FRENCH NAZI COLLABORATOR - Maurice Papon is dead

What business? Loaning him money? Supporting him against Iran?

Well your gouvernment did what we all did. You guys bought oil , supported him against Iran and you did normal trade. Nothing spechial. Nevertheless we all knew that he was a mass murderer using poision gas in this war or to opress the Kurds.

You don't think Musharraf is an ally in the WOT?

He might be an ally but I think that he should not be one due to his regime and his possession of nukes.

Democracy for the Phillippines, Argentinia etc.

Argentinia? Argentinia? Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor

I understand the necessity of covert ations, but Nixons and Kissingers roles were for sure not very heroic concerning south America.

P.S. I am off now. It is early morning in old Europe and since I have to do a business trip today I am going to start working soon. :)

The American GIs suffered terror like attacks in Germany after the war, too, in spite of their beneficent actions. And they didn't have the Taliban to deal with. The non-Taliban Afghanis like the the US and appreciate the schools and some semblance of a normal life, free of the Taliban.

No one will claim that the military operations in Iraq have gone well, but it wasn't constructive criticism that was offered by Europe, it was lies and duplicitness. Europe tried to cover up for Saddam, they voted for sanctions and then took huge bribes to go around the sanctions. They supplied Saddam with weapons and intelligence. Austria has recently supplied Iran with weapons, that are now showing up in Iraq. France promised Saddam that they would prevent the US from attacking, rather than putting pressure on him to comply. If Europe had backed the US demands that Saddam should comply with weapons inspections, the war could have been avoided. So, it is really France's fault that the war was prosecuted at all.
If the Democrats win in 2008, and it looks as though they might, the ensuing blood bath will be on their hands, as well as the problem of the growing threat from Iran, which will be multiplied exponentially. Withdrawing is not an honorable option. But things are looking up in Iraq, Sadr has run off to Iran to hide, and the Iraqis are stepping into their responsibilities, taking more and more control.

By the way, the American military does not consider their deaths to be a waste. Saddam is dead, and we have not had a single organized terror attack since 9/11. The Islamists think that turning the other cheek, as Clinton did, is weakness. You cannot argue logic with irrational untrustworthy people. Dialogue will not work.There has to be a better way, but the Democrats sure haven't offered any.

Nevertheless we all knew that he was a mass murderer using poision gas in this war or to opress the Kurds.

You did not do what we did. When the opportunity came to get rid of him France (and Germany) gave him support, and led him to believe he could survive the pressure we (and the UN) put him under.

Yes Argentina

As far as Operation Condor goes, that was not a U.S. operation. As far as the U.S. giving it at "least tacit approval", there were things in Latin America supported by the Soviets that were a bit more than tacit. As far action against Kissinger, that's a pretty safe thing to do for a French judge. He issues the summons, it's ignored and he goes back to his cocktail party a hero, which would not be the case if he issued it against, say, Castro. Or against Hussein when he had the chance.

(Musharraf) might be an ally but I think that he should not be one due to his regime and his possession of nukes.

Fine and dandy but what's your plan? War with Pakistan so we can take away his nukes? Isolation so he falls and the nukes fall into the hands of radicals?

You see? More lies and duplicities from Big Europe. The self-interested, oil greedy Europeans again, say one thing and do another, giving lip service to world security, while supporting despotic states with trade.

From the Wall Street Journal, Opinion Journal:
Europe and the Mullahs
How the EU subsidizes trade with Iran.

Tuesday, February 20, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

On the record, Europe claims to be as concerned as America about a nuclear-armed Iran. The record also shows, however, that Europe's biggest countries do a booming business with the Islamic Republic. And so far for the Continentals, manna trumps security.

The European Union--led by Germany, France and Italy--has long been Iran's largest trading partner. Its share of Iran's total imports is about 35%. Even more notable: Its trade with Tehran has expanded since Iran's secret nuclear program was exposed. Between 2003 and 2005, Europe's exports rose 29% to €12.9 billion; machinery, transport equipment and chemicals make up the bulk of the sales. Imports from Iran, predominantly oil, increased 62% to €11.4 billion in that period.

In the absence of an official embargo against Tehran, private EU companies have sought commercial opportunities in Iran. But the real story here is that these businesses are subsidized by European taxpayers. Government-backed export guarantees have fueled the expansion in trade. That, in turn, has boosted Iran's economy and--indirectly by filling government coffers with revenues--its nuclear program. The German record stands out. In its 2004 annual report on export guarantees, Berlin's Economics Ministry dedicated a special section to Iran that captures its giddy excitement about business with Tehran.

