Article

2003-09-05 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2003-09-05 12:51:07 AM|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 We don't need no stinkin' chocolate. Putin's got the Stoli!

Posted by Rex Mundi 2003-9-5 1:24:06 AM|| 2003-9-5 1:24:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Chiraq will throw in another big blue chip in the coming days, if not sooner, and then we'll tell them to show they're hand. Germany will ~~crap it's pants and beg for mercy~~ abandon France once it sees our hand. Russia has already abandonned France ( They were just trying to save face anyway). As for the fate of France?

We'll end up half of it from Chirac, then turning our half into one of the richest regions in the world. Like what we did for Alaska when we bought it from Russia.

Posted by Charles 2003-9-5 2:39:48 AM|| 2003-9-5 2:39:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 The more I think about this, the more I'm beginning to sit on the fence on this issue. Letting the chocolate makers have their way in Iraq has some advantages to it, mainly releasing the US forces to focus on other areas (Iran & what remains of OBL, for instance). We know that we can't count on Old European help in other matters anyway. The only thing is, this wouldn't be such a hard choice at all if we knew that Chiraq et al wouldn't betray the US after setting up an Iraqi admin. I wouldn't trust them to walk my dog on a leash...

Posted by Rafael 2003-9-5 3:00:34 AM|| 2003-9-5 3:00:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Let's see--we diss the French--freedom fries etc call the Germans Old Europe, go to the UN hat in hand and expect them to jump on the Bush bandwagon for a multinational force while the Bush campaign contributors like Haliburton feed like hogs at the trough and their companies get the leftovers--NOPE ain't gonna happen

Posted by Not Mike Moore 2003-9-5 3:14:15 AM|| 2003-9-5 3:14:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Let's see.. they reject every American resolution out of hand just because they got called a few names? (which are all funny btw, not like their use of the term 'cowboys') Pathetic if you ask me, but typical on their part.

Posted by Rafael 2003-9-5 3:32:34 AM|| 2003-9-5 3:32:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Hey Rafael--the Repooplican Murdochian name calling got started after the French and Germans didn't kowtow to the Bushies and act like vassals to the ~~Haliburton~~ Bush administration

Posted by Not Mike Moore 2003-9-5 3:41:10 AM|| 2003-9-5 3:41:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Ah, so now I get it. We changed the name of a fast food to "freedom fries" and it destroyed the "relationship" with France! The horror.

Tell you what, we'll change the name back to French fries when France stops stabbing us in the back and starts acting like an ally.

Fair enough?

Posted by R. McLeod 2003-9-5 3:52:52 AM|| 2003-9-5 3:52:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 France was an ally of 200 hundred years till the Bushies started their crap and their media allies piled on--allies can disagree--but when it becomes something out of Der Sturmer--then people react

Posted by Not Mike Moore 2003-9-5 4:08:17 AM|| 2003-9-5 4:08:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 name calling got started after the French and Germans didn't kowtow to the Bushies

Ah no. The way I remember it, the name calling started after a German minister or whoever, compared Bush to Hitler (which you probably thought hilarious). It all went up hill from there.

Posted by Rafael 2003-9-5 4:19:19 AM|| 2003-9-5 4:19:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 And the bitch who said that justifiably lost her job

Posted by Not Mike Moore 2003-9-5 4:31:23 AM|| 2003-9-5 4:31:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 France hasn't been ANYONE's ally in over a hundred years. France isn't even its own ally.

Posted by Dishman 2003-9-5 4:46:23 AM|| 2003-9-5 4:46:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 France was an ally of 200 hundred years till the Bushies
Posted by: Not Mike Moore 2003-9-5 4:08:17 AM
-----
I am sorry, I just cant let that one slip by:

Our first interaction with france after the american revolution was a blackmail attempt by the french - the XYZ affair.

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_094700_xyzaffair.htm

Posted by flash91 2003-9-5 5:32:31 AM|| 2003-9-5 5:32:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 Mr Moore:

Don't distort facts. The dissing of the French, the Old Europe name began WELL AFTER Chirak and Schroeder began acting like if they were Saddam's allies, WELL AFTER the French press (at least the Parisian one but in France this is the one who matters) began a campaign of Antiamericanism of an unprecedented violence and about the German minister bitch who got fired it seems your memory is flakey: she was fired MONTHS after the incident and AFTER the elections so Schroeder used her antiamericanism for gaining votes on the far left and dumped her when no longer needed her and needed to make a gesture to loook friendly to America (for economic reasons).

Rafael:

About the "freedom fries" it is the kind of silly name who will not stick. During WWI the French changed the name of the "Chocolat Viennois" (Vienese chocolate) to "Chocolat Liegeois" (from the Belgian city of Liege). After the war the name didn't change. Nert time change the name to something like Spanish fries or Milanese fries. You get the idea.

