Skip to main content

Since some consider the US to be the most dangerous rogue nation currently. I find this article from the Daily Mirror to be quite intersting.

Tony Parsons - UK Daily Mirror September 11, 2002
No matter what your views on President Bush's statement of upcoming war, this is from an English journalist, is very interesting.

Just a word of background, for those of you who aren't familiar with the UK's Daily Mirror. This is a notoriously left-wing daily that is normally not supportive of the Colonials across the Atlantic.

ONE year ago, the world witnessed a unique kind of broadcasting -- the mass murder of thousands, live on television. As a lesson in the pitiless cruelty of the human race, September 11 was up there with Pol Pot's mountain of skulls in Cambodia, or the skeletal bodies stacked like garbage in the Nazi concentration camps.
An unspeakable act so cruel, so calculated and so utterly merciless that surely the world could agree on one thing - nobody deserves this fate. Surely there could be consensus: the victims were truly innocent, the perpetrators truly evil.

But to the world's eternal shame, 9/11 is increasingly seen as America's comeuppance. Incredibly, anti-Americanism has increased over the last year. There has always been a simmering resentment to the USA in this country - too loud, too rich, too full of themselves and so much happier than Europeans - but it has become an epidemic. And it seems incredible to me. More than that, it turns my stomach.

America is this country's greatest friend and our staunchest ally. We are bonded to the US by culture, language and blood. A little over half a century ago, around half a million Americans died for our freedoms, as well as their own. Have we forgotten so soon? And exactly a year ago, thousands of ordinary men, women and children - not just Americans, but from dozens of countries - were butchered by a small group of religious fanatics. Are we so quick to betray them?

What touched the heart about those who died in the twin towers and on the planes was that we recognised them. Young fathers and mothers, somebody's son and somebody's daughter, husbands and wives, and children, some unborn.

And these people brought it on themselves? And their nation is to blame for their meticulously planned slaughter?

These days you don't have to be some dust-encrusted nut job in Kabul or Karachi or Finsbury Park to see America as the Great Satan. The anti- American alliance is made up of self-loathing liberals who blame the Americans for every ill in the Third World, and conservatives suffering from power-envy, bitter that the world's only superpower can do what it likes without having to ask permission.

The truth is that America has behaved with enormous restraint since September 11.

Remember, remember.

Remember the gut-wrenching tapes of weeping men phoning their wives to say, "I love you," before they were burned alive.

Remember those people leaping to their deaths from the top of burning skyscrapers.

Remember the hundreds of firemen buried alive.

Remember the smiling face of that beautiful little girl who was on one of the planes with her mum.

Remember, remember - and realise that America has never retaliated for 9/11 in anything like the way it could have.

So a few al-Qaeda tourists got locked without a trial in Camp X-ray? Pass the Kleenex.

So some Afghan wedding receptions were shot up after they merrily fired their semi-automatics in a sky full of American planes? A shame, but maybe next time they should stick to confetti.

AMERICA could have turned a large chunk of the world into a parking lot. That it didn't is a sign of strength. American voices are already being raised against attacking Iraq - that's what a democracy is for. How many in the Islamic world will have a minute's silence for the slaughtered innocents of 9/11? How many Islamic leaders will have the guts to say that the mass murder of 9/11 was an abomination?

When the news of 9/11 broke on the West Bank, those freedom-loving Palestinians were dancing in the street. America watched all of that - and didn't push the button. We should thank the stars that America is the most powerful nation in the world. I still find it incredible that 9/11 did not provoke all-out war. Not a "war on terrorism." A real war.

The fundamentalist dudes are talking about "opening the gates of hell," if America attacks Iraq. Well, America could have opened the gates of hell like you wouldn't believe.

The US is the most militarily powerful nation that ever strode the face of the earth. The campaign in Afghanistan may have been less than perfect and the planned war on Iraq may be misconceived.

But don't blame America for not bringing peace and light to these wretched countries. How many democracies are there in the Middle East, or in the Muslim world? You can count them on the fingers of one hand - assuming you haven't had any chopped off for minor shoplifting.

I love America, yet America is hated. I guess that makes me Bush's poodle. But I would rather be a dog in New York City than a Prince in Riyadh. Above all, America is hated because it is what every country wants to be - rich, free, strong, open, optimistic. Not ground down by the past, or religion, or some caste system. America is the best friend this country ever had and we should start remembering that.

Or do you really think the USA is the root of all evil? Tell it to the loved ones of the men and women who leaped to their death from the burning towers. Tell it to the nursing mothers whose husbands died on one of the hijacked planes, or were ripped apart in a collapsing skyscraper. And tell it to the hundreds of young widows whose husbands worked for the New York Fire Department.

To our shame, George Bush gets a worse press than Saddam Hussein. Once we were told that Saddam gassed the Kurds, tortured his own people and set up rape-camps in Kuwait. Now we are told he likes Quality Street. Save me the orange centre, oh mighty one!