"Federal Government export credit guarantees played a crucial role for German exports to Iran; the volume of coverage of Iranian buyers rose by a factor of almost 3.5 to some €2.3 billion compared to the previous year," the report said. "The Federal Government thus insured something like 65% of total German exports to the country. Iran lies second in the league of countries with the highest coverage in 2004, hot on the heels of China."

Iran tops Germany's list of countries with the largest outstanding export guarantees, totaling €5.5 billion. France's export guarantees to Iran amount to about €1 billion. Italy's come to €4.5 billion, accounting for 20% of Rome's overall guarantee portfolio. Little Austria had, at the end of 2005, €800 million of its exports to Iran covered by guarantees.

The Europeans aren't simply facilitating business between private companies. The vast majority of Iranian industry is state-controlled, while even private companies have been known to act as fronts for the country's nuclear program. EU taxpayers underwrite trade and investment that would otherwise be deterred by the risks of doing business with a rogue regime.

It's also hard not to see a connection between Europe's commercial interests and its lenient diplomacy. The U.N.'s December sanctions resolution orders countries to freeze the assets of only 10 specific companies and 12 individuals with ties to Iran's nuclear program. Europe's governments continue to resist U.S. calls for financial sanctions, and the German Chamber of Commerce recently estimated that tougher economic sanctions would cost 10,000 German jobs.

As if on cue, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier last week detected in Tehran a "new ambition" to resume talks. The last time the Europeans promoted such diplomatic negotiations, Iran won two more years to get closer to its goal of becoming a nuclear power. In 2004, according to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung daily, then-Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer told Iranians to consider Europe a "protective shield" against U.S. pressure. The EU continues to provide a shield for its business interests in Iran, and thus a lifeline to a regime that is unpopular at home and sponsors terror abroad.

Yes - of course we have economic relations with Iran since your conflict from 1979 was never ours. This gives us Europeans -in sharp difference to the US who refused any trade with Iran since then- the possibility to put on real pressure on the regime in Teheran. On the other hand -also in sharp difference to the US- we have to loose something there. The Iranians buy everything that makes their lives convienent in western Europe, espechially in Germany.

Yes, we registrated the lamentation of Gregory Schulte, the US-ambassador at the IAEA and other US-officials about European export credit guarantees. Your treasury secretary, Mr Paulson asked furthermore our big banks to cease money transfers with Iran. The banks consented since business in the US is of course far more important than business with Iran. Nevertheless we have reason not to trust your gouvernment in this case since your administrations have a long history in using such incidences for protection of their own US idustry/banks/business. You Americans often tried to balance your lack in competitive ability with protection. I.e. the US forced our German banks to end the US-Dollar monetary transactions with banks in Lettland because they allegedly violated against regulations against money laundering. Today your banks are doing this business. Concerning Iran the US originally cared mainly about "Dollar-business" until the Iranians switched from Dollars to Euros. This made your gouvernment change its tactics immediately, since nothing would be more destructive for the US if the Oil on the commodity markets is not traded in Dollars anymore but in Euros. Now your administration wants to implement a total embargo.

A total boycott only makes sense to us if there is a real strategy behind it and not just a new battle in the old economic war between Europe and the US. We will not follow America without being convinced since we Europeans want to see our interests considered and not just yours. Yes - we could move something on Iran. Even Russia and China would be forced into our line if we would stand tightly together. If the west only makes business with those who strictly avoid Iranians, the mullahs will find themselves quite lonely in Teheran.

But it would be nessecary to make a fair proposal to the Iranians for giving up uranium enrichment:

1. The possibility to buy nuclear fuel for pressurized water reactors like the one in Busher (No HEU).

2. The end of the economic US-embargo.

3. A diplomatic relationship with the US.

Espechially the last point is of interest to Europe. If the Mullahs and you speak with each other again you can solve your problems the short way without taking a detour over Paris, London or Berlin.

A embargo alone with exaggerated requests that leads to a loss of face for the Iranians will only cause more problems and there will be no practical benefit for all of us. We simply want to do Realpolitik.

Yes - of course we have economic relations with Iran since your conflict from 1979 was never ours.

You have just made my point. Europe was allegedly a strong ally of the US, but in reality that agreement only went one way. Europe never held up their end of the bargain, except to pay lip service to it at the UN. Europe is still demanding that the US play world policeman, but only in areas where the US police actions would benefit Europe economicly. Let Europe clean up their own messes in Africa. You cannot deal with Iran, rationally. Iran isn't interested in trade with the US, they are interested in power and ruling the whole Middle East, and beyond. Europe didn't learn anything from Hitler. You sound just like Neville Chamberlain. Next you'll be trying to tell by that Chavez just wants to trade with the US, too.

Sanctions are never going to work, as long as Europe continues to put their own economic well being above world security. Europe has a long, no so illustrious history of doing just that. Remeber, those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. That applies not only to Europe, but to the Democrats in this country, who are as irrational and power hungry as the worst despots.