Posted by JFM 2003-9-5 5:38:11 AM|| 2003-9-5 5:38:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 NMM - you need a timeline, bro:

Rafael, R Mcleod, and Dishman are absolutely correct - on all counts. The Phrogs have been brewing their jealousy for a long time. Their decline and America's growth are what caused the various escalations and outbursts - over the decades. You say you're over 40 - so look back a bit - this has been a long time coming. Hell, DeGaulle alone was enuff for the US to put Phrawnce in the idiot list.

Remember, the current episode began as a political ploy in which Chirac has deftly used the US to deflect Phrench public attention away from the fact that he should be wearing pin-stripes (or the Phoggie equiv) for being a crook. Germany's Shroeder was less subtle in his political gambit, and enthusiasm for the get-relected-at-any-cost game infected the late Minister.

You need to visit the Dissident Frogman and Merde in France and Pave France - they are far more virulently anti-US than we are anti-Phrawnce.

As it stands now, this moment in time, the Phrench are insignificant and terrified of their self-made self-chosen self-inflicted destiny. Their geographical location will make their fall into 3rd world ruin and immigrant chaos inconvenient for some, but the cost to the suckers who fall for the EU will be enormous. Yet, the world will stumble forward, somehow, minus the cheese and wine and with Phrawnce under Sharia control.

On another note, one honest broker to another (at least today), you should really be concerned about the UN. They can, indeed, manipulate and abuse it to the point where America (and others) will view it as DEAD and USELESS. Let's pretend, for a moment:

I am an influential liberal (i.e. wearing your professed shoes). My greatest fear, by far, is that the Phrench will destroy the UN. I would be doing everything in my power to bring them back to reality regards how they behave there. That is my greatest tool and ally to control the US, since the voters don't agree with me at the moment. I would beat sense into them - before they kill it DEAD.

Okay, enuff phantasy. Phuck Phrawnce and the UN! Have a nice day - Australian wine is tres bien!

Posted by .com 2003-9-5 5:51:55 AM|| 2003-9-5 5:51:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 The funny thing is people don't usually say "french fries" when ordering at the local McDonald's, they just refer to them as "fries". So there's nothing to really get upset about here. UN resolutions shouldn't have to suffer for it.

Posted by Rafael 2003-9-5 5:58:55 AM|| 2003-9-5 5:58:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 JFM - I will happily donate $1000 to the Bring JFM Home to America Fund! I can recommend several places for tax reasons, but not knowing your tastes hesitate to do so. You, sir, are infintely welcome in America. I only wish YOU were in Chirac's place. You could bring Sabine Herold into your admin and not only turn things around, but have some fun!

Respects & Regards!

Posted by .com 2003-9-5 5:59:45 AM|| 2003-9-5 5:59:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 Bush makes every good left-winger like Not Mike Moore foam at the mouth and lose touch with reality because, as they all know, Bush is an evil-Nazi-dunce who steals elections, starves 'the children,' puts minorities in concentration camps, and kills Grandma (kinda like the French, huh?). Of course, the right-wing media conspiracy is the only reason 'the people' haven't seen the light and tossed him out yet -- but just wait until 2004! -- so if France lead the charge to oppose Bush then they must be the cat's meow.

For all you non-Left Wingers out there, try to imagine the last two years with Algore at the helm and Madeleine 'Watch me Giggle like a Schoolgirl as I Dance the Two Step with Dear Leader' Albright running the post-9-11 response. There wouldn't be an aspirin factory in the Third World standing but at least the masturbators at the UN would tolerate our existence for the time being!

Posted by Ned 2003-9-5 7:55:53 AM|| 2003-9-5 7:55:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 NMM, France has never been a true ally. Not even during WW II and certainly never afterwards. It wants to sit on the fence, playing the US against another super power. Since there is no such second super power at this moment (China still being too absorbed in its own affairs and those of its immediate neighbors), France has taken up that role itself.
Of course Chirac knows that France lacks the military or economical power to do so, hence his pandering to any violent islamofascist government or movement that he can find. They have the manpower and France can provide them with technology.

There are a lot of more or less valid arguments to be made against Bush's policies, but whining about the loss of France's friendship isn't one of them. France has made a conscious political choice to become America's enemy. And judging from the reaction of the French public, this choice is shared by at least 95 % of the French.

They have every right to do so, but they shouldn't hide behind weasel words like "as your ally...". Nor should any American - liberal or conservative - fool himself into believing that France is still an ally. They're not, so act (and argue) accordingly.

Posted by Peter 2003-9-5 8:09:00 AM|| 2003-9-5 8:09:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 Peter:

As I said yesterday in my post about anti-Americanism the French elites have carefully
distorted the info and manipulated the people (read the examples I give, PLEASE). They made all their possible to make you look like monsters and dangerous fanatics. I don't know what the approval rates would be if the French people had access to a really pluralistic information. I am also quite familiar with the methods used in French opinion polls and I take them with a BIG grain of salt: the quota method does not allow confidence intervals, there is a good dose of hand-made correction for interviewees not daring to tell their opinion to interviewer (because it is not politically correct) and finally the ruling elites needed, both for internal and external reasons to portray the French people as united behind his Fuhr., err, united behind his President.

