, the ICC and all the rest will develop. Therefore, it is necessary that he emerge from the ruins of Saddam's presidential palace as dazed and diminished as possible. That's not the main reason for going to war, but it's now an important subplot.


TB4p

 

[Don K Dyck]

Uhm . . . a small historical correction, TB . . . the EU was actually an American construction from the early WWII period, about 1940-1942, around the time of the Mid-Atlantic Treaty . . .

The EU was proposed as a way to prevent European wars by making the land mass of Europe, which is about the size of continental USA, a single economic entity with common goals rather than a plethora of States left over from the 1848 Treaty of Vienna. Much of the driving force for the EU came from American interests who saw trade advantages in having a single set of regulations when accessing the European markets.

 

[teddybear4play]

Well, it wasn't my column. Tell Mr. Steyn.

Interesting history. I'd never heard. Got a link?

TB4p

 

[Don K Dyck]

Well, it wasn't my column. Tell Mr. Steyn.

Interesting history. I'd never heard. Got a link?

TB4p

Not a link, just some book references residual after the dispersal of my extensive library section on conspiracy theory. Try looking for

1. Curry, W B (1939) The Case for Federal Union, Penguin, NY.

2. Sawer, G F (1969) Modern Fedralism, Watts London.

There were other books, now gone, on the Atlantic Treaty which gave some background.