As far as trade protections in the US, I am opposed to any artificial restrictions on trade that are pushed by our unions. I am also opposed to socialist props provided to European companies, such as Airbus. Eventually, the props turn out to be futile, anyway.

Did you know that Bill Clinton bugged to offices of the foreign delegations to the World Trade Conference in Seattle? Was that publicized in the foreign press?

Sanctions are never going to work, as long as Europe continues to put their own economic well being above world security.

They will work as long as we are integrated into the strategy with the US. The problem might be the "unilateral" acting of your country in the recent years. The trans-atlantic tragedy started when President Bush bailed out of a few -to Europeans quite important- projects like the Kyoto protocol. This found its continuation in the pre-Iraq-war phase. The US acted alone and were totally amazed that they were left alone by western Europe then. It is no question that Chirac and Schroeder were a pain in the a**, but the policy of your administration concerning its foreign relations with western Europe were not better. In Germany we have a bonmot that says that you will recieve the echo of what you are shouting into the forrest. That exactly happend here. Most Europeans i.e. understood because of the refuse of President Bush to sign the Kyoto protocol that the US continue to put their own economic well being above world security (do you recognize the same words you wrote in your contribution above?). You Americans did not join into the security projects that were important to us since you have not been convinced of them. Why should we have been joining into security projects of you we were not convinced about for good reasons (really nobody in Europe believed into a danger because of the very few remaining WMDs of Saddam - this includes my own person)???

It was politically stupid to underestimate the self interests of Europe that careless. I think America paid a bitter price for it.

Acting intelligent means making things better than in the past. Our politicians have to talk with each other and they have to find a route of march in the Iran question that can be followed by all participants over the next few years. This should also include the time after President Bush. Therefore you Americans first have to discover what you really want and if there is a consensus possible between your 2 big parties. I am quite sure that this can not be a full scale war. It is anyway better to avoid another millitary conflict that is not being ended in a positive way because of a uncertain outcome of elections in America. As I already said your Iraq engagement could end in a total debacle if a democratic President decides to "pull out" after a possible political change in Washington. We do not need this disastrous political situation in another conflict with Iran.

If you Americans have a strategy that has the chance to remain stable over the next 5 or 6 years you should talk to your European partners. To me the only possibility to put pressure on Iran will be sanctions. If the US and Europe combine their efforts here we can isolate them completely since it is possible to force Russia and China into our positions then. We Europeans have to pay a high economic price in this case but I am sure that we will do that if we see a chance to solve this nuclear crisis.

But -as I already said- first of this you Americans have to do your own homework before you ask us to give up all of our interests in that area.

As far as trade protections in the US, I am opposed to any artificial restrictions on trade that are pushed by our unions. I am also opposed to socialist props provided to European companies, such as Airbus. Eventually, the props turn out to be futile, anyway.

Agreed.

To Airbus: It was okay to me to start up the manufaturing of big commercial planes with subsidies in the 70ties, since private business would not have been able to pay for development expenses and the basic investments of such a project. Espechially for us Germans it was essential to reconstruct a capable aircraft industry after WWII. We lost our high tech air and space industry in 1945. Therefore it was alluring to rebuild it together with the French. Nevertheless it is true that since the mid 80ties our gouvernments should have left Airbus alone. As you probably know the French never did and the German socialist gouvernment under the social democrat Merkel (she calls herself "conservative", but she is not) will buy the share of Daimler-Benz in the near future. This prevents the fundamental reform that is nessecary inside of Airbus to make it profitable. You are right. Socialist BS.

Nevertheless Airbus will survive and they will make things difficult for Boeing (which is also financially backed by your gouvernment) in the next few years since those guys

1. are going to build planes in China. (the most moronic thing that can be done)

2. will get even more subsidies from our socialist gouvernments.

Your argument is ridiculous because the sanctions ordered by the UN were not supposed to be unilateral. They werea approved by France and the UN. That is the point, Europe lied, cheated and actually sided with the enemy that they were supposed to be sanctioning. There were NO UNILATERAL sanctions. Europe is like a philandering lover who doesn't have the guts to leave his rich wife, so he just goes on cheating and being irresponsible. The real problem is Europe's moral relativity, it makes it impossible to trust them, because they have no honor. But, Iran's nukes will be able to reach Europe, not the US, and we just might not come to the rescue this time.

We did heip with Europe's security, remember Bosnia? Serbia? That wasn't in the US interest to go in there. Europe asked us to, and we responded. Why didn't you handle it yourselves?