But now that I have pleaded the cause of the French people let's talk about France. France has politicians, the politicians in position to reach important positions (because they are more or less at the center) are Europeists. Europeists (be it in France, Germany or everywhere else) want and need Europe on a collision course with America for at least two reasons.

1) Because the first law of politics is that the number one and the number two will fight for supremacy when there isn't an outside danger (like in Soviet Union times). The Europeists have added GNPs, populations and have concluded that they are the potentially the number one. If Bush I and Hillary's husband had had an ounce of common sense they would have never allowed the EEC become the EU. The EU is a structural ennemy of the United States.

2) Most people in Europe show little enthousiasm for a super-state who regulates bed lengths (true), where unlected apparatchiks can instantly void national constitutions when it pleases them (Amsterdam treaty) and shoehorn a Union between people who have strictly nothing in common (not even the way to trim the hair of their dogs). How do you unite such people? You give them a common ennemy. Normans and Saxons didn't become a nation together until the Hundred Years war. Same thing for France. It was the Napoleonic invasions who created Germany as a nation and the 1870 war who created it as a state. Thus the Europeist elites need a (cold) war in order to create a real nation.

That means you have to distrust France (the state) and don't think in it as an ally: as long as the Europeists are in power (and specially as long as Chirak is in power) it will not be your ally. But it is not France alone, don't trust any other European country ruled by people who see the EU not as a mere market opportunity and a way to get subsidies but who really buy the Euro-unionism BS.

Posted by JFM 2003-9-5 9:14:06 AM|| 2003-9-5 9:14:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 Here's the money quote (from Fox):
Many council nations are also demanding a much stronger U.N. role, and France would like to see the United Nations replace the United States as Iraq's interim administrator. Syria also wants the United Nations to command the U.N.-authorized multinational force envisioned in the resolution â not the United States.

ha ha hahaha hah har har hoo hooooharhhhieeee eeee

Posted by Anonymous 2003-9-5 9:49:18 AM|| 2003-9-5 9:49:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 Spot on, JFM.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-9-5 9:52:48 AM|| 2003-9-5 9:52:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 JFM for (French) President!

Posted by An 2003-9-5 10:03:47 AM|| 2003-9-5 10:03:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 both NMM and the Frog bashers here are wrong.

France, like all great powers, has pursued her own interests.

From 1945 to 1962 when France was weak, and trying desperately to hold on to a colonial empire threatened by communists and third world leftists, France was a loyal ally of the US.

After 1962 France no longer had an empire, and was repairing its relations with the 3rd world. It was also growing in economic strength. The Sino-Soviet split made the USSR appear less threatening. And, in all fairness, there was resentment for the way the US undercut them over Suez and Algeria. So France went to a more independent, almost (but not quite) neutralist.

In the late '70s, with the decline of US power, and the growth of Soviet influence, France under Mitterand moved back into the Atlantic Alliance and closer to the US.

After 1989, with the fall of the Soviet empire, and the emergence of the US as the sole superpower, France moved rapidly away from a close relationship with the US. This was very much happening while Clinton was president - France took a progenocidaire position on Rwanda to avoid seeing it fall in anglophone hands, it was dragged kicking and screaming into Kosovo, it raised and focused on the problem of American hyperpower before Dubya was pres.

This isnt about Dubya personally. And it isnt about perfidious Frenchies. Its about Power Balance and Realpolitik.

Time to grow up, everyone.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-9-5 10:19:02 AM|| 2003-9-5 10:19:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 And id really like to know what all you frog bashers think about Suez, 1956.

Nasser nationalized the Suez canal - taking French and British property (shares in the canal company)and denying passage to ships bound to or from Israel (against international treaty) France saw Nasser as a threat to their position in Algeria, UK to their position in the Gulf. France, UK and Israel cooperated in a war on Egypt. Which the 3 states won. (you can attribute the victory to the Israelis, if the thought of victorious Frenchies is too much for you - but they were Israelis with French weapons)

So here we have France victorious = and pressed to withdraw - in THE UN!!! by Russia AND the US!!!!! They could have vetoed, but the US threatened dire financial consequences. So they caved and withdrew, giving Nasser a great victory.

Now the US had reasonable geopolitical reasons for doing that - gaining goodwill in the 3rd wordl and all. But we hardly more "loyal" than they have been to us.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-9-5 10:25:14 AM|| 2003-9-5 10:25:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 No offence, LH, but when it comes to assessing French politics and opinion I'll be placing more credence on the opinions of sceptical insiders such as JFM, Sabine Herold and the dissident frogman, than anyone else.