Remember, remember, September 11.

One of the greatest atrocities in human history was committed against America.

No, do more than remember. Never forget.

The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.

[This message was edited by JuneBug on March 14, 2003 at 03:46 PM.]

The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Well I'm offended!

So a few al-Qaeda tourists got locked without a trial in Camp X-ray? Pass the Kleenex.

Dare I say the same about 9/11?

So some Afghan wedding receptions were shot up after they merrily fired their semi-automatics in a sky full of American planes? A shame, but maybe next time they should stick to confetti.

Red Face

AMERICA could have turned a large chunk of the world into a parking lot. That it didn't is a sign of strength.

How grateful am I!

How many in the Islamic world will have a minute's silence for the slaughtered innocents of 9/11? How many Islamic leaders will have the guts to say that the mass murder of 9/11 was an abomination?

So much he knows/has read. How many times do our leaders have to express sympathy? But of course when they mention Palestinian deaths, they're being "unfair".

those freedom-loving Palestinians were dancing in the street.

Oh the same footage of them dancing after the gulf war that the Western media used after 9/11 to create an uproar against Palestinians?

But I would rather be a dog in New York City than a Prince in Riyadh.

Well no not really, countless amount of lambourghinis, concubines, versace, booze and leather, I'd hardly think he would be.

I would say more about this man, but I'm Muslim. All I will say is, he can take this article and stuff it up his ...

I hear ya AQ!

One thing I notice about Europe is that they really get a leftist narrow-minded view of America and the world. I think there is resentment and jealousy among many in the Europe press because they were persuaded politically to the left, Socialist and Communist by their educational system. This is happening in the USA too, many of our Universities preach Socialism as the "fair" way to govern.

I say this because many in Europe vote Communist in Britain alone, no wonder Blair is in trouble, Socialism is not enough for them.

Communism is completely opposed to Capitalist and is natural political enemies. Communist orgs are behind the anti-American protests in Europe that have a loyal communist following judging how people in Europe vote. France has a strong communist following. It is a fact that the majority of organized protests in Europe are organized by Socialist or Communist organizations. Why did they not oppose Clinton when he did 2 regimes changes without UN approval and bomb Iraq without notice at all. In Yugoslavia he bomb with complete silence from the left, no Cliton Bashing or Anti-Ameircan protest in the streets. Why? Because the Democratic Party would love to lead this Nation into Socialism if they were given a free hand to do so. Socialists and Liberals are cousins indeed!

"Socialism is the collective ownership by all the people of the factories, mills, mines, railroads, land and all other instruments of production. Socialism means production to satisfy human needs, not, as under capitalism, for sale and profit. Socialism means direct control and management of the industries and social services by the workers through a democratic government based on their nationwide economic organization.

1) A social and economic system in which all (or nearly all) property is public, not private. That is, resources are shared by everyone. Not to be confused for socialism, which only grants to everyone the ownership of the means of production -- not necessarily all property. 2) A technically incorrect but widely used term for the system practiced by the Soviet empire. 3) In Marxist ideology, a utopia achieved in the third and final stage of workers' struggles. (See Marxism, above.

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Under capitalism the state is separated from economics (production and trade), just like the state is separated from religion. Capitalism is the system of of laissez faire. It is the system of political freedom.

So I'm not surprised that much of the media has a leftist, anti-American slant in their reporting in Europe.

Here in the USA, we get (left) CNN, CNN World News, PBS, ABC, NBC, CBS, (right) FOXNEWS, AM radio hosts, (middle), MSNBC, some CNN Lou Dobbs, and Cross fire, Fox News Hannity and Combs and others broadcasts that try to give both sides, left and right.

Because of the leftist reporting of ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN, they have lost the majority of their viewers to FOXNEWS who dominate the News Market in the USA now. CNN for example have lost more than half of its viewers to Fox News because of its anti-American, leftist or Liberal supporting reporting.

The Universities in Europe are proponents of Communism and Socialism so it's no wonder that many of its youth are already set-up to hate US capitalism.

Ayn Rand has warned us, history is repeating itself as we speak. Just because Communism was defeated in Russia and the many other totalitarian dictatorships in Eastern Europe, does not mean the ideas and activism of it are dead.

All the Bush bashing and anti-American Sentiment are signs of Socialist, Communist propaganda activity in Europe. Tell me why anyone would support the Totatarain Dictatorship of Saddam in good conscience unless they are philosophically opposed to Capitalism and Limited Government?

Any Rand said:

"Every movement that seeks to enslave a country, every dictatorship or potential dictatorship, needs some minority group as a scapegoat which it can blame for the nation's troubles and use as a justification of its own demands for dictatorial powers. In Soviet Russia, the scapegoat was the bourgeoisie; in Nazi Germany, it was the Jewish people; in America, it is the businessmen."

