What's With Europe?

Saddam builds his palaces in Iraq which is the only place where the Iraqi currency is actually worth anything, and that’s assuming that he actually pays fair prices for his domestic luxuries. If Saddam had enough real money to make a dent in the trade balance of France or Germany he’d already have bought enough military equipment to make sure he’s no longer pestered by UN inspectors…

Sound like America’s usual anti-European propaganda to me… I’m not aware that France or Germany are trading with Iraq outside of what is allowed by the UN. And where should Saddam get the money he’s supposedly paying? The Iraqi currency should be pretty much worthless these days. Last time I checked business with Iraq was restricted to swapping oil for food and medical drugs.[/quote]

The Oil for Stuff program works like this - 3rd parties (Countries, companies, whatever) pay the rate Iraq sets their oil price per gallon into a account setup by the UN. The UN then buys “Stuff” (Food, Medicine, Necessary “Dual use” machinery, etc.) using the money in this account from companies that Iraq chooses, which is the flaw in the system. Iraq has been, since the beginning of the Oil for Food program, demanding political favors for awarding the contracts to companies in specific countries. France and Russia are given a Lion’s Share of the Oil for Stuff contracts, there by assuring their support of the drop of sanctions against Iraq.

Iraq also works out a “discount” (usually marking their barrels down by a few cents each) to it’s customers, but then demanding that part of the the money saved by the discount be deposited in their own bank accounts instead of the Oil for Stuff programs accounts. The oils still cheaper then it is from the Saudis or the Kuwaitis, so people cooperate. Also, since most oil tankers that leave aren’t full, Iraq often “Tops off” tankers (they’re only allowed to ship so much oil per year) then has money from that deposited into their own accounts.

There’s also the Pipe Line that runs from Iraq - Syria that’s been up for the past couple of years amounting to about $1 Billion in discounted oil revenue, plus about $500 a million a year of oil going to Turkey via tanker trucks. Another $500 million is smuggled to (if memory serves) the UAE via tanker by going through Iranian terratorial waters…with their permission of course. That’s another $2 billion a year in money (approx) that is going directly to the Iraqi govt, instead of the Oil for Stuff program.

Are you on good terms with your in-laws? They might have been talking about you.[/quote]

LOL! Actually, yes, I’m on good terms – and I’m in pretty good physical shape, so the fat thing is out. :D Lazy and arrogant… well, most of us have a little too much of those attributes.

Hey Kalle, I think we’ve established that governments do ridiculous things and are not at all consistent – which is the whole problem with morals in international policy. Believe it or not, we agree.

And by the way, thanks Kalle and Anders for responding. I wanted to hear some honest-to-God European opinion, rather than what’s running on American news.

What? I did not think the rest of Europe considered those peace-loving lunatics in Scandanavia as part of their community. :wink:

[quote=“Tyjenks”]

What? I did not think the rest of Europe considered those peace-loving lunatics in Scandanavia as part of their community. :wink:[/quote]

Well, sure they might be writing from an asylum – but they’re European, nonetheless. I’m sick of the American lunatics. :)

We do seem to have more than our share here, you are right. :) Many centered around the L.A., California region.

[quote=“NI1”]

:?:
You aren’t by any chance using a black and white monitor?[/quote]

Well put. That’s an attitude many Europeans don’t like so much, this “with us or against us” thing.

I mean, just because we are military allies (defensively), it doesn’t mean we have to support each other in everything. Remember the whole Suez Canal debacle, back in '56, I think it was?

As has been said, we don’t hate you, we just don’t like your foreign policy. I mean, I literally cannot think of any single European I have met ever who hates Americans, or really dislikes America. But many are starting to really dislike your foreign policy, and your current government’s attitude towards other countries.

But many are starting to really dislike your foreign policy, and your current government’s attitude towards other countries.

Not to mention the current US president is easily the least popular abroad since Nixon, or perhaps going even further back than that.

Todd, I’m afraid you are condemned to repeat history. Hopefully before lunch period or you may be too drowsy to remember anything next time too.

I heard of a few subversive protestor signs that I thought were funny.