And you can't just excuse current French political strategy as "about Power Balance and Realpolitic". Napoleon, Hitler and Osama bin Laden were into that game, too. Didn't win them any sympathy from me.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-9-5 10:36:09 AM|| 2003-9-5 10:36:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 bulldog - have not discussed domestic french politics or opinion. What i think i have demonstrated is that France behavior over the last 50 years is easily explained in power balance terms - anyone dispute that?

Nappy, Hitler and Osama into realpolitik and power balance?
1. Well so were Churchill, FDR, Disraeli, Palmerston, Nixon, etc. Britain virtually invented the concept, and played it masterfully for a couple of hundred years. Essentially any great power that wants to survive must play it, to a greater or lesser degree.
2. Nothing the French have done this century compares to Hitler. Really, that comparison is uncalled for.
3. If Hitler was a practitioner of realpolitik, we was a particularly bad one, since he managed to get Germany into war with 3 powers, each of which alone was at least as strong as Germany.
4. Osama a realpolitik practitioner - debatable - stratfor does suggest that there is some strategic logic to what he does - IE hes not simply loony - but Id hardly call it realpolitik.
5. Nappy - closer here than in the other two cases - at least Nappy was a realpolitiker - but hardly a power balancer - he was going for hegemony - power balancing was used against him.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-9-5 10:44:58 AM|| 2003-9-5 10:44:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 and might i ask, if realpolitik is wrong, then how do you excuse the US for the Suez betrayal?

And would it be inappropriate to note, that post-Suez, both UK AND France refused to support the US in Viet Nam.

And that both UK AND France were exempted from the 1973 Arab oil embargo?

Now I love the UK, and I am a fan of Tony Blair, and i think we should not treat France with kid gloves - but the idea that France has never been an ally of the US, in contrast to certain other states that have always been so, is just plain absurd.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-9-5 10:50:09 AM|| 2003-9-5 10:50:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#28 again, im not interested in disputing french politics with frenchmen, or EU politics with europeans - my issue is more with the immature approach to international relations of many of my fellow Americans.

We tend to either "love" other countries, or "hate" them. Russia is either the perpetual Czarist-Stalinist-Putin darkness, or its a wide open country much like us, with whom we can be true friends not like those pinched europeans. China is either the yellow peril or the our little brother, who we will save from european and japanese imperialists. France is our oldest and dearest ally, or was never our ally. UK was manipulative power balancer, always looking out for an unjust empire, or they are our dear cousins, loyal through thick and thin. Germany is our loyal cold war ally, an orderly people we can always get along with, or they are a bunch of closet ex-Nazis.

It strikes me that we are too powerful a country to go about in the world thinking like this. We have power, more relative power than any state in world history - we MUST take a mature and realistic attitude toward other states, and that means looking at states as states, not as schoolyard friends or enemies.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-9-5 10:59:51 AM|| 2003-9-5 10:59:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#29 Another point that I haven't seen being made is that it was the French monarchy which supported the United States in Revolutionary times (they did it partly to tweak the English, of course).

Our alliance with France hasn't been the same since they cut off the heads of the smart people...

Posted by snellenr 2003-9-5 10:59:59 AM|| 2003-9-5 10:59:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#30 JFM> "If Bush I and Hillary's husband had had an ounce of common sense they would have never allowed the EEC become the EU."

JFM, are you really comfortable with the idea of American presidents allowing or disallowing what European nations shall do with themselves?

How would you like it to have stopped it? Send in the bombers? An embargo perhaps?

And your claim that the European nations have nothing in common is pretty absurd. If nothing else all of Europe has passed through the same crucible of being the battlefield where nazism, communism and democracy fought each other. And most of the European demos has reached an almost common understanding of world affairs, and repudiated both nationalism and the application of force as positive elements in society. And what Europeans call "socialism" not necessarily considered a negative one.

Read Robert Kagan's essay, if you want.

There are *some* divisions yes. Slavs and Germans and Latins, oh my. Still. If we had *nothing* in common how in the world could Americans manage to insult us as a whole? :-)

"Most people in Europe show little enthousiasm for a super-state who regulates bed lengths (true), where unlected apparatchiks can instantly void national constitutions when it pleases them (Amsterdam treaty) and shoehorn a Union between people who have strictly nothing in common (not even the way to trim the hair of their dogs). "

Indeed. Who would ever support *such* a superstate?

And yet most people also show great support for the *EU* instead, which means that they really don't see it the way you do.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-9-5 11:30:47 AM|| 2003-9-5 11:30:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#31 "repudiated both nationalism "

well i dont think thats quite true. I dont think either UK OR France have done so. The small states have done so largely out of recognition of the illusory nature to their own sovereignty -the Germans out a realistic recognition of the limits on the effectitive expression of their sovereignty given their history. Italy is not a small power, and does not have the limitations Germany has, but arguably always had a relatively weak nationalism.

