USA - Is The EU With Us or Against Us?

[Walter]

In an editorial today, the fundamental question about the future course was finally raised. I would sure like to hear, just once, how the nine dwarfs would move forward!

With us, or with the terrorists
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published October 28, 2003

Five large explosions made yesterday the deadliest day since Saddam Hussein was ousted from power. Evidence is mounting that many of the difficulties in pacifying Iraq are coming from outside the country. Yesterday, during the mayhem, the U.S. Army captured a man throwing a grenade at a police station in Baghdad. This terrorist holds a Syrian passport and is suspected to be Syrian. His car was full of dynamite and mortar rounds. The series of attacks appears more coordinated by the day, and Syria's role in undermining Iraqi security looks to be serious.

Foreign fighters are not the only ones providing aid and comfort to the enemies of Iraqi reconstruction. As more Syrian links to attacks in Iraq are exposed, the European Union (EU) is increasing economic links to Syria. In Damascus, a weekend business conference funded by the EU brought together 180 European officials and business executives and 226 of their counterparts from Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. The goal was to strengthen business cooperation and pave the way for a Syrian-EU trade pact by the end of the year.

It is clear that this European coddling of Syria is a direct response to the growing movement toward American sanctions against the nation. One Syrian analyst, quoted yesterday by the Financial Times, removed any doubts. "Syria is rushing to deflect U.S. pressure," he said. "A closer relationship with Europe will help our government feel more secure."

Sanctions have attracted strong bipartisan support in Washington. The House of Representatives voted 398-4 only two weeks ago for new sanctions on Damascus. President Bush's spokesman, Scott McClellan, made the White House's position very clear. "Syria needs to change course, change its behavior, stop harboring terrorists," he said. U.S. officials have been particularly frustrated by Syrian refusal to shut down training, fundraising and logistical activities by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Syria.

American efforts to get tough on Syrian acquiescence to and sponsorship of terrorists have provoked the predictable rejoinders from the usual apologists for terror. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said the sanctions were obviously the result of Jewish influence in American politics. Lebanon blamed the "Zionist lobby." The 57 members of the Organization of Islamic Conference voted to condemn U.S. sanctions on Syria without a word condemning Syrian terrorist affiliations.

And of course, there's France. "History has shown us that they were not effective and created more problems than they solved," said French President Jacques Chirac about sanctions. His government is pushing the EU's policy to increase trade with Damascus. Monsieur Chirac seems to have forgotten that French business deals with Saddam Hussein did not encourage democracy in Iraq. It is difficult to determine whether the European Union is for us — or for the terrorists.

[Stonewall]

Well, if France is in the mix, my guess would be that they're against us. I mean, half the country supported the Nazi's during WWII (and killed US soldiers in North Africa). What more would you expect from a nation of cowards?

[Peanut]

More like their country was taken over by Nazi's and they were forced to support them.
If you wanna start talkin about how many soliders form other countries (not necessarily BAD ones) that american soliders killed, i would need the entire board, PLUS SOME.

The title of this rant is ridiculous and again proves what michael moore set out to show, that americans are frightened of everything.

[MO]

Not only has Michael Moore's facts been debunked, but his basic premise is just a circular argument. He claims that excessive media of gun crime causes fear among Americans. He claims that "fear" is the cause of the gun violence. But if the gun violence is really that out of hand, shouldn't the media be reporting it and Americans fear it?

Since I live in America I am a better judge of who is fearful, here. I would not consider Peanut or any other sophomore aged liberal from a socialist country to be an expert, particularly if they take people like Moore seriously. It's only the neutered, bed-wetting, hand-wringing liberals like Moore who are afraid.

Now, since responding to Peanut is out of the way, I'll say something relevant to the thread.

France is terrified of terrorism from their huge Islamic immigrant population. They are being taken over. In addition to that, Europe is at least as anti Semitic as it was at the time of WW2. We will probably have to save their timid, limp-wristed arses once again.

[Peanut]

"He claims that excessive media of gun crime causes fear among Americans." - NO, he says that americans are simply and have always been fearful, where this fear comes from is a mystery. That's one big difference between Americans and Canadians, when asked "would you own a gun to protect your family" - to americans this is a reasonable question, to canadians, it's a stupid one.

"But if the gun violence is really that out of hand, shouldn't the media be reporting it and Americans fear it?" - that is what they're doing, honestly watch bowling for columbine. He finds a camerman chasing a gun-related story and asked what other stories he could have taped, the cameraman replies "a drowning", when asking which he would go to, the cameraman replies "always follow the gun". This is why violent crimes are down in america by 60% and yet coverage of them are up 200% percent, thus adding to fear.

"a socialist country" - canada is socialist? i can use your argue against you and say, since I live here, i am a better judge to tell you that this is not true.

"France is terrified of terrorism from their huge Islamic immigrant population. They are being taken over." - said the scared american. and you're being hypocritical, had you been a french citizen, i could add SOME validity to your statement, but you're not, so i cant - again, this is your arguement.