“Other than slavery, communism, fascism, and nazism, war has never solved anything.”

[Drawing of woman in burka chained to a post] “Protect fundamental Islamic property rights! Stop US imperialism!”

My wife is arabic, so “How can a man [whatever I did wrong] his own property??” is something I often say as a joke. She’s heard it in all seriousness and has yet to acknowledge the brilliant humor in my version.

Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek has some comments about this in the latest issue. He says, "Many in Europe worry more about America than Iraq. For them Iraq is a tactical issue. The strategic issue is what are they going to do about America, the dominating power in the world today.

“During the early 1990s, many believed that the bipolar world of the cold war would yield to a world of many powers. But Europe, which was to have become a mammoth actor on the world stage, showed itself to be a disunited continent, and one in economic crisis. It actually slipped in its share of world GDP and military spending over the last decade. Japan’s economy also went sour. Russia moved in a few years from being a great power to a great power vacuum. China and India, for all their growth, remain developing countries. The only one left standing was the United States of America, rising taller than any nation in history.”

He does point out that while Europe has slow to recognize the realities of American power, so has Washington. He says the bluster is hurting the relations, that the US doesn’t need to run around saying, “We don’t need anyone” because, well duh, of course we don’t. That’s like wumpus running around saying he’s a more insightful gamer than Tom Chick; we all know it, so it goes without saying.

Anyway, to make a short story long, Europe is jealous and angry and is throwing a hissy fit because we’re bigger and badder than they are, and we aren’t shy about saying it. Over and over again. And they think they’re better than we are because their countries are older, which makes it doubly galling.

Part of what I have found so maddening about the debate is the blatant hypocrisy of both sides here. Chirac has repeatedly said that France has a right to have its own opinion – and then has lambasted those European countries whose opinions differed from his, indicating that they should simply has kept their mouths shut. Of course, the US has been making a (less coherent) argument about France, too, so…

On the other side, the Bush has said “we’re gonna do this and screw you if you disagree,” which is hardly how you maintain strong alliances. Yet he blames France and Germany for the rift in NATO, when the bottom line is that he didn’t do his prep work adequately.

My guess is that things run very differently in Texas than they do on the world stage – and that France hasn’t figured out that, to most Americans, the French matter only slightly more than the Ethernopians or Elbonians.* I do agree with those who think France will cave at the last moment – of course they will. But they’ll extract maximum concessions first and Chirac will milk this for domestic political support.

As for moralism in foreign policy… Give me a freakin’ break. Moralism is a small factor, certainly, but, like it or not, most foreign policy is made by what International Relations weenies call “Realists,” meaning policy is based on national interest. France has a comfy relationship with Saddam, and has for 20 years. Should Saddam manage to maintain power once the embargo is lifted, France is going to be in like Flynn with the regime there. The US, on the other hand, has pretty much alienated the Iraqi regime (that whole Gulf War thing soured the relationship), which means that if the US wants a friendly regime in Iraq there needs to be a regime change. While moralism is important, it’s hardly a deciding factor. France certainly didn’t intervene in the Balkans to stop the slaughter of Bosnians (although they could have easily done so) or in Rwanda. For that matter, neither did the US, at least, not in a timely fashion. Moralism simply doesn’t dictate policy by itself, although it can be one of many factors to consider.

I’ve seen the argument made that the only meaningful “moral” intervention in recent history was the US/UN intervention in Somalia, and I think the lesson taken from that intervention was no American blood when there’s no American interests.

Bottom line, at least for me: politics as usual.

ASJunk

[size=2]* for our European readers, Ethernopia is an imaginary country in the show “South Park” while Elbonia is an imaginary country in the cartoon strip “Dilbert.” As an American, I am geography illiterate, but I know my real countries from my fake ones…[/size]

That’s like wumpus running around saying he’s a more insightful gamer than Tom Chick; we all know it, so it goes without saying.

ROFL

Part of what I have found so maddening about the debate is the blatant hypocrisy of both sides here. Chirac has repeatedly said that France has a right to have its own opinion – and then has lambasted those European countries whose opinions differed from his, indicating that they should simply has kept their mouths shut. Of course, the US has been making a (less coherent) argument about France, too, so…[/quote]

That’s another thing, the blatant hypocrisy of the current political leadership. :)

But I agree somewhat with your point on the French position. They’re hypocritical too, just not as blatantly.