France and the UK are different though. UK is for that very reason reluctant to see a more integrated EU - and France wants to see it, but I think for its own quite nationalistic purposes.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-9-5 12:38:09 PM|| 2003-9-5 12:38:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 LH, I wasn't directly comparing France today with Hitler, Napoleon etc., just debating your claim that French attitude is excusable as they're (presumably) merely acting in their own national interest. I say that's baloney. A nation is capable of bad behaviour and bad attitude (as you yourself suggest Americans can act immaturely). France has shown plenty of both, and is responsible for her actions. Realpolitik is supposed to be about cynical manoeuvring, surgical strategy and being no hostage to sentimentality. Sure, there's a bit of that in every nation's business, but there's also plenty of room for emotion and irrationality. If the French really were such masters of the art of realpolitik, wouldn't they have made fewer catastrophic blunders during the last century? It is possible to criticise France without wishing her ill, you know!

Aris: "And yet most people also show great support for the *EU*..." Sorry, I forget, which planet are you communicating with us from, again?

Posted by Bulldog 2003-9-5 12:38:28 PM|| 2003-9-5 12:38:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 "And most of the European demos has reached an almost common understanding of world affairs, and repudiated both nationalism and the application of force as positive elements in society."

Whoa, now there's a phrase that could blow up in your face sometime in the future, Aris. I'll bet Tito thought he had the Slavs all nice 'n' neighbourly, too. I see you're getting all homogenous, as per D'Estaing's instructions...

Posted by Bulldog 2003-9-5 12:46:02 PM|| 2003-9-5 12:46:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 NMM, phrench/Indian war???

Read John Adams' bio by McCullough, they haven't changed.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-9-5 1:01:32 PM|| 2003-9-5 1:01:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 France is heavily involved protecting its economic interests in Africa. What troops could they provide anyway? I would dare them to draft theirown resolution in which their troops aer center stage.

As for a continuum of 200 years of friendship with France he Quasi War occurred very soon after the the American Revolution. Also the US relationship with Napoleon was very lukewarm.

Posted by Super Hose 2003-9-5 1:11:39 PM|| 2003-9-5 1:11:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 bulldog - i would agree that France has been behaving less then expertly in the last 6 years, lets say. Largely because I beleive they truely misunderstand the United States, on several levels. But I was opposing the notion that they have "never" been our ally.

Also wonder what you think their main blunders have been this century - many such that i can think of have either been blunders they made jointly with the UK, or, in a few instances, were decisions they made due to lack of UK assurances at critical times (to be fair - in situations where UK was handicapped by lack of US assurances - Im thinking of 1919 and 1938).

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-9-5 1:18:35 PM|| 2003-9-5 1:18:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 The Frogs aren't our allies! We lost MORE American Servicemen due to the bullets of the Vichy during Operation Torch, than we have lost in Iraq! Remember what Patton said! I would rather have a German Division in front of me, rather than a French one behind me!

Posted by Greg 2003-9-5 2:13:40 PM|| 2003-9-5 2:13:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Aris pleaaaaaaaaase:

Most people in Greece are showing strong support for the EU? Let's see, try telling them that the subsidies Greece is getting from the EU (for being one of the poor countries) will be stoppped tomorrow at noon. Count then how many STILL favor the EU.

Next day tell them some nutso has slammed a jet on Helsinki, that he is hiding somewhere in Murmansk and that THEY are supposed to go defend Finland. Dont forget to tell them about the "brutal Finnish winter". You see that is the difference in a REAL nation: the guy of San Diego is willing to face the "brutal Afghan winter" and give his life for New-York. Are you ready to give your life for Helsinki? After Turkey is accepted in the EU, to give your life for Ankara?

Posted by JFM 2003-9-5 2:19:48 PM|| 2003-9-5 2:19:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Bulldog: Aris: "And yet most people also show great support for the *EU*..." Sorry, I forget, which planet are you communicating with us from, again?

The ones where all the polls show that everywhere with the exception of Britain, EU has an very large majority supporting it, which becomes an *overwhelming* majority in the new member nations.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/ archives/eb/eb58/eb58_en.pdf (warning: this is about 2 MB download)

Some stats for support of EU membership among the nations. First number is the pro- percentage, Second number the anti-.

Luxembourg 83% / 3%
Ireland 74% / 7%
Netherlands 69% / 7%
Spain 68% / 7%
Italy 62% / 7%
Greece 62% / 8%
Danemark 61% / 14%
Belgium 60% / 8%
Germany 59% / 6%
Portugal 56% / 12%
France 52% / 13%
Austria 46% / 13%
Sweden 43% / 23%
Finland 41% / 19%
UK 31% / 19%

-----
And for the new countries in the referendums:
Slovakia 92.7% YES
Lithuania 91.07% YES
Slovenia 89.64% YES
Hungary 83,76% YES
Poland 77.45% YES
Czech republic 77,33% YES
Malta 53.6% YES

Now, Bulldog, I'm sure that the reality JFM would have you believe sounds much more appealing to you so you can feel free to close your ears and hum real loud when you hear these numbers instead... :-)

http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/negotiations/map_referendum.htm

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-9-5 2:25:51 PM|| 2003-9-5 2:25:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 JFM> I'm about as ready to give my life for Elsinki as I'm ready to give my life for Salonica or other cities of Greece. Which means not ready at all really, but I'll definitely make a try at it for honour's sake.

