The Shotgun Blog
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
France and regime change
France -- whose perfidious government acted as Saddam Hussein's lawyer for a year, delaying that imprisoned nation's liberation -- seems to have two policies when it comes to unilateral military adventurism and regime change.
When the actor is the United States and the United Kingdom, and the regime in question is a murderous, oil-rich Arab state, France is opposed.
When the actor is France, the the regime in question is something regarded by France as their colonial trinket, well then the rules change.
For some reason I didn't see this on the front page of the Globe and Mail or the top of the CBC's broadcast. I found it, with perfect commentary, on my new favourite satirical site, the Daily Gut.
Posted by Ezra Levant on June 21, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference France and regime change:
Of all the western democracies, the people supposed to be on "our" side, France is the one most responsible for the rise of Islamism and the general mess in which we find ourselves today.
It's almost as if they never quite got democracy right and still have grandiose ideas of power, glory and domination.
Posted by: greenmamba | 2006-06-21 1:22:59 PM
Let us not forget French troops machine gunning unarmed civilians in the Ivory Coast during UN talks on deposing Saddam.
France had 'de gaulle' (get it?) to whine about US "unilateralism" as it puts together a large coalition. When it's in France's interests, no coalition or UN vote is necessary.
They are the assholes of Europe and that's saying something in a continent that includes Belgium and Germany.
Posted by: Warwick | 2006-06-21 1:29:53 PM
And let us not forget that when France's leader was playing golf with Creten, thousands of his senior people were dieing, as the result of a heat wave in France.
And let us not forget that when Jewish children were being harassed in the streets, and schools with Jewish children had to set up security at the doors (still do) that the French government denied there was anti-Semitism in France.
And then when Ilan was killed a few months ago, after a beating so bad it made all other beatings look civil (he was burned and cut over and over again for three weeks) the French authorities denied that this was a result of islamic anti-Semitism.
Meanwhile, the family, they had been contacted by these islamic-terrorist freaks, and the authorities had continued to deny that it had anything to do with anti-Semitism.
You see, Ilan was a wireless cell phone salesman. The terrorists thought that just because he was Jewish, that he was rich, so they kidnapped him in order to extort and bribe money out of the family. The family, of course, could not raise that much money, as they were just average folks, like most Jewish people around the world.
Well, the French authorities did not admit that it was linked to anti-Semitism and northern islamic-terrorism dangerous ideology until they interviewed some of the people who had witnessed the torture and mutilation that lead to Ilan's death.
Ilan was found, after three weeks of torture, on the ground, in the cold, naked, his hands tied behind his back, burned, bruised, and cut from head to toe. He died within a few hours of being picked up by the French medics.
And let us not forget the real reason why France oppossed the invasion of Iraq. They oppossed because they, and Germany (along with the Liberal government) had deals under the medicine and food for oil program. The one, arranged by the UN, that for years, was intended to get money and food to the sufferring Iraqi people. While we were hearing about the starvation and sufferring in Iraq, we were wondering how it was that all that oil money, that was suppossed to feed and give health care to those people, was not getting to where it was intended.
Someone, please refresh me, how many palaces were built by Saddam off that money that was suppossed to go to the people?
And so France was making untold millions, as well as Germany. But it was France who vetoed the invasion of Iraq, due to these contracts, in spite of the fact that all the evidence, on the basis of human rights and other sufferring, was there for all to view.
Their veto has cost the world thousands of lives. Had they not vetoed, the terrorists would not have the excuse to pander to the terrorist elements, that they could go ahead and do what they are doing, by saying the invasion was illegal.
And Saddam was financing terrorism with that oil for food and medicine money as well.
How soon people forget that.
And the Liberal part in that was, if I recall correctly, had to do with a refinery, that I believe had something to do with or at Joe Bat's Arm.
Hmm, correct me if I am wrong about that.
Posted by: Lady | 2006-06-21 2:24:49 PM
Warwick, I think France is the armpit of Europe.
When you really think about it though, there are neither French nor Germans, Brits nor Flems, anymore. They are all EUnichs now.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-06-21 2:27:08 PM
I believe that France is the asshole of Europe and Belgium is a thousand miles up it
Posted by: Rob R | 2006-06-21 2:41:13 PM
All the comments here are valid but more current manifestations of the machinations of French government.
Two of de Gaulle's actions bordering on pure malice:
1967 "Vive le Quebec Libre" - de Gaulle in Canada
1967 de Gaulle adopts a "pro-Arab" policy - i.e. anti-Israel. In my opinion, this was the signal that led Europe to adopt any policy that the Arab League wanted, including massive Muslim immigration to Europe.
Mark Twain: “France has neither winter, nor summer, nor morals. France is miserable because it is filled with Frenchmen, and Frenchmen are miserable because they live in France.”
Posted by: greenmamba | 2006-06-21 3:17:12 PM
Far be it for me to defend, or even want to defend, the actions of France. However I believe the lesson we need to gain from this is that all countries, when push comes to shove, act in accordance with their national interest. This is why it remains a folly for any country/nation to depend on another for its defense. Yes, allies exist and always will thank goodness, but changes in national interest also changes allies.
