Teaching Old Europe a Lesson

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Teaching Old Europe a Lesson
By Tammy Bruce
December 11, 2003


Old Europe's head has exploded with rage, and I say good! Old Europe is mad and in the midst of throwing a temper tantrum, its arms flailing and feet dragging the floor. France, Germany and other countries too self-absorbed, politically inept and globally backward to help support the War on Terror in Iraq, are just shocked that the Pentagon has barred countries who opposed the war from bidding for some of that $18.6 billion in reconstruction contracts.

Money, money, money. That's what it's all been about for them. They supported Iraq because there was money. Saddam owes Old Europe billions of dollars ($8 billion to Russia alone). They knew they wouldn't get it if Saddam was gone, so they opposed liberating a country and saving lives, for money. Now, American tax dollars are at issue. The enablers of Saddam -- with his prisons for children, torture and rape rooms for women, and plastic shredders for men -- want part of our $18.6 billion tax in reconstruction aid for that used and abused country.

The United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, and Denmark are approved. Why only these 6 European nations out of 15? Because they deserve it, that's why. All have sent soldiers or police forces to Iraq. U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and our heroes at the Pentagon who run our military and keep the world free, have announced that it is our friends who will benefit in the reconstruction.

Of course, the countries not on the list are so narcissistic that they simply cannot comprehend why bidding is restricted to those countries that made the liberation possible, that worked with the United States to remove a tyrannical dictator. Contracts to rebuild the nation naturally belong to those who stood up to the incessant bullying of France, the threats from Germany, and still stood by our nation, going so far as to send their sons and daughters into harm's way to stand with us and with the people of Iraq, because it was the right thing to do.

It doesn't surprise me that countries like France and Germany don't understand the concepts or loyalty, compassion, courage and commitment. Instead, they behave like the Great Entitled-those who believe, simply because of their own absurd vision of themselves that they deserve what they want, and they want everything. Forget about having to work for it. Forget about standing by your "allies."

Specifically, Canada, Germany, France, Mexico, China and Russia are among countries excluded. Good. I will remind all of you that it was the wrangling and delays at the UN, led by France, and facilitated by its little sycophantic friends, that gave Saddam Hussein months of lead time to hide his WMDs and make plans for his own escape.

It is worth remembering that everyday an American dies in Iraq due in part to the refusal of those cowards in Old Europe to assist in the liberation effort. Saddam, the remnants of his regime, and the al-Qaeda foreign fighters who operate in Iraq are aided and comforted by the attitude of Old Europe.

Every bomb that goes off, every missile that is shot, is made possible in part by the emotional support the scum of the earth receives from Frenchman who sit and chew on their croissants and maintain their Red Wine stupor on the Left Bank.

Not all countries are equal. Iraq has served as an indicator of which countries have courage and integrity, and which do not. France is unworthy, and should never, never, get one paw on the tax dollars we have pledged to make Iraq free and functional.

Germany should be ashamed of itself-if any country owes the lives of its sons and daughters to help make the world a better, freer place it is Germany. They, too, should never get a a single American reconstruction dollar.

Then we have countries that didn't even have the guts to take a position. The Pentagon list also rightly excludes those countries which found it suitable to stand by and watch and say nothing. Sweden, Ireland, Austria, and Finland, all neutral countries, are out. Good, good, good and good.

It shouldn't be too surprising, however, that Old Europe would declare their exclusion as unfair. Their world, like leftist worlds everywhere, are unused to repercussions for moral failures. I must say, the United States has in part facilitated that mentality. For far too long we have made nice with Old Europe. I think it's due in part to our romantic nature, to say nothing of our personal ties with the Old World.

We are Americans first, but we love our ancestors and a world which has indeed helped to make the United States move from a dream to a reality. But sentiment should go only so far. My heritage is Italian and Irish. I've been proud that Italy stood by us, and ashamed that Ireland did not. I accept that.

I've also noted the UN reaction when it faced an attack in Iraq and suffered a loss of life. With the spine of an earthworm, they turned and ran. What a wonderful message to send the Iraqis.

And this is the organization that Old Europe (and Hillary Clinton) says should be running the reconstruction! How can they when they have the moral fiber of a slug, and cut and run the moment the war dares to come to their front door? Hillary Clinton and others of her ilk either are on an entirely different planet or are knowingly ready to condemn an entire people to ruin for political gain. I report, you decide.