And if Turkey one day became a democratic nation which would deserve to join the EU, then yeah, I'd try to give my life for Ankara as well.

Why would that surprise you? Greek people gave their lives for Korea after all.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-9-5 2:30:44 PM|| 2003-9-5 2:30:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 And as a sidenote, Bulldog, I expect to hear from you the numbers you've heard that indicate the majority of European citizens *don't* have an overwhelming support for the European Union.

Or otherwise to hear you concede your error.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-9-5 2:34:31 PM|| 2003-9-5 2:34:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 I think George W. Bush likes the UN but realizes that its disfunctional. A major reason for that disfunctionality is the French veto.

The French veto becoming a European veto would be good for the US, and good for Europe (except perhaps France).

How to get the veto shifted? Well the runup to the Iraq war put the UN on the line and exposed France duplicity. Now with another motion before the security council this will probably happen again.

The rest of Europe could put a lot of heat on the French to give up the veto to the group. If worked correctly to the rest of the world a lot of heat could be brought on the French as well. Then a UN Resolution suggesting that Japan, India, Brazil, and possibly South Africa (regional powers), become permanant members of the security council at the same time the French veto moves to become a European veto and you will see enormous pressure on France.

The Veto is all France has so I expect a fight if my guesses are correct. I also see a massive swing in World Opinion towards the US if the US is the one pushing for Japanese/Brazillian/Indian and South African seats on the Security Council and France is fighting them.

Posted by Yank 2003-9-5 3:31:44 PM|| 2003-9-5 3:31:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 "Normans and Saxons didn't become a nation together until the Hundred Years war."

Methinks you've been watching too many Robin Hood movies and reading too much Ivanhoe because Sir Walter Scott mostly created the Norman Saxon split. You have to speak the language to rule the people and the Normans learned the language. After a generation it wasn't Norman vs Saxon but Noble vs peasant.

Sorry to nit-pick because the rest of your point is pretty well founded, just a bad example in my humble opinion.

Posted by Yank 2003-9-5 3:44:36 PM|| 2003-9-5 3:44:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 yank - istr the nobles kept speaking Norman French till well into the 1200's - why weve got so many Norman French words in english, especially legal terms etc.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-9-5 3:50:43 PM|| 2003-9-5 3:50:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 aris - cant imagine any substantial number of Europeans wanting their own country to withdraw from the EU - when all your neighbors and main trading partners are in an economic bloc, you dont really have much choice, do you? doesnt mean you might not prefer that it not exist at all.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-9-5 3:52:55 PM|| 2003-9-5 3:52:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 Heh, Aris, now why am I not surprised that you rely on the EU's own official stats for your assessment of its popularity...

Even so, they hardly support your claim that the EU "has a very large majority supporting it" (from its "Highlights") section:

55% regard membership of the EU as a "good thing"
52% trust the EC (there's a whole lotta mistrust of the Commission out there)
only 50% feel their country has benefitted from membership of the EU
only 50% have a positive image of the EU
ONLY 47% desire a more important role for the EU.

In addition, support for the Euro had fallen 5%, to 58% between Spring and winter, 2002.

This is as good news as the EU can find to publish? Ambivalent support for it, an apparent reluctance to see it increase its influence?

Surely you can find better EU propaganda than this...

Posted by Bulldog 2003-9-5 4:09:26 PM|| 2003-9-5 4:09:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 The ones where all the polls show that everywhere with the exception of Britain, EU has an very large majority supporting it

Keep dreaming Aris:

It [Poland] may well be in for a rocky start. One foreign diplomat in Warsaw fears that Poland will fail to master all the EU's labyrinthine farming and food-safety laws by the time it joins, allowing the other EU countries to block its farm exports, using what the EU calls "safeguard clauses". It might also fail to muster enough well-planned and well-managed projects to claim its full share of EU development funds, leaving it a net payer into the EU budget. The result would be anger among Poland's millions of farm workers and Eurosceptics, playing into the hands of populist politicians..." The Economist, Aug. 30th-Sept. 5th

I see trouble on the horizon because people in the new member countries, specifically Poland, have been sold a lot of wild tales about EU membership. Hence the polls showing huge support. But these countries joined up not only for the long term benefits, but also because they wanted to see some immediate effects. This Economist article casts doubt if they'll be seeing any benefit at all from the EU, since if they don't get any help at the beginning when they are poor, they certainly aren't going to get anything once they become prosperous like their western counterparts.