For example, many reports focus on the idea that this war is about the greed of Capitalist America. That the USA is going to takeover the Iraqi Oil fields for itself. How America is depicted as an Evil Power of the world while ignoring the Evil and Doctorial Rogue Regimes that completely controls it's people and also reports that down play the negatives of such regimes while exaggerating the intent of Capitalist America.

This time we live in is a repeat of what happen in the early 1900's when Communism began to rear it's ugly head, the beast is not dead but alive and well.

Mark my words!

The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.

[This message was edited by JuneBug on March 16, 2003 at 02:27 AM.]
Originally posted by JuneBug:

...every dictatorship or potential dictatorship, needs some minority group as a scapegoat which it can blame for the nation's troubles...In Soviet Russia, the scapegoat was the bourgeoisie; in Nazi Germany, it was the Jewish people; _ in America, it is the businessmen._"

LOL! this is funny as heck! It conjurs up images of poor tortured starving american businessmen lined up in camps with their ribs showing...

meanwhile, it is possible for european citizens to disagree with "pre-emptive strike" as a justification for war, without being communist.
See what I'm talking about Wink

Thursday April 3, 2003; 8:46 a.m. EST
Nat Hentoff: Communists Behind Peace Protests

Lifelong liberal, first amendment champion Nat Hentoff, who was in the forefront of protests against the Vietnam War, said Wednesday that many of today's Iraq war protests are being organized by "old line communists."

"Some of the main marches have been organized by people in the shadows, who support North Korea [and] who think China was right in the massacre at Tiananmen Square," the Village Voice columnist told WOR radio's Bob Grant.

Then Hentoff invoked the "C" word that mainstream reporters dare not speak. "[They] are old line, invincible - you know the term invincible ignorance - in terms of communism."

The left-wing writer noted also that some of the Iraq war protests have a decidedly anti-Israel flavor, telling Grant, "They wouldn't let Rabbi Lerner speak at one of their demonstrations because there are a lot of pro-Palestinians speaking at these demonstrations."

He went on to complain, "Why some of this didn't come out by some people who know the difference and don't agree with it - it besmirches much of the peace movement to have these people organizing it."
Originally posted by JuneBug:
See what I'm talking about Wink

Thursday April 3, 2003; 8:46 a.m. EST
Nat Hentoff: Communists Behind Peace Protests

Lifelong liberal, first amendment champion Nat Hentoff, who was in the forefront of protests against the Vietnam War, said Wednesday that many of today's Iraq war protests are being organized by "old line communists."

"Some of the main marches have been organized by people in the shadows, who support North Korea [and] who think China was right in the massacre at Tiananmen Square," the Village Voice columnist told WOR radio's Bob Grant.

Then Hentoff invoked the "C" word that mainstream reporters dare not speak. "[They] are old line, invincible - you know the term invincible ignorance - in terms of communism."

The left-wing writer noted also that some of the Iraq war protests have a decidedly anti-Israel flavor, telling Grant, "They wouldn't let Rabbi Lerner speak at one of their demonstrations because there are a lot of pro-Palestinians speaking at these demonstrations."

He went on to complain, "Why some of this didn't come out by some people who know the difference and don't agree with it - it besmirches much of the peace movement to have these people organizing it."

Can you provide the source for these statements by Hentoff?

As to Nat being left wing, he is really more of an iconoclast. He is best known as a virulent supporter of first amendment free speech.

From what I have seen, I do not believe that most of the organizers are really communist. What is fascinating to me is the diversity of individuals involved in this movement. There are religious, pacifist, anarchist, socialist, greens, to name just a few. As Michael Moore has noted, those who have spoken out against the war range from the Pope to the Dixie Chicks.

Finally, if communist are involved, why should it matter. Haven't we as a nation outgrown the Red Scare mentality of the fifties. I thought that, just as we have freedom of speech, we have freedom of association.

God has told you, O man and woman, what is good; and what does the SOVEREIGN ONE require of you but to do justice, and to be compassionate, and to walk humbly with your God?

Nat Hentoff
Why I Didn't March This Time
Their Tongues Were Cut Out for Slandering Hussein
March 28th, 2003 3:30 PM

Often, the executions have been carried out by the Fedayeen Saddam, a paramilitary group headed by Mr. Hussein's oldest son, 38-year-old Uday. These men, masked and clad in black, make the women kneel in busy city squares, along crowded sidewalks, or in neighborhood plots, then behead them with swords. The families of some victims have claimed they were innocent of any crime save that of criticizing Mr. Hussein. "”John F. Burns, "How Many People Has Hussein Killed?" The New York Times, January 26, 2003


I participated in many demonstrations against the Vietnam War, including some civil disobedience"”though I was careful not to catch the eyes of the cops, sometimes a way of not getting arrested. But I could not participate in the demonstrations against the war on Iraq. As I told The New York Sun in its March 14-16 roundup of New Yorkers for and against the war:

"There was the disclosure . . . when the prisons were briefly opened of the gouging of eyes of prisoners and the raping of women in front of their husbands, from whom the torturers wanted to extract information. . . . So if people want to talk about containing [Saddam Hussein] and don't want to go in forcefully and remove him, how do they propose doing something about the horrors he is inflicting on his people who live in such fear of him?"