Italians also faced the horrors of death in Iraq. While the Italian people remain conflicted about the war, Italian leadership has remained with us, despite their losses and the debate at home. That is courage to the core. Spanish troops have also been lost, and they too, have stayed the course. These are friends worth having and being proud of.

I have no qualms whatsoever knowing that some of the tax dollars I pay will be going to winning bids for these countries to reconstruct Iraq. They deserve it, with every drop of blood shed by their brave citizens, we owe it to them. They have earned it with every tear shed by loved ones in their home countries. How dare the Old Europe, comfy in their cowardice, declare that they, too, deserve our money.

I'll tell you what they deserve--to learn a lesson we should have taught them years ago: their free ride is over. They are not entitled to anything. There are repercussions to their actions, and self-absorption will not be rewarded. This is the new message from a new America?one which will not let the Old Europe attempt to destroy the world again.

One caution-as of this writing, a wire service has just announced, "The Pentagon on Wednesday delayed the issue of $18.6 billion in U.S. tenders to rebuild Iraq amid criticism over the exclusion from bidding of firms from France, Germany, Russia and other war opponents. The prime contracts were set to be advertised last Friday, but were delayed while 'high-level' policy decisions took place."

Let's make sure our voices, and not those of the French or Germans, hold sway at the Pentagon. It is imperative you let the Pentagon know you support restricting bidding to our coalition partners in Iraq, and Iraqi companies. Those who opposed our efforts, and consequently continue to endanger our troops and embolden the enemy, should never be rewarded.

Where all of this is coming from ? "Amerika über alles" last edition ?
This brilliant author forgot to mention that this traitor country, namely France, was the main other one assisting the US in Afghanistan, pulling together with the US there on all military issues, and notably air strikes.
That's still the case even if the conditions there, less mediatized, are bad weather's ones. That's so right ... they should never be rewarded for that.
So convenient now to forget, leave out, categorize, blame, bash ... What a beautiful journalist job is this selective memory ... pure propaganda stuff and crap ...
This money, these billion dollars, JUST KEEP IT. It stinks.

Makes sense to me JVSTR. Entertaining post. I'm sure you will get heat.

All right then. I see that our token forces are unuseless, according to you. Fine. So we did really well not to enlist in Operation Iraqi Freedom: waste of time for the US as for France. We should from now on never again pull together in any military action of this kind: token gesture. Other partakers should as well refrain from enlisting: unuseless. The mighty US alone has all what's needed to do it on its own.
Beyond your statement, let's look further. The UN: bunch of terrorists, assembly of weasels. Unuseless. Get rid of this irrelevant institution. Military agreements (NATO), ties with allies who "stabbed the US in the back": retaliations, berating, blackmailing.
And so on.
Keep on with this agenda. This orwellian world suits very well to people like you.
My God, you are definitely a very good client for Bin Laden. He will get his clash of civilization.

Wow! This discussion is getting hot!

Don't take it too personal Frenchy.

But what I don't get is why French et al get upset that they are not entitled to US dollars. In fact they are of course - France has some subcontracts already. But it would be refreshing to see positive proactive initiatives from France about investing in Iraq - helping Iraq - etc.

Don't help USA - help Iraq.

The Canadians are pretty upset too. After officially lobbying to elect Gore, officially calling Bush a moron (even if he is that's not polite), etc.

Canada is utterly dependent upon US for defense. It deliberately slashed defense capabilities because they know they don't need them. They know the US would defend Totonto or Montreal like we would Washington - no joke.

I think its time the US stopped carrying the burdon for world defense. Reconfigure forces - place them strategically around globe - make sure they are ready to act in our interest when called upon. Make it clear to our buddies that while we will probably help them and augment their capabilities when needed, they shouldnt assume that we will form the core of their capabilities against strategic and regional threats.

On the other hand, maybe its in someone's interest to drive wedge between US/allies. Hmmm. LOL. Maybe we are all being played.

All right Charles, there are good ideas and advices in your posts. But as for taking it too personal, well, I suggest you to read some of the comments of your fellow countryman jvstr in other threads. I am talking only about his personal comments. Just read.