Posted by Rafael 2003-9-5 4:15:21 PM|| 2003-9-5 4:15:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 Yank

Don't get angry for the following joke: you have been reading too many books about the class struggle.

I haven't been seeing too many Robin Hood movies. In addition to history classes (remember that French kids have to learn about it) I have read issues in historical magazines and two history books about the War: a British and a French one. All sources tell the same thing; at the beginnning of the war while a Norman noble could have to speak Saxon to peasants, once he was at home he spoke French to his wife and kids, French to his soldiers, French with the other Nobles. And that Norman nobility defined itself as distinct of its Saxon subjects not only on the matter of Nobles versus peasants but on ethnic terms. It was during the war that the Norman nobility looking for Saxon support began to integrate with them, to intermarry with them (probably) and to speak English instead of French at Court and even to their families.

Posted by JFM 2003-9-5 4:43:46 PM|| 2003-9-5 4:43:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 "aris - cant imagine any substantial number of Europeans wanting their own country to withdraw from the EU - when all your neighbors and main trading partners are in an economic bloc, you dont really have much choice, do you? "

Nonsense. Countries like Switzerland and Norway have survived just fine outside the EU. *Obviously* people have a choice.

Bulldog> Deceiving by omission is still deceitful you know.

<<55% regard membership of the EU as a "good thing" >>

Versus only 10% that consider it a bad thing. That's a "very large majority" for all intends and purposes.

"53% trust the EC [Commission]"

Versus only 24% that mistrust it. Better than many national governments.

"only 50% feel their country has benefitted from membership of the EU "

versus only 28% that says it has *not* benefitted.

"only 50% have a positive image of the EU"

Versus only 13% that have a negative image of it.

"ONLY 47% desire a more important role for the EU."

Versus ONLY 11% that want a *less* important role for the EU!!!!

You are a liar, Bulldog, a liar by ommission but a liar nonetheless. If you want to talk about "only" this and "only" that, then please state the numbers for the other side also, don't deceive people into thinking they can calculate by themselves with a simple subtraction from a 100!

I urge the people to take a glance at the numbers by themselves. Bulldog has disappointingly proven untrustworthy, but since most people here don't like me I doubt you'd trust *my* words either.

Rafael> We'll see, won't we? I do also expect some of those numbers of support among the new countries to decline somewhat, but only because it'd be difficult for them to get any higher! *rolls eyes*

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-9-5 5:15:32 PM|| 2003-9-5 5:15:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 And as a further sidenote it's bitterly predictable but still disappointing how you stoop to discounting these numbers as "propaganda" without yet having any better source to counter them with.

And at the same time you scorn them claiming they don't paint a rosy picture, but instead of thinking the numbers perhaps *are* trustworthy after all, you just say they are not very *good* propaganda.

Does hypocricy really go so far, that you don't know yourself when you are being self-deceitful?As I said, feel free to stick your fingers in your ears and hum real loudly when confronted with reality. But insulting the intelligence of the rest of us with this self-deluded and offensive babble...

Pfft.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-9-5 5:29:02 PM|| 2003-9-5 5:29:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 Aris, you are deliberately keeping your head in the sand.

Posted by Rafael 2003-9-5 5:34:47 PM|| 2003-9-5 5:34:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 LOL Aris, you are so full of it. I was quoting the numbers directly from the Eurobarometer highlights statements which themselves contain none of the additional data you state. The EU itself is a "liar by omission too" is it? That is what you are implying.

Are you a "liar by omission" too, for not quoting from the most recent EU Europbarometer, which, where the data is generally even less positive than the outdated one you chose to take your figures from?

I am sorry that you think Rantburgers don't have a clue as regards statistics, and I'm sorry also that you think they'd regard an EU publication as definitive proof of EU popularity. I'm sorry that you do, it betrays a certain naivety. Also, you claim often that the UK is, across the board, the most anti-EU nation in the union. Why do you do that, when your EU data proves that on most issues (such as support for the proposed constitution, enthusiasm for enlargement), the UK is not. Why do you lie? Why?!

Could you also tell me why the "Eurobarometer 59: Public Opinion in the European Union (First Results)"'s second revelation is that:

"People are increasingly sceptical about the role polayed by the United States in the world"

WTF is that about? Why on earth is that considered to be the second most important finding of the Eurobarometer survey? If the EU wants to dispel theories such as JFM's, that its raison d'etre is to challenge another state, i.e. the US, then why is it apparently so obsessed with how much anti-(other state) sentiment there is within its own population, regarding that as more important to the reader than such apparent trivialities as the facts that "people have slightly less confidence in the Commission and the Parliament", and "people are a little less positive regarding EU enlargement"?