I did not cite "weapons of mass destruction." Nor do I believe Saddam Hussein is a direct threat to this country, any more than the creators of the mass graves in the Balkans were, or the Taliban. And as has been evident for a long time, I am no admirer of George W. Bush.

The United Nations? Did the inspectors go into the prisons and the torture chambers? Would they have, if given more time? Did they interview the Mukhabarat, Saddam's dreaded secret police?

An Iraqi in Detroit wanted to send a message to the anti-war protesters: "If you want to protest that it's not OK to send your kids to fight, that's OK. But please don't claim to speak for the Iraqis."

In The Guardian, a British paper that can hardly be characterized as conservative, there was a dispatch from Safwan, Iraq, liberated in the first days of the war: "Ajami Saadoun Khilis, whose son and brother were executed under the Saddam regime, sobbed like a child on the shoulder of The Guardian's Egyptian translator. He mopped the tears but they kept coming. 'You just arrived,' he said. 'You're late. What took you so long?' "

The United Nations? In 1994, Kofi Annan, then head of the UN's peacekeeping operations, blocked any use of UN troops in Rwanda even though he was told by his representative there that the genocide could be stopped before it started.

Bill Clinton refused to act as well, instructing the State Department not to use the word genocide because then the United States would be expected to do something. And President Clinton instructed Madeleine Albright, then our representative to the UN, to block any possible attempts to intervene despite Kofi Annan. Some 800,000 lives could have been saved.

The United Nations? Where Libya, Syria, and Sudan are on the Human Rights Commission? The UN is crucial for feeding people and trying to deal with such plagues as AIDS; but if you had been in a Hussein torture chamber, would you, even in a state of delirium, hope for rescue from the UN Security Council?

From Amnesty International, for whom human rights are not just a slogan, on Iraq: "Common methods of physical torture included electric shocks or cigarette burns to various parts of the body, pulling out fingernails, rape. . . . Two men, Zaher al-Zuhairi and Fares Kadhem Akia, reportedly had their tongues cut out for slandering the president by members of Feda'iyye Saddam, a militia created in 1994. The amputations took place in a public square in Diwaniya City, south of Baghdad."

As John Burns of The New York Times wrote in January: "History may judge that the stronger case [for an American-led invasion] . . . was the one that needed no [forbidden arms] inspectors to confirm: that Saddam Hussein, in his 23 years in power, plunged this country into a bloodbath of medieval proportions, and exported some of that terror to his neighbors."

When it appeared that Tony Blair's political career was near extinction, he gave a speech in the House of the Commons, as quoted in the March 18 issue of The Guardian:

"We must face the consequences of the actions we advocate. For me, that means all the dangers of war. But for others, opposed to this course, it means"”let us be clear"”that the Iraqi people, whose only true hope of liberation lies in the removal of Saddam, for them, the darkness will close back over them again; and he will be free to take his revenge upon those he must know wish him gone.

"And if this house now demands that at this moment, faced with this threat from this regime, that British troops are pulled back, that we turn away at the point of reckoning, and that is what it means"”what then?

"What will Saddam feel? Strengthened beyond measure. What will the other states who tyrannise their people, the terrorists who threaten our existence, what will they take from that?. . . Who will celebrate and who will weep?"

The letters section of The New York Times is sometimes more penetrating than the editorials. A March 23 letter from Lawrence Borok: "As someone who was very active in the [anti-Vietnam War] protests, I think that the antiwar activists are totally wrong on this one. Granted, President Bush's insensitive policies in many areas dear to liberals (I am one) naturally make me suspicious of his motives. But even if he's doing it for all the wrong reasons, have they all forgotten about the Iraqi people?"

And, in the March 23 New York Times Magazine, Michael Ignatieff, a longtime human rights investigator, wrote of "14,000 'writers, academics, and other intellectuals'"”many of them my friends"”[who] published a petition against the war . . . condemning the Iraqi regime for its human rights violations and supporting 'efforts by the Iraqi opposition to create a democratic, multi-ethnic, and multireligious Iraq.' " But they say, he adds, that waging war at this time is "morally unacceptable."

"I wonder," Ignatieff wrote"”as I also wonder"”"what their support for the Iraqi opposition amounts to."

The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.
I thought that, just as we have freedom of speech, we have freedom of association.