It is amazing either this author or the US gov are a bunch of hypocrites over the loan money situation as the author saya the US friends will get the contracts fine but the countires that lemt Sadamm money are bad people.
Just to let you know that Iraq owes Itlay and Britain and I think spain (all US friends ) billions.

And when in my post did I mention contracts this is about blasting one country for doing something and hailing others for doing the same thing, the only difference is that we helped you.
The writer of the piece makes a thinly veiled attack on France in particular for lending money to Iraq and saying they opposed saving lives over money, so that sums up to mad bad old france.
In the next paragraph the UK, Italy and Spain are hailed as countries that deserve contracts so that sums up to our good friends.
So why did the writer of the piece not tell the truth that the US friends are also lending money to Saddam?
You can bet your last penny that if the UK, Italy or spain had opposed the war they would be on the end of one of those thinly veiled attacks.
Also no mention of the money and support that was given to Iraq in the Iran Iraq war I see.
Surely an oversight by the writer I am sure.

This post from me was supposed to be caricatural, just in order to illustrate the irrelevance of some decisions, as well as the dangers at stake. Should I be surprised to hear you agree with its content as first degree statements ? Heck no.
Reaping what you have sown ? Yes, I hear that term each day about what's going on in Iraq. Having made one's bed, one must lay in it... well apparently Bush would like some others to lay in it with him. While in the same time he is still berating and blackmailing them. Strange way to charm them ... looks like a SM deviance... LOL

I do not think it is sour grapes if you look at it, so America does not want to deal with France Germany or mainland Europe in general, big deal what exactly have these countries lost?, America will not give them contracts again so what these contracts are worth a lot but at the end of the day it is not like europe will die without these contracts and I am sure that most of Europe would ratherlose the contracts than have military cemeteries filling up.
As for teaching old Europe a lesson, there is very little the US could teach europe that it does not already know.

If the figures describing France's military help in Afghanistan are accurate, then shame on you french for even trying to argue about it. 450 troops, amount of equipment one can count by their fingers - i mean, come on, is that kind of help an ally expects from you?

And please, in no way take my post as personal offence - i understand that you are not to blame for your government's decisions.

I don't take your post as personal offence, as indeed I don't decide for my government. My concern is only to point out the hypocrisy, consisting in blaming and bashing France for its stance, and using for that all kind of base innuendo, while some other countries, bringing on the ground in Iraq military forces that can really be considered as token ones, are praised as part of the coalition, although they only leap as high the Bush administration expects them to do. This is the biased approach to label this intervention as a multinational one, while the sole actor of this play is acting with some extras butterflying around - at the exception of Britain to some extent.
This is revealing the unease with the foreign policy of the administration in office right now. "Allies" are so called as far as they accept to pose the way they are expected to do. Otherwise, they become : miserable people, traitors stabbing in the back, cheese eater surrenders monkeys, and so on.
That's enough now. If you accept to be dupe of this swindling, well, you are free to do so.

My concern is only to point out the hypocrisy, consisting in blaming and bashing France for its stance, and using for that all kind of base innuendo, while some other countries, bringing on the ground in Iraq military forces that can really be considered as token ones, are praised as part of the coalition, although they only leap as high the Bush administration expects them to do.

Difference is the whole world 'open-heartedly' supported us in Afghanistan and 20-30 armored units France has submitted to anti-taliban coalition look pretty weak. On the other hand, when deciding whether to support war in Iraq or not, coalition members indeed contributed very small forces - because of strong anti-war sentiment among population, particularly in Australia and Spain.

This is the biased approach to label this intervention as a multinational one, while the sole actor of this play is acting with some extras butterflying around - at the exception of Britain to some extent.

So if your country and others didn't join the US in Iraq, who's fault is it? I just can't get this part of your argument - remember that France didnt send ANY contribution neither military nor humanitarian - where is the hypocrisy?E]

Britain has sent a chunk of armed forces - Tony Blair says bye-bye to his career of the prime minister. Supporting an ally nowadays is something you get kicked out for.

If you think that is why Blairt is on the ropes then you are seriously mistaken yes the war is a prt of it not so much the war bevcause the liberation of Iraq and the removal and now trial of Sadaam is seen as a good thing but it is the reasons i.e. WMDs that have yet to be found ,also the David Kelly scnadal and other important dopmestic decsions and stealth taxes etc.
It is not a case of supporting an ally but supporting an ally for the right reasons.