Posted by Bulldog 2003-9-5 5:47:06 PM|| 2003-9-5 5:47:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 Perhaps I'm wrong but the way I understood it the Norman nobles living in England basically spoke English and added many words to the language.

Rollo was granted Normandy in 911, his grandson William took over England in 1066. Nobody questions the Normans spoke French and were pretty assimilated within that 150 year period. This matches the Norman experience in Sicily and Southern Italy as well where they controlled a kingdom and eventually blended into the population. The suggestion that the Normans did not assimilate in England during the nearly 300 years between 1066 and 1331 seems unlikely to me.

Since the Normans rulers of England had connections back to Normandy and Normandy produced a surpluss of soldiers there was naturally a lot of hiring going on and a flow of French speaking soldiers long after the conquest. Since The Plantagents ended up owning half of France through marriage to the Aquatainne families there was a lot of French speaking nobles in the mix as well. They weren't Normans they were French living in English territories in France. This muddles the issue and possibly explains the source you're speaking of.

Like I said, I could be wrong but I did some pretty thorough research on the Normans a decade ago and the fact that Ivanhoe reinvented the Norman/Saxon rift for dramtic purposes appeared more than once in the research so I stand by the statement.

Posted by Yank 2003-9-5 6:01:02 PM|| 2003-9-5 6:01:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 "I was quoting the numbers directly from the Eurobarometer highlights statements which themselves contain none of the additional data you state"

Whatever. As I said people can see for themselves that even in the "highlights" file, all the info, percentages about both pro and against, are readily available. That's the file I also used to answer you.

And I didn't choose to take an outdated eurobarometer, I simply hadn't known a more recent one had become available, and I used the one that had been stored in my computer for several months now.

But yes, *if* I had done it on purpose, I would have been a liar for not using the most recent data. If this answers your question. Now I'm downloading the recent data, so I won't make the same mistake again.

"Why do you do that, when your EU data proves that on most issues (such as support for the proposed constitution, enthusiasm for enlargement), the UK is not."

Enthusiasm for enlargement means little by itself. The UK government certainly wants an enlarged and powerless union and thinks the enlargement (while resisting all attempts to reduce the power of the national veto) is a tool towards that direction of making the EU powerless.

And "my data" showed that the UK population were in favour of a constitution in general. That question shows again little by itself, since it says little about what they believe this constitution should *contain*.

For all other matters UK remains far behind the rest of the countries in its support of the EU.

"Why on earth is that considered to be the second most important finding of the Eurobarometer survey? "

Why the hell shouldn't it be? It certainly seems to me more emphatical than your suggested "slightlies".

But hold on for a 10 further mins until the download finishes, and I may respond some more on this or other matters when I read the new essay by myself.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-9-5 6:27:41 PM|| 2003-9-5 6:27:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 Can't oblige you with holding on, Aris. I have an errand run. Will check tomorrow.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-9-5 6:42:40 PM|| 2003-9-5 6:42:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 Only thing to note after reading the updated highlights is that the data aren't actually more negative "generally" -- each small fall in support for some element of the EU (e.g. fall in the trust in the European commission by 3%) is counterbalanced by some similar small increases in some other part (e.g. 5% more people are in favour of a "european defense" policy than before, 3% more people think the single currency is a good thing, etc, etc)

Given such small percentage differences in these matters, yes it's obviously a very obvious highlight to mention that there's a large difference in how the USA is perceived. Sometimes the difference in percentages *there* between this report and the previous one goes up to 20% when considering the difference between negative and positive opinions.

And you've *still* not shown me the more reliable data which *you* have, and are obviously using in your superior understanding of the world around us, so superior indeed that you thought that mocking my facts would be enough and disputing them a waste of time.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-9-5 6:47:47 PM|| 2003-9-5 6:47:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 Back to the subject. A lot could be said there. But this is nothing but good old haggling. If you accept the first offer from the dealer in the bazaar, you are a bloody fool. The dealer don't expect you to do that either. Les jeux ne sont pas faits encore.
The latest from France and Germany already sounds less negative.
Well, SchrÃ¶der at the ranch or not, I don't care. He doesn't even get invited by the campaining Munich SPD. I think his popularity is somewhere in the 20s. He'll soon know his supporters by names.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-9-5 11:01:27 PM|| 2003-9-5 11:01:27 PM|| Front Page Top

03:55 Anonymous
03:49 Anonymous
04:09 True German Ally
03:04 g wiz
00:24 frank martin
00:02 tu3031
23:50 tu3031
23:42 tu3031
23:24 Old Patriot
23:17 Old Patriot
23:07 Old Patriot
23:07 Sara
23:04 True German Ally
23:01 True German Ally
22:51 True German Ally
22:44 True German Ally
22:10 Old Patriot
21:57 Old Patriot
21:57 Crescend
21:41 Alaska Paul
21:24 Old Patriot
21:21 Aris Katsaris
21:19 Aris Katsaris
21:02 Old Patriot