If people wish to associate with communists, I see no need to not to lump them with the company they keep, and the fact is, ANSWER and others ARE commies and they are behind much of the protests. I wish I had more time, but on the topic of the Euro press, Junebug, may I direct your attention to this:

Slanting of the Euro Press

Something wasn't right here, the French state television desk person suggested on-air Sunday morning from Paris Spin Central.

Official Iraqi civilian death figures were tiny. After all, as France 2 viewers had been informed, and Christian-Marie Monnot, another guy in the studio reported Friday night before strikes on Baghdad really got under way, American "bombs were destroying the country."

Quick cut to Alain de Chalvron, France 2's man on camera in the Iraqi capital. The suggestion from the desk was that some major trickery was at work in the Iraqi Information Ministry's death toll of three. Well, the reporter said, "the strikes are very precise."

Pause. Pictures of U.S. Marines waiting to move ahead near the city of Umm Qasr. Then back to Chalvron. His initial response was apparently not the kind of insight that the Paris anchor team wanted, and moments later he got a chance to recalibrate.

The situation was this, he explained: Saddam's people had run into the dilemma of announcing high figures which "would do them good internationally" - and perhaps satisfy an atavistic yearning in some parts for American-caused disaster - or going with big numbers and demoralizing the general population. It was indeed a problem, Chalvron went on counterinstinctively for French circumstances, because the Americans obviously wanted anything but to devastate the civilian population.

If truth is the first casualty of war, then CNN and BBC were having trouble in providing it whole, their reporters tossing up shards of the seen-and-heard into an informational whirlwind difficult to piece into a single sheet of reality. But French and German television were having an even harder time in underpinning their inclinations to describe things in a way that neatly fit their governments' insistence that all this would not end well.

If the French and German broadcasters offered a service it was in providing a nonstop - and perhaps salutary - climate of doubt about the progress of the campaign.

For a man with a satellite and a television set, zapping for much of the war's first 72 hours between the reports of the coalition of the willing, and what a German reporter defined as "the coalition of the unwilling," the clash of the two visions pierced any fog of war. It looked and sounded most like a cultural and political chasm between old friends imploding into an abyss.

To be sure, the accounts of both French and German reporters in the field often did not match or contradicted the tone in the studios. And, in a very palpable sense, the German state television's version sometimes seemed to yearn after a kind of neutrality that might skate over a situation at home in which polls say the parties opposing Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's anti-war position would take office if new elections were held on Sunday.

The German channels even referred to the expeditionary troops as the allies, a mild honorific to German ears, not far from CNN and BBC's references to the coalition, while the French broadcasters stuck to the label of the American-British forces.

But on ZDF and ARD, the two main state channels that join broadcasts for Morgen Magazin at breakfast time, distance was hard to sustain. On Saturday morning, after a first night's raids on Baghdad, ZDF's man in the studio tried to reassure his audience as he talked of the day's planned anti-war demonstrations: "There are no pictures yet of wounded or dead." Seemingly counting on their rapid availability, he added that when they appeared "opposition to the war certainly will grow."

That night, Olaf Buhl, a reporter at coalition headquarters in Doha, Qatar, dodged a leading question from the German studio based on the supposition that French and German reporters were being kept at arms' length from combat areas. But of the first news coalition news conference, involving the American commander, General Tommy Franks, flanked by British, Danish, Dutch and Australian officers, he said that "there's much more manipulation than ever before."

Buhl had the real story. "We reported exclusively," Buhl said, "that American forces were stopped at Nasiriyah," moving northward to Baghdad on the Euphrates River. He beamed.

Yet there was no mention that, almost six hours earlier, at 13h04 European central time, Reuters news agency, followed within minutes by The Associated Press and Agence France-Presse, had moved a bulletin quoting the U.S. Command as saying the city was under its control.

Whatever the ephemeral nature of being right for a moment or two in a war of continuous and instant changes - the Allies' problems were misunderstandings "not misinformation or disinformation" said BBC's man in Doha, Nick Gowing - the French studios seemed committed to a wish or a will to assert that most everything on the American side was going awry.

This version of the French Touch meant at least one comic collision between a field reporter's version of events and the editorial line in Paris, and one occasion when another station explained away a rival's images of Iraqi civilian misery.

On the main midday news on Saturday, the private broadcaster TF1, after reporting that the Americans falsely announced they held the port at Umm Qasr, Claire Chazal, a news presenter, called in a report from Jean-Claude Ferey, who was there. Uhh, he said, no doubt about it, they're in Umm Qasr. But it's the British not the Americans. And, Ferey explained, he had just talked to the commander, who said they're going to avoid engaging in Basra, and let it fall when it was time.

TF1 viewers also got a closeup shot of a child with a bandaged head screaming with fear in Baghdad hospital. At virtually the same moment, France 2's audience saw a much wider angle showing the child in a hospital room filled with newsmen, lights, and microphones and the station's reporter - beware of reporters actually on the scene - saying that the child was screaming in terror at the commotion in what was an Iraqi propaganda set up.