"We will probably have to save their timid, limp-wristed arses once again." - you entered the great wars in 1917, and 1941, respectively, so spare me about saving everyone else, if anything AMERICA was (and possibly are) the cowards of this world, not whoever you point a finger at.

[MO]

Shaking my head! I can't even make heads or tails of your post, Peanut. I have set up a test thread for users of the board to learn the features.

This thread was hijacked! If you wish to discuss specifics of your hatred for the US, like gun control issues, start a thread about it. This thread was not created for any of the subjects you have addressed.

Now, since responding to Peanut is out of the way, I'll say something relevant to the thread.

I thought that would be enough for you to get the message, but apparently it takes a freaking brick.

[Walter]

I suggest that Peanut read some Toqueville to get a better understanding of the American psyche.

Toqueville was a 19th Frenchman whose views need to be read and understood today, November 1, 2003, by those who take a short view of life.

He is a somewhat deeper thinker with a better command of the facts than Michael Moore.

France was not overrun by the Nazis. France capitualted to the Nazis (it's called appeasement) in order to save their art. The French felt that they were better off being nice to their enemies than to deal with them.

Sound familiar, peanut...or are you ignorant of the history of the USA and of the world?

Now. Back to the original subject. Is the EU with us or opposed to us?

[Peanut]

Alritey then, let's dumb it down, maybe my point wasn't as clear as i had hoped it would've been.

France was not overrun by the Nazis. France capitualted to the Nazis (it's called appeasement) in order to save their art. The French felt that they were better off being nice to their enemies than to deal with them.

- no i'm sorry they didn't, Hitler and his Nazi party took over france in 4 weeks. Half of the country was taken by germany, the other half was left as a terrority, where french laws and french language were still followed and used, respectively. BASIC, grade ten history lesson.

NOW, my point to this whole, ridiculous thread, is the fear that americans (like you, Walter and MO) are showing, by asking and even debating the question: "Is The EU With Us or Against Us?" a possible super power is being created with this union (i use the word possible because right now, the EU is in no way a super power, but who knows where this union will lead in 20, 30 or 50 years?)

Right now, this union will only benefit most european countries, some of which are poor (like poland or EU hopeful, romania) while getting help from most of the world's developed countries. So why should americans be fearful of this union? paranoia is my guess.

[Walter]

So why should americans be fearful of this union?

We agree. We shouldn't, and don't fear this union. Where did anyone say that?

France CAPITULATED. They chose to let the Nazis take them over rather than form any meaningful resistance. Even you acknowledge that. Read the article, then read your history.

The only good part about the 'roll over' French in WWII is that they were successful at preserving their artistic heritage. The art treasures destroyed by the German invasion of USSR, where there was a stubborn, but successful resistance, shows the true lack of interest by the French at anything beyond capitulation.

[MO]

More irrelevant and historically flawed America bashing from Peanut.
The only thing that I consider frightening about Europeans is the possibility of becoming trapped on an elevator with them. One could only hope if such a nightmare were to occur it would be right after their bath day. The EU is only trying to compete economically. They are not investing more militarily as a collective or individually.

Walter, you might like this article from Hal Lindsey.

The International Red Cross announced its decision to further cut back operations in Iraq following the latest terrorist attack against its Baghdad headquarters. The IRC announcement came on the heels of a United Nations' decision to do the same thing for the same reason."

Doctors Without Borders also decided to leave the Iraqis to fend for themselves. And at the International Donor's Conference in Madrid, most of the world made the same decision.

While the Russians offered to "invest" $4 billion in Iraq, Moscow didn't offer any direct aid. The French and Germans did even less. They didn't offer to invest, they didn't offer to help and they didn't offer any grants or loans. Instead, they reminded the conference that Iraq already owes them hundreds of billions of dollars, and they wanted to know when they were going to be repaid.

The donors' conference managed to raise $13 billion dollars in loans and grants from nations other than the U.S. – the majority of it in loans.

The Saudis made a big deal of their $1 billion pledge. In the past, the Saudis have held telethons to support terrorist groups like Hamas. The money raised from telethons is given as a gift to the terrorists.

But the billion dollars from the Saudis isn't a grant – it's a loan that Riyadh expects Iraq to pay back.

Canada offered $300 million to help the Iraqis – spread out over two years and conditional on it being administered by the U.N.

Leaving the United States to kick in the remaining $87 billion. And thanks to a congressional conference committee's agreement yesterday, $20 billion of that is an outright gift. There was the usual partisan bickering about "America borrowing money for Iraq so that Iraqis don't have to," but then I was suddenly struck by the larger picture.

Forget the partisanship and the politics for a second with me and look at the Big Picture here.

The United States, recognizing an evil in the regime of Saddam Hussein, defied global opinion, assembled a half-hearted coalition and went in and removed the tyrant. His removal exposed the evil of his regime for the entire world to see. His killing fields were uncovered. Hundreds of thousands were murdered, many of them hideously tortured first.