Where’s Qt3 forum member deanco? He’s an American gamer in Paris that could let us in on how he is treated and what he thinks of Jack Shirack first hand.

he’s too busy getting french pussy to bother with idiotic shit like this.

Have you smelled French pussy? Ugh.

No wonder he’s such a pissy guy.

some people don’t appreciate real women with armpit hair

besides, france is the home of the bidet, a device specifically designed to clean the twat. if anything, they’re going to be more pleasant than your US chemically douched Summer’s Eve whorebags.

“american woman, keep away from me-eee.”

This Jed Babbin quote is making the rounds and sums up that feeling quite well: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/babbin.htm

That link also points out other instances where US and France differed on military action.

That was great.

About the topic of this thread: I disagree with the premise that if the Bush Administration had “done a better job” of diplomacy that the Europeans would all be magically on board the Iraq war bus. The bottom line is that we were attacked, Europe wasn’t, and when it comes to the heavy lifting, not everyone is going to be willing to go along no matter how many times Colin Powell comes to your house. When pressed about the amazing revelation that during the election campaign Schroder covered up a intelligence report that the Iraqis probably have smallpox stores, the rebuttal was that Germans weren’t in danger because the terrorists hated America so that’s who they were going to attack, anyway. That’s not a very principled stand. When NATO did an end-run around the French on the issue of sending Patriots to Turkey, Germany caved immediately, and it was the Belgians who actually kept up their opposition for a few more hours. I think Schoder has really backed himself into a corner, and his foreign policy is flailing. It was a short-term opportunistic move to come out so categorically against the war during the election, and it is costing him.

The French strategy is much more coherent (although possibly more despicable). Any US “coalition-building” would eventually have run into this French strategy, which is to isolate the US in Europe. I tend to agree with Andrew Sullivan that “there is a huge struggle going on in Europe between those who want to forge an anti-American socialist super-state and those who want to unite Europe around principles of nation-states, a trans-Atlantic bond and free trade.” The problem for Chirac is that the new democracies of the former Soviet bloc feel a lot closer to the US than to France on many issues. I saw one excellent quote from an unnamed Czech diplomat which said, “the 1930s taught us not to rely on assurances from the French on security issues.” The fact is that many of these countries see their security interests better served by the United States. I’m sure this was a consideration when the Poles chose to buy 48 F-16s instead of Mirages (as part of the air force modernization programme which was a condition of NATO membership).

Chirac is a pretty calculating guy, which made his recent outburst that much more surprising. Until his Defense Minister repeated it. It’s not like the French are apologizing for it, so it’s clearly a strategy of intimidation. The meeting with Mugabe is equally coldly calculated, if no less disgusting, because he’s clearly trying to curry favor with the African members of the Security Council (Angola, Guinea, and Cameroon).

The oil ties between France/Russia and Iraq are well-known and are certainly driving French and Russian policy on this issue to a large degree. I think Putin is a sharp (and ruthless) enough politician to do what it takes to preserve his interests with the US, since Russia is poised to become a major competitor with OPEC for oil sales to the US.

I tend to agree with Richard Perle that France isn’t really an ally any longer. With the demise of the USSR, there is a new struggle for Europe, in line with the Sullivan quote above. Even at the height of the Cold War, just four years after the Soviets tried to put missiles in Cuba, and ten years after Hungary was invaded, the French pulled out of NATO military planning. The French are just fine with unilateralism, as long as it’s their own. In fact, they prefer it. The only multilateralism they want is around a Paris-Berlin axis. The French are desperate to keep from being swamped by US influence in pretty much everything. Ignoring that when considering current political events in Europe misses much of the point.

Bonus eastern Europe article with a picture of a McDonald’s selling “McKielbasa.”

Enough procrastination. All those links are in English except the Gazeta Wyborcza one. I don’t have time to translate it. Maybe get Jakub to do it or something.