The Iraqis' report of only three dead after the first night of bombing almost seemed to enrage a man called Patrick Hesters commenting early Saturday evening from the set of France 3, another state-run network which began its noon to 2 p.m. segment on Friday, after the first American raid, with footage of anti-war demonstrations.

Give the Iraqis more time, Hesters seemed to promise, and they would find more bodies. After all, the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera thought there were more, he said. And how could you send all those aircraft and use all those tons of weapons without being more people being savaged.

It was the end of a long day, but Hesters, if he was watching, had obviously paid no attention to an 8 a.m. report from Jean Pierre About of TF1 who said, "In fact, [Friday's massive strikes] were very targeted strikes that were meant to avoid the civilian population." As for the 207 injured? "That's what they say," About answered calmly.
Check this out.

French Globalists Want to Tax U.S. and Rest of the World
Wes Vernon,

Monday, April 7, 2003

WASHINGTON – Globalists have plans for reigning in the United States after the war with Iraq. Their weapon: a worldwide tax to punish wealthy (i.e., successful) countries and correct an "unequal distribution of the natural richness."
In an article in the Paris newspaper Le Monde, Olivier Giscard d'Estaing, identified in a Google translation as a president of "the Committee of Action for a World Parliament and French section of the European League of Economic Cooperation, calls for an international tax system based on a nation's gross national product.

Pointedly, the article is titled "After the War." One can read into that a not-so-subtle implication that the president of the United States has dared to defy his betters in France and Germany and led his country into a war just because his countrymen were threatened with weapons of mass destruction. Time to use the tax hammer to take those Americans down a few notches.

A little over a year ago, on March 16, 2002, warned, "World government is pounding on our door and demanding that the U.S. surrender its sovereignty and let the United Nations take over our lives. Worldwide taxes would be imposed by people in far-off lands elected by no one."

At the time, we exposed an organization envisioned as a "Global IRS," called Economic Security Council (ESC). The worldwide, so-called Tobin tax has been on the agenda of the globalists for decades.

Henry Lamb, chairman of Sovereignty International, has said ESC is intended as a vehicle for formulating the global tax.

In Le Monde, d'Estaing calls for a world tax on three sources: oil production, exports of armaments, and air transport and intercontinental maritime traffic.

The Frenchman says transport is a privileged tool that pollutes. This caricature of air travel as a destructive tool of the idle rich will surprise those in free-enterprise economies who see this conveyance as a means of enabling them to earn their living, conduct commerce and contribute to the economies of their societies.

Countries whose socialist systems lead to double-digit unemployment might have a hard time understanding that. It would also be news to the airlines, which are in dire straits, especially since 9/11. has warned repeatedly that some high-tax nations of Europe are looking for ways to punish the United States for creating a prosperous society by encouraging the individual to strive for success as far as his talents and ambition can carry him.

D'Estaing concedes that convincing the rich countries (i.e., you-know-who) that they should be fleeced by a global taxing authority through the United Nations will be a hard sell. But he says it is necessary in the interest of social justice, and correcting past imbalances.

It is noted by d'Estaing and by others whom we have cited in the past that the Tobin tax would surely strengthen the United Nations, even as its recent failures to disarm Saddam Hussein strengthen arguments questioning its value and even the need for its existence.

This move comes at a time when patience in this country with the U.N. is wearing thin. H.R. 1146, as NewsMax reported last week, is picking up support on Capitol Hill. Sponsored by Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, it would get the U.S. out of the U.N. and the U.N. out of the U.S.

Even some internationally minded figures such as author-analyst Bill Kristol are willing to consider that proposal.

The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.
You're welcome, JuneBug Smile

The article you posted does not surprise me. Remember the dust-up over Kyoto, and how the Euros got angry with Bush because he didn't go along with it? (They refused to notice that he can't ratify a law Congress opposes). The Euros were oh-so righteous though, weren't they?

Look at what the consequences would have been if our Congress had agreed to Kyoto:

Bonn Voyage


quote: turns out that the new treaty being heralded as a breakthrough is being oversold. When one looks at the fine print of the Bonn agreement, the signatories have agreed to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars, power plants, and factories by only 1.8 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. The goal originally set in Kyoto was a whopping 5.2 percent.

In fact, the signatories have made things even easier on themselves. The Europeans have at last agreed to international trade in carbon-emission permits. In such a program, producers of targeted gases are given permits to emit so much of a substance; they can then trade the permits in a market, buying more from other permit-holders if they are going to exceed their caps, or selling excess permits to other producers. Over time, the total amount of emissions is ratcheted down, thereby reducing gas production.

