Check this guy for rabies, he's starting to froth at the mouth. Let's see: "Chancellor Shroeder gained reelection by warning of American warmongering, even though, as usual, America had been attacked first. "
Major US Wars Who attacked first? Revolutionary War Colonists (but that's kind of expected in a revolution) War of 1812 US Mexican War US Civil War Doesn't count, US vs. US Spanish-American War US World War I Not US World War II Not US Korean War Not US Vietnam War Not US, but we did come in to help maintain the French colony (mildly ironic) Gulf War Not US Afghanistan US This doesn't list many of the other "adventures" the US has embarked upon (the annexation of Florida, the Barbary War, the invasion and occupation of Haiti (first one in 1915), Grenada). The trend is towards the US not instigating full out wars, but that could be because we are so powerful that most of the military actions we pursue now don't even count as wars. We are very willing to project military power to protect our interests. This isn't to say that this policy isn't justified (e.g. Afghanistan), but we can't be said to shy away from the use of force. It doesn't help that the administration has brought unparalleled levels of transparency to their veiled references to war. If war is indeed their "final option", then they have failed in conveying that to the world. "And both Shroeder and Chirac went to great lengths to support Islamic institutions in their countries, even when as in the French case it was in open violation of the national constitution. French law stipulates a total separation of church and state, yet the French Government openly funds Islamic "study" centers, mosques, and welfare organizations. " The French don't have a separation of Church and State the way we do. The salaries of all clergy in France are paid by the government. So this is just an equal treatment of religions. Having said that, France has a level of segregation and racism that is unparalleled in the US. Non-Europeans are strongly discriminated against and concentrated in ghettos. The French far-right has strong support. Muslims/Arabs have a far higher levels of unemployment and are poorly served and educated. I think racism is a common problem in states that have an ethnicity and nationality tied together. Which brings us to: " And both countries have permitted the Saudis to build thousands of radical Wahhabi mosques and schools, where the hatred of the infidels is instilled in generation after generation of young Sunnis. " So French Muslims are ripe for radicalization. Unfortunately, the French, supposing they wanted to eliminate this are constrained by those pesky things called civil rights. If someone wants to fund the building of a mosque, the state really has little it can do. Clearly there is more the French could do, but I think that it is at least as likely that their motives are neglect based in racism. "It is perhaps no accident that Chirac went to Algeria last week and promised a cheering crowd that he would not rest until America's grand design had been defeated." Reasons for Chirac to go to Algeria: 1. Try to put the war behind them. France did some terrible things. Imagine if we had been in Vietnam for 132 years. 2. Get better access to Algeria's oil and gas. 3. Help support a stable government so all of those "foreigners" in France can be sent "home". Call this the "Libera Plan". 4. Support the government's war against Islamic rebels. I can only find an excerpt, but Chirac doesn't vow "he would not rest until America's grand design had been defeated" anywhere in it. http://www.info-france-usa.org/news/statmnts/2003/chirac_algeria030303.a sp And the cheering crowd? They were yelling "visa! visa!" Most of them see France as a means to escape the poverty. Enough of this wacko, I need to get back to work... Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: J.D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 6:26 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Med > Subject: Radio Free France > > > March 10, 2003 9:00 a.m. > A Theory > What if theres method to the Franco-German madness? > Michael Ledeen > National Review > http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen031003.asp > > Assume, for a moment, that the French and the Germans > aren't thwarting us out of pique, but by design, > long-term design. Then look at the world again, and > see if there's evidence of such a design. > > Like everyone else, the French and the Germans saw > that the defeat of the Soviet Empire projected the > United States into the rare, almost unique position of > a global hyperpower, a country so strong in every > measurable element that no other nation could possibly > resist its will. The "new Europe" had been designed to > carve out a limited autonomy for the old continent, a > balance-point between the Americans and the Soviets. > But once the Soviets were gone, and the Red Army > melted down, the European Union was reduced to a > combination theme park and free-trade zone. Some > foolish American professors and doltish politicians > might say and even believe that henceforth "power" > would be defined in economic terms, and that military > power would no longer count. But cynical Europeans > know better. > > They dreaded the establishment of an American empire, > and they sought for a way to bring it down. > > If you were the French president or the German > chancellor, you might well have done the same. > > How could it be done? No military operation could > possibly defeat the United States, and no direct > economic challenge could hope to succeed. That left > politics and culture. And here there was a chance to > turn America's vaunted openness at home and toleration > abroad against the United States. So the French and > the Germans struck a deal with radical Islam and with > radical Arabs: You go after the United States, and > we'll do everything we can to protect you, and we will > do everything we can to weaken the Americans. > > The Franco-German strategy was based on using Arab and > Islamic extremism and terrorism as the weapon of > choice, and the United Nations as the straitjacket for > blocking a decisive response from the United States. > > This required considerable skill, and total cynicism, > both of which were in abundant supply in Paris and > Berlin. Chancellor Shroeder gained reelection by > warning of American warmongering, even though, as > usual, America had been attacked first. And both > Shroeder and Chirac went to great lengths to support > Islamic institutions in their countries, even when > as in the French case it was in open violation of > the national constitution. French law stipulates a > total separation of church and state, yet the French > Government openly funds Islamic "study" centers, > mosques, and welfare organizations. A couple of months > ago, Chirac approved the creation of an Islamic > political body, a mini-parliament, that would provide > Muslims living in France with official stature and > enhanced political clout. And both countries have > permitted the Saudis to build thousands of radical > Wahhabi mosques and schools, where the hatred of the > infidels is instilled in generation after generation > of young Sunnis. It is perhaps no accident that Chirac > went to Algeria last week and promised a cheering > crowd that he would not rest until America's grand > design had been defeated. > > Both countries have been totally deaf to suggestions > that the West take stern measures against the > tyrannical terrorist sponsors in Iran, Iraq, Syria, > Libya, and Saudi Arabia. Instead, they do everything > in their power to undermine American-sponsored trade > embargoes or more limited sanctions, and it is an open > secret that they have been supplying Saddam with > military technology through the corrupt ports of > Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid's little playground in > Dubai, often through Iranian middlemen. > > It sounds fanciful, to be sure. But the smartest > people I know have been thoroughly astonished at > recent French and German behavior. This theory may > help understand what's going on. I now believe that I > was wrong to forecast that the French would join the > war against Iraq at the last minute, having gained > every possible economic advantage in the meantime. I > think Chirac will oppose us before, during, and after > the war, because he has cast his lot with radical > Islam and with the Arab extremists. He isn't doing it > just for the money although I have no doubt that > France is being richly rewarded for defending Saddam > against the civilized countries of the world but for > higher stakes. He's fighting to end the feared > American domination before it takes stable shape. > > If this is correct, we will have to pursue the war > against terror far beyond the boundaries of the Middle > East, into the heart of Western Europe. And there, as > in the Middle East, our greatest weapons are > political: the demonstrated desire for freedom of the > peoples of the countries that oppose us. > > Radio Free France, anyone? > > Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most > recently the author of The War Against the Terror > Masters. Ledeen, Resident Scholar in the Freedom Chair > at the American Enterprise Institute, can be reached > through Benador Associates. > > > ===== > -------------------------------------------------------------- > --------- > John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: > Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is > ruling your > country. And the day he and his regime are removed from > power will be > the day of your liberation." -George W. Bush 1/29/03 > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online > http://webhosting.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