The rest of the world, with very few exceptions, is unmoved by the tragedy. The donors' conference accurately reflects global apathy concerning Iraq's plight. The world community has largely turned its back on the newly freed Iraqis. The Red Cross, U.N. and Doctors Without Borders cut and ran from Iraq following attacks by the very people they came to assist.

The rest of the world decided it would rather sit this one out than expose themselves to retaliation by the terrorists, leaving the United States holding the bag.

America shouldered the burden – together with the rest of the attending baggage – because nobody else would. Not because it's popular. Or because it will be easy. But because it's the right thing to do.

What a country!

www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35335

[Walter]

MO,

I'm in agreement. One issue is GWB's interest in grants, no loans. I know there are conditions on the grants that prohibit their being used to pay off the loans to France and Germany. But I don't know if the added money has similar restrictions.

In any case, the hypocrisy ain't started yet. Once we start hearing the bleating from the left about the war, etc., the parallels to Kosovo, Bosnia, etc., and the concurring justifications for war by Clinton will be ignored.

Next year (campaign year) will be fascinating to watch. The noise from PDT (Peter, Dan and Tom) will make it sound as if there is a serious anti-war sentiment out there. However, the Dems forgot that the "flyover" states have real people who cannot be fooled.

Also, they now have a problem here in CA. Davis lost on the recall by over 75% and barely won in LA County. Davis won big in the Bay Area but every other county zapped him good.

Arnold had more votes running against 135 opponents this time than Davis got running against that one pathetic guy, Simon.

With a significant effort, the GOP could swing California to Bush, then the message would be loud and clear; that the Liberal's time has come and gone.

[CanuckMitch]

Germany, France and Belgium are opposed to the U.S on nearly every level. Most other E.U countries respect our international policies for the most part. Some of the newer members of the E.U support us whole-heartedly on nearly every decision, ( except in our policies towards Israel).
Since Gulf 2, Germany and the U.S have made amends and tensions have eased somewhat. The U.S has closed over half it's bases since Gulf 2. You can do the math and decide how much that will cost Germany. They need the U.S and are worried, unemployment is sky high and the economy is tanked.
France is a mess. The economy is in rags and there is a massive discontent among the 5 million Moslems living in France. American tourism to France has gone down 70% in 1 year.
The French and Germans suffer from a kind of phobia. Everyone knows enough history to remember how we liberated and rebuilt the two countries. To many, they feel humiliated. The are humiliated with their past and have nowhere to vent their outrage. The feel humiliated knowing that they couldn't take care of their own problems, we had to take care of it for them. They forget everything else.
The E.U are owned and operated by France and Germany, they call every shot. This is a chance at greatness for them again. This is their way of reliving glorious pasts.
The E.U is a giant social experiment heading for a miserable doom the likes the world has never seen. France and Germany are leading the calves to slaughter through open immigration alone. Remember, France has 5 million angry Moslems within it's borders and Germany has 3 million. Albania and Serbia/Montenegro are a huge mess with no end in sight. Lots of major problems to solve with no military. They feel as if they have to oppose the U.S at every turn because they need the greatness. They need the U.S to follow them, not them following us. The French hate us. They absolutely deplore us, and we need to realize this fast. The Germans outside Bavaria hate our guts to. To deny this would make one naive.

[GH]

To make it very clear: the EU is - and has always been - against this war. Why? Because this war is immoral, unjustified and illegal. ALL "official" reasons for this war have turned out to be lies: no WMD in Iraq, no links to Al Qaeda.

This war cannot be won and will not be won by the US. The number of killed and crippled US soldiers will increase daily and the cance of the US to reach the goals of this war are ZERO. This war has already been lost and an adminitsration that still fails to acknowledge this and allows it's troops to be killed and maimed for their own personal profit (Halliburton!!!) deserves no respect whatsoever.

The current administration of the US are ruthless criminals. If US democracy is still alive, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and comrades will be put before a trial and, hopefully, sentenced to at least life imprisonment, for they are guilty of murdering thousands.

The EU is not (and has never been) against the US or the American people, the EU is against the current US regime which is destroying deomocracy in the US and has already done immeasuarble damage to the reputation of the US.

France and Germany saw no reason to go into an unjustified, immoral and illegal war, which (and that was clear to EVERYBODY outside the US) MUST end in disaster.

[Chuck]

Two simple questions.

Did Saddam sign an unconditional surrender in 1991 agreeing unconditionally to all UN demands?

Did the UN issue 14 resolutions, the last one with a 15 to 0 vote threatening serious consequences if Saddam failed to respond as required?

Those are the only reasons needed. Daschle and his eight tiny reindeer can bleat all they want. Those are the facts.

[Peanut1]

Funny how you forget that the US gave saddam money to rise to power, and how they were allies before gulf war 1. Also, how the US favoured his rising to power, instead of anyone else...

So screw what he signed "voluntarily", you cant forget the past.