The permit issue was one of the major disputes between the United States and Europe, and contributed mightily to the breakdown of climate-change talks held last November at the Hague. The U.S. has long supported permit schemes, while Euros have demurred. But now that the U.S. is out, carbon emissions trading is suddenly in favor. What's going on here?

"Have you heard of Russian hot air?," asks John Reilly, an economist who is the associate director for MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. Russian "hot air" is the result of the Kyoto Protocol, in which Russia and other Eastern European countries agreed to "reduce" their greenhouse gas emissions by 2010 to the level that they emitted in 1990. They made it easy on themselves: The collapse of their economies has meant that those countries' emissions of greenhouse gases are way down, leaving them a surplus of emissions credits that they can sell to countries that are exceeding their reduction targets.

By contrast, had the U.S. signed on to Kyoto, it would have been required to cut its emissions 7 percent below its 1990 emissions levels by 2010. Even that relatively large figure underestimates the hurt put on the robust American economy. Today, the U.S. emits about 13 percent more carbon dioxide than it did in 1990. To meet its Kyoto targets, the U.S. would have had to cut its emissions by around 25 percent from what they would otherwise be. These steep cuts, plus the great scientific uncertainties about how serious a problem global warming is likely to be, are what prompted President Bush to nix the Kyoto Protocol.
Okay, I've promised more links re the Euro press and their biases.

So. When you see Le Monde going out of its way to highlight negatives in the Iraq war, remember that this how their writer (speaking on behalf of France and Chirac) sees things. writing in the Guardian,

But it must be tough for Mr Blair, who constantly claims a religious and moral supremacy, to see that on the question of Iraq, it is President Chirac who has emerged as the moral authority on the world stage.

The French president's desire for a peaceful solution surely gives him the moral high ground against the Anglo-American warmongers. And it must be frustrating for Mr Blair to see that it is Mr Chirac who reflects and represents the large anti-war sentiment in Britain, particularly within his own party.

Let's be clear: Mr Chirac does not endorse Baghdad, and he finds Saddam's regime as despicable as do Bush and Blair. But he fears the American hawks will ignite Muslim fundamentalism worldwide. The fear of domestic conflagration and terrorism are also ever-present: there are 6 million French Muslims to take into account.

Mr Chirac is viscerally opposed to the idea of a clash of civilisations. Bush's core support, on the other hand, comes from evangelical Protestantism, with its two faces of intolerance and lack of cultural understanding.

A Brazilian journalist living in Paris notes,

The French are in absolute denial. Or at least their press is.

Having read today's (Sunday's) French papers and magazines there's no avoiding the conclusion that in terms of foreign policy they are living in a parallel universe – a universe that works rigorously according to their rules, or rather, to their wishes.

They're sure they're right. But that's fine: there's nothing new about this

Further along in the column,

...As the French papers haven't been seriously covering the war and as their journalists read only each other and so on, I'm afraid the whole of France will completely misunderstand the meaning of a huge victory.

The French are so sure that their disapproval has fatally weakened les anglo-saxons that they do not even dream of the remote possibility that, in the international stage, they (les anglo-saxons) are stronger by the day.

They've got so used to speak in the name of the world that they don't seem to suspect that the Russians for sure and the Germans probably will try to mend fences with America as soon as possible. The French papers speak as if they were les porte-paroles first of all of Europe and then of the rest of the world. The idea that they might get or may already be isolated has not dawned upon them yet...

Here is what a columnist in Spain's Vanguardia says,
But never, until now, in the brief history of our democracy, has the country gone to war without the support of the United Nations, that is under an international consensus. Now, unfortunately for the whole world, the governments of the US, the United Kingdom, and Spain have launched a vile, base war, invading another country, Iraq, under the pretext that it has weapons of mass destruction. As if it were the only one who had them, if it still has any. Everybody knows that the military escalade called "Shock and awe"--terms taken from a manual of Naziism, by the way--is merely a fundamentalist invasion with the background of the petroleum booty. These individuals, Bush, Cheney, Rice, and their group, come from the American oil companies and they still have tight links with them, so that the war "for security", as they have the valor to call it, is no more than the desire to take the booty of the second largest petroleum reserves on the planet. One of the damned American missiles carried the slogan "Go get them", a Freudian slip; it means "Go get it", the oil, of course.

Remei likens us to Nazis. I wonder who she was speaking of when she says never was a war started without UN approval. However,

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, since 1945 there have been 26 international wars, with total deaths estimated at 3.5 million. Only three of those wars had Security Council authorization, including the recent conflict in Afghanistan; the largest, the 1950-53 Korean conflict, was only a U.N. operation because Josef Stalin was in a snit and had ordered his Soviet representative to boycott council meetings.