This is a relevant remark DrPoke. We might as well discourse about the US help towards its allies France and Britain in the Suez battle in 1956.

First of all, your "relevant" remark concerns the middle of 20th century and we live in 21st. Second, in 1952 and after that the US had to decide whether to follow it's anti-colonian principle or support it's allies, it was a completely different type of confrontation. Third, it would be nice of the US to start a war against fascists when it's allies surrendered to them one after another, but for some reason it did not.

Hold on a second! Weren't we talking about France's contribution to Afghani operation, dated two thousand and one? So, coming back to our topic, is sending 450 ground troops a reasonable contribution to war on terror? I dont think so.

Well what you rather have 450 or zero? also I am not sure about other aspects such as logistics or fuel etc also financial aid or intelligence reports also I am pretty sure France is like the US and the UK in the fact that they never admit how many special forces troops are in a country for all we know there could have been 300 - 400 spec forces, so those figures would help as well.
Remember wars are not just fought by ground soldiers there are all those people in the background doing other things we never here about.
How many French troops are in the NATO force now I am not sure but one of the leaders of the NATO force is a Frenchman.

That's correct Lodgebo. It is one thing to come with a list, picked up on the net, and another one to deliver an objective picture of everybody's contribution. I have heard personally from former special ops French that France and the US have been pulling together on many issues, which have never been mediatized. But it is convenient for a few know-nothing flag waving patriots to spread quotes and links from their armchairs. This just flatters themselves.

Charles you are right that the French and the US need to be on the same team but it would appear from your post that it is the French that should do all the leg work, diplomacy is about give and take and Bush should also be willing to get round the table.
But both countries should put Iraq past them and work together on other issues that can be of benefit to both nations

Bush doesn't have to apologize for a single f*ucking thing. The security of the U.S. will *not* be decided upon by foreign states... including that inept windbag outfit, the United Nations... Period. The End.

France, Germany, etc.. can piss, moan, groan, whine, and yelp all they want. If any of them want to repair anything the ball is in their court.


--JV

PS. Funny letter, Charles.

Leading the opposition to the US ? It was not the aim of the stance, but had more to do with expressing a concern against a war to be waged anyway the way it had been. Call this "leading the opposition to the US" if you want, in the end it is just a semantic shift.
But, finally, perhaps something is changing, as you say.. I would appreciate some mirror "progress" being made all the same ... like UN being more implicated ... in everybody's interest.

You live in a country that is a superpower and you accept ( I assume) that it is OK for the US to veto things like Kyoto and Israel for instance they are allowed to do that because they are a superpower, well France is also seen as a superpower and it has every right to veto if it feels it is right.

What you are effectively saying in your post is that if a country disagrees with the US it should keep it's mouth shut? yet the US can make comments on issues such as the Russian elections if it fells it wants to. This is a war and France is allowed to voice opposition if it feels something should be said is that not what a democratic world should allow?
Have you considered it is the fact that hundreds of innocent civilians have died, hundred of brave soldiers have also died and the debt of the countries involved is going to be billions, also the fact that one of the major reasons for invasions WMDs have still not been found and also the fact that the main reason for war in Afghanistan getting Bin Laden has been left up in the air, maybe that is why France continues to oppose a war.

Also I am aware about the fact that France and the US do trade I meant they should try and strengthen relations with each other because to say the least relations are strained.

France did ALOT more than "express a concern" JY. I think you know that.

You wouldnt class a country that has nuclear wepons a huge geographical range a strong economy and a major player in the EUnad the UN as a superpower, hell the five main countries in the UN namely UK, US, Russia, China and France have a veto because they are (with the exception of maybe Russia)superpowers. If you do not believe me look at the US bar the Eu isuue Frnace and the US have all the major traits I talked about.
Or are you mesauring superpower by firepower?

OK explain to me why France is not a superpower Joe , remembering that a superpower is usually measured in factors such as military strength including nuclear capabilities, strength of economy, population, influence in local and international circuits, size of the country.

Tell you what I will give you examples of a superpower how about the USA and compare that to France
USA has a large advanced army so does France
USA has nuclear weapons so does France
USA has a strong/recovering economy so does France
USA has a big population so does France
USA has influence in the UN so does France
USA is a massive country so is France

are you seeing a pattern building here