As far as the Kyoto treaty is concerned, it was designed to hurt the US economy. It was pointless and even those countries that did sign it, made no attempt to honor it. The US actually made greater strides in the reduction of CO2 than Canada. Without China and India being included, any worldwide agreement is useless. That's the reason that even the wacko environmentalists have abandon Kyoto in favor of the Earth Charter. But, I don't believe in the whole hullaballoo over global warming, anyway. It's just leftist
scare tactics to push for world socialism. It's not even good science, it's feminized science, just another postmodern metanarrative with a catastrophic ending that the socialists must save us from.

The best answer to our problems is to drill more oil, in both Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, and the California coast, come up with other types of alternative fuels (not bio)and reduce the price of oil on the world market, at least for the US. Then we can allow the Muslims to behead each other and blow themselves to kingdom come, as long as the leave Israel alone.

Fine and dandy but what's your plan? War with Pakistan so we can take away his nukes? Isolation so he falls and the nukes fall into the hands of radicals?

Of course I have to admit that Musharraf is better than the Mullahs in Teheran, but you must also admit that the Mullahs in Teheran are better than the sunni radicals in Pakistan around Bin Laden. They are the ones who will get those warheads if Musharraf will fall.

I also have no solution for this. It would be like a exorcism with the aid of Lucifer. Nevertheless the reaction of the US after the nuclear tests was dissatisfying since it showed that nothing significant happens if a nation is joining the nuclear club. If they have the bomb nobody can turn it away from them anymore. The mullahs in Teheran and this ridicolous hobbit in North Korea understood that very well.

You did not do what we did. When the opportunity came to get rid of him France (and Germany) gave him support, and led him to believe he could survive the pressure we (and the UN) put him under.

Oh yes our politicians did exactly what your Mr. Kissinger did i.e. in Chile. The weak Saddam kept things stable in that region just like Pinochet did it for you in southern America during the 70ties. I do not support such inmorale policy, but I understand it. The whiny moralizing in America because of the French is therefore somehow ridicolous.

BTW - what has the picture of the "big three" to do with our discussion?

that the Mullahs in Teheran are better than the sunni radicals in Pakistan around Bin Laden. They are the ones who will get those warheads if Musharraf will fall.

I think that was my point.

I also have no solution for this.

We do. Support Musharraf. But if you think of a better one let us know.

Nevertheless the reaction of the US after the nuclear tests was dissatisfying since it showed that nothing significant happens if a nation is joining the nuclear club.

They were the Clinton years. I apologize for them.

Oh yes our politicians did exactly what your Mr. Kissinger did i.e. in Chile.

Except Pinochet never attacked his neighbors, never exported terror, never tried to develop an atom bomb and eventually acquiesced to democratic rule. Further the civil rights violations he committed pale to those done by Hussein.

BTW - what has the picture of the "big three" to do with our discussion?

The pix of Churchill and Truman grinning and shaking hands with Stalin have as much to do with this discussion as the pix of Rummy shaking hands with Hussein.

The real problem is Europe's moral relativity, it makes it impossible to trust them, because they have no honor. But, Iran's nukes will be able to reach Europe, not the US, and we just might not come to the rescue this time.

Just to put a few things straight. Yes, Iranian nukes are theoretically able to reach Europe. But did you know that they also can reach the 5th Avenue in New York in the trunk of a Dodge sedan in combination with one of those suicide idiots? This should be far more effective -from the Iraninan point of view- than a direct attack of Europe that would for sure be answered immediately by a few hundred submarine based French warheads. The worst thing that could happen is, if they are able to steal the nuclear fuel for a bomb out of a former Soviet stockpile. In this case you Americans will probably never find out where the nuke in New York really came from. This scenario is far more probable than Iranian ICBMs on Europe.

Just to make you understand and to put some things straight: I have family in New York and therefore I have personal interest that such will never happen. We Europeans have no benefit if the US are falling.

Honour? BuHuHaHa! Yes we have honour. But that is a fundamental difference to being just your servant.

And talking about rescue - it was indeed convienient for us that you did the unpleasant work in Bosina and Serbia. It is the same thing like with Airbus and their subsidies. Leave this business to us Europeans and we are forced to solve those problems by ourselves. You see: American intervention can be politically contraproductive.

I don't believe in the whole hullaballoo over global warming, anyway. It's just leftist scare tactics to push for world socialism. It's not even good science, it's feminized science, just another postmodern metanarrative with a catastrophic ending that the socialists must save us from.

Well I do quite a lot of skiing in the Alps and I already was able to observe the outcome of the global warming by myself. The glaciers I know are just 2/3 of the size they have been in the 70ties, when I was a kid. There must be a reason for this. Ignoring the problem will not solve it.

I have nothing against something different than Kyoto if it helps to deal with the problem. Nevertheless you Americans waste far too much energy without any need. It would be in your own interest to find new solutions. Building more efficient cars and house is easy. Just buy the technology for it in Europe. ;)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.