Since 1945, the United States has sent troops into other countries with the prospect of combat more than 50 times; in the great majority, no Security Council approval was either asked or given. Past U.S. interventions without U.N. authorization include Vietnam; Haiti and Kosovo during the Clinton administration; Panama under the first President Bush; Grenada under President Reagan; and the ill-fated attack on Iran when Jimmy Carter was in the White House. In fact, from Harry Truman to the present, every U.S. president has intervened militarily abroad without the Security Council's blessing.

The United States may be a diplomatic cowboy, but we aren't riding the only horse on the range. Every permanent member of the U.N. Security Council has
undertaken at least one war without the council's permission or endorsement. China attacked India in 1962 without a Security Council resolution, and again without a resolution attacked Vietnam in 1979. The Soviet Union intervened in Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, East Germany and Hungary without going to the Security Council. Britain and France invaded Egypt in 1956 without informing, much less consulting with, the Security Council. More recently, both Britain and France have sent troops to Kosovo and various African destinations without council advice or consent.

The plain if slightly sad fact is that from the day the U.N. Security Council first met in 1946, no great power has ever stayed out of a war because the council voted against it, and no great military power ever got into a war because the Security Council ordered it to.

There are others, but this is long enough.
I HOPE that the continent of Europe never again needs help from the United States of America. I hope that there's never some murderous little tyrant - another Hitler, another Milosevic - that Europe needs help in taming. I hope that there's never some economic catastrophe that requires American dollars to make it right, as they did at the end of the Second World War. I hope that the euro experiment works. I hope that all those peace-loving souls in Belgium, Germany and France can somehow muster an army to protect themselves. I hope that the continent I live on never again needs to go cap in hand to the Americans.

Because if that black day ever comes, I have the feeling that America might just tell Europe where to go. On the eve of war, there is a tangible anger in America. But surprisingly little of it is directed against the Iraqis.

It is the French who are detested.

"This is all about oil," the Brits hear all the time. And Americans think it is "all about oil" too. The $50billion worth of oil contracts that France has with Iraq. In American eyes, that is why the French are so keen to avoid war.

Anti-French feeling in the United Kingdom is never more than a passing fancy, a jokey bit of "hop-off-you-Frogs" banter.

Not in America.

THE cafeteria in the House of Representatives no longer serves French fries - chips to you and me, guvnor. Now they sell something called "freedom fries". That sounds nuts - and of course it is.

But when a furious Congresswoman presents a "bring home our dead" bill demanding that the 75,000 American men and boys who died in France during two world wars be dug up and brought home, you realise that this is more than "hop-off-you-Frogs" banter.

Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite says, "The remains of our brave servicemen should be buried in patriotic soil, not in a country that has turned its back on the US and on the memory of Americans who fought and died there."

That's the difference between the British and the Americans.

We do not feel that the British casualties in two world wars died to liberate the French. We believe that we were fighting for our nation's survival. Just like the Russians. It is different for Americans.

Throughout the 20th century, through two world wars and one Cold War, America gave all the blood and money Europe needed to keep it free.

They feel that the current crisis has proved that Europeans are, when all is said and done, an ungrateful bunch of Euro bastards who do not give a flying baguette about the 75,000 American graves in Europe.

Anti-European feeling goes right across the board of public opinion, even among the millions of Americans who are passionately against attacking Iraq.

America is united in feeling betrayed by Europe. America is finally starting to understand that - to Europe's eternal shame - there is an opinion that 9/11 was America's comeuppance.

Secretaries and waiters leaping from the top of the burning twin towers? The fault of American arrogance.

A terrified four-year-old girl cowering at the back of a hijacked plane? Blame it on America's support or Israel. A stewardess with her throat slit by a carpet cutter? One in the eye for American imperialism.

Those 3,000 dead, murdered on live television? Europe blames America.

When 9/11 happened, you might have expected to see Palestinians dancing in the street. But who would have expected the grim look of satisfaction on the faces of old Europe?

But the British are absolved of Europe's sins. Those who are against the war admire Britain because we had a peace march where one million people filled the streets.

Those for the war admire Britain because Tony Blair has been a true friend to America. And although the man on the M25 might make jibes about Blair being a "poodle", among American hawks our Prime Minister is seen as dangerously strong-willed.

THERE is a school of opinion in America that believes the war could have been over by last Christmas if Tony Blair had not been so keen on proceeding through the correct diplomatic channels. Nobody calls Tony Blair a poodle in the USA.

It has been good to be British in America these past few weeks For America has been reminded that Britain is the best friend it has in the world, joined by blood, language, history, instinct and culture.

When will the British wake up from their pathetic little dreams of being Europeans and realise that we have been looking for our future in all the wrong places?

Who wants to be European today? Who wants to be an ungrateful, unprincipled, two-faced, pacifist, Euro-grasping, oil-hungry Lilliputian?

No matter what happens over the coming days and weeks, it is true what they say. The English Channel is far wider than the Atlantic.

The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.

Add Reply

Link copied to your clipboard.