« Anti-Semitic Hate For Sale in Germany | Main | Update on the Bertelsmann Posting »


France has been if anything consistant wih their historical diplomatic efforts. When the European Alliance turned back the Muslim armies at the Gates of Vienna in 1683 France not only was not interesting in participating due in part to extensive economic ties with the Ottoman Empire, but actively worked diplomatically to prevent additional military aid to Austria.

The Hero of that battle was Poland but only a portion of its might came to the Aid of Europe against the invader due to France's diplomatic efforts.

A weakened or conquered Austria being in France National Interest seemed to be their sole concern.

What is different now over 300 years later?

even if it doesn't fit the subject very much the French ties to the Turks started 150 years earlier when Francois I was looking for allies against Habsburg.
The French also supported Protestants abroad in the 16th and 17th century.

Our poor Euro brethren would have us believe their more complex and sophisticated view of the world is because they are so much older, more experienced and have advanced further socially. Amusingly, when you peel that onion you discover their cynical sophisticated "idealism" is solely predicated on advantageous trade deals and they don't give a damn who they are with.
Sounds like Godless, mercenary capitalists!!!! Oh wait, that term is reserved exclusively for the Americans! As Mr. Gedmin points out in the article, it is not just the status quo preferred by the murderous Arab despots and self appointed Kings the U.S.A. led coalition is working to break down.

Old Europe indulges and practices an astonishing level of denial . . . masked as smug sophistication. One day they will have to explain to their next generation of children (like they had to this generations about an "East" Germany) why they were again on the wrong side of history, and how they chose to sit on their hands for all those years. And how when an opportunity to make a difference presented itself, they went so far as to demonstrate against liberation and for the return of the murderous criminal Ba'athist regime.
My God it has got to be shameful and difficult being a modern progressive liberal in such important times!


Well it is the french you understand and that makes it OK with the euro's and espically the Germans, their closest ally.

So it really is a non event.


An all die, die gerne glauben, unsere Medien wären nicht anti-US eingestellt!

Es ist gerade gut zu beobachten, wie unsere Medien auf den Mehlis-Report reagieren. Da gibt es ganz erschreckende Erkenntnisse über syrische Beteiligung am Hariri-Mord, Bedrohungen gegen Mehlis usw., und wie lauten die Headlines?

Bush schließt militärisches Eingreifen gegen Syrien nicht mehr aus"


Kein amerikanischer Präsident kann als letzte Option Gewalt ausschließen. Aus dieser Selbstverständlichkeit schürt man wieder feindselige Gefühle gegen die so aggressiven USA unter (zZ) Bush. Ich kenne den Originaltext Bushs nicht und habe jetzt auch keine Zeit nachzugucken, aber er hat mit Sicherheit auch vorher keine Gewalt als LETZTES Mittel ausgeschlossen. Deshalb bin ich mir sicher, daß das "NICHT MEHR" hier künstlich eine Steigerung schafft, die es gar nicht gibt. Wann hat Bush denn vorher diese letzte Option ausgeschlossen? Nie, kann er gar nicht.

Aber diese Selbstverständlichkeit herauszustellen, Gewalt als letzte Option zu bezeichnen, zeigt mir, daß die tatsächlichen Gefahren es nicht schaffen, in die Headlines zu kommen. Wie viele werden sich mit dem Inhalt des Reports auseinandersetzen und nicht mit der angeblichen Bedrohung durch Bush?

Ein schneller oberflächlicher Blick in andere Medien:

Zur Zeit ist die FAZ die einzige, die so titelt. Die Welt und Süddeutsche bringen die Fakten, Tagesspiegel und FR haben noch gar nichts dazu. Wenn niemand nachziehen würde, hätte ich Unrecht und würde mich freuen!

Die FAZ hat den Titel gewechselt!!!

Die dümmliche Überschrift ist verschwunden! Das finde ich richtig gut! Es hat wohl niemand nachgezogen, und da kam sich die FAZ hoffentlich dämlich vor.

Ich glaube, unsere Medien sind auf dem Wege der Besserung.

Looks like Chrisohper Hitchens has the goods on Georgous George Galloway. Hitch writes today about documentation that not only shows Galloway's connections to Saddam through a Jordanian front business, but it also shows that Galloway committed perjury in both his libel suit against the London Telegraph (which he won), and in his testimony in the U.S. Senate.

I am a little concerned about the Syrian part. I attended a meeting with some fairly progressive middle eastern types (including Lebanese and Syrian members) and they wanted slow, slow, slow--something I'm not sure will happen. I sat there thinking it sounded much like the church members Martin Luther King wrote to in his Letter From A Birmingham Jail. Link here to my blogging on that panel: http://gmapalumni.org/chapomatic/?p=1275. (There were other panels I blogged about but this one was the relevant one.)

I agree with you the way you view the issue. I remember Jack London once said everything positive has a negative side; everything negative has positive side. It is also interesting to see different viewpoints & learn useful things in the discussion.

The comments to this entry are closed.


The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

April 2023

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29