Posted by: Alain | 2006-06-21 3:29:21 PM
Alain, France is a huge promoter of the EU. Is that acting in France's interest?
I think the EU is in the interest of International Communism which seeks to create a nation-less world.
That would be a France-less world.
Whose ally has France been in the past, Alain?
Posted by: Speller | 2006-06-21 3:41:19 PM
Alain you are correct but France does not even need a nudge. Its few leaders since the war have followed an activist, mischievous and dangerous agenda.
Posted by: greenmamba | 2006-06-21 3:43:00 PM
I concur with Speller, Warwick and Lady. France is a beautiful country but the people there think the rest of the world envies them to the degree that us poor 'unsophisticates' treble in awe over French superior wisdom. I have been to France and the phoney self importace of French people is really pathetic. I am glad that most of the 'Frenchmen' in Quebec have Irish or Scottish ancestors.
Lady, you forgot to mention the 'Canadian Connection' in the Oil for Food scam. MSM has apparently not heard about the 'connection' or the scam!! Things that make you go hummm.
Posted by: jema54j | 2006-06-21 4:45:00 PM
As Howard Stern said, the French "bent over for Hitler." I have to go now to drink some Australian wine, and munch on some Freedom Fries.
Posted by: Howard Roark | 2006-06-21 5:34:00 PM
My word! My intent was not to defend France's actions, and neither am I in disagreement with most of the comments made by others.
Those in French government push for the EU in my opinion thinking that will be a way for France to run the show and especially to put the Americans in their place. They know that alone France is no longer a world power nor the centre of the universe of 'culture and civilization', though they have great difficulty admiting the latter. Yet there is a great divide between those in government and the French people, many, if not most, have never been in favour of the EU. They voted when they were given the chance against the EU constitution with the result that their official leaders were outraged. The average Frenchman or Frenchwoman is not in favour of globalization nor being too cozy with the other Europeans, and certainly not multiculturalism. I would suggest that it is a bit like our situation where the majority of us remain opposed to much of our government's official policy. Our leaders know from experience that to allow us a say on a given issue can mean death for their objectives. What sets us apart from the French, and indeed all Europeans, is their love for socialism/communism, which is indeed sad, but then again we have our MSM, unions and universities dominated by the same sickness.
Posted by: Alain | 2006-06-21 5:48:20 PM
"Whose ally has France been in the past...?"
It was the duplicitous Yanks who pissed up the backs of the French, British and Israelis, traditional allies, at Suez in 1956. Nasser was no friend of America, and by not taking down this tin-pot dictator, but embolding him with Yankee dollars, US policy threatened Israel and the ME from that day forward.
"Washington also quickly understood that in opposing the British and French it had made a mistake whose consequences would be serious and long-lasting. At the end of that year, a fatally ill Dulles was admitted to Walter Reed Hospital in Washington, and there the British ambassador Harold Caccia called on him. He was my father-in-law, and to the end of his life he used to describe how a penitent Dulles had then lamented, "Why did you listen to us? Why did you break it off? Everything would have been different if only you'd finished the job.""
Indeed, everything would have been much different.
France was the father of Israel's nuclear weapons programme.
"As payment for Israeli participation in the Suez Crisis of 1956, France provided nuclear expertise and constructed a reactor complex for Israel at Dimona capable of large-scale plutonium production and reprocessing."
It has also been revealed, though not commented on by US intelligence, that, "French antiterrorism services alerted the Americans to Moussaoui [a month before 9/11] and passed on unambiguous intelligence, leaving, at least in the minds of the French, few doubts as to the suspect's terrorist links."
And lest we forget the gigantic figure of Charles 'the Hammer' Martel, whose victory at Tours is
"regarded as decisive for world history, since it preserved western Europe from Muslim conquest and Islamization."
No Charles Martel, no Christian Europe!
Posted by: DJ | 2006-06-21 8:21:58 PM
Regime change in France? Great idea, can't happen soon enough.
Posted by: philanthropist | 2006-06-21 9:51:13 PM
Go, Charles, go!
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-06-21 10:28:37 PM
Perhaps, DJ, you think selling someone something makes them an 'ally'. I think not.
France refused to supply Israel in the middle of the Six Day War even though Israel had already paid for the materiel.
The French will sell anything to anyone. Whether or not they deliver is another matter.
The term "French whore' is a redundancy.
And DJ, there is a difference between sex and love too.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-06-21 11:57:10 PM
"Yigael Yadin, who had taken over from Ya'akov Dori as Chief of the General Staff, devoted his energy to organizing the reserves and streamlining the command structure - elements of which remain in effect to this day. At the same time, particular attention was paid to the development of armor. Israel's numerical inferiority to its neighbors and potential enemies; its realization that because of the lack of strategic depth it was bound to transfer fighting as soon as possible to enemy territory and its proven advantage at swift, often improvised manoeuvers - all pointed to the need for armor. The newly found alliance with France at the time of the Suez crisis provided the unique opportunity to equip a major part of the IDF with French-made tanks. This "miracle" occurred at a moment of desperation, when no other country, East or West, was willing to supply Israel with arms, whereas countries from both East and West rushed to offer their wares to the Arabs. Particularly worrisome was the Czech-Egyptian arms deal, which threatened Israel with a whole range of state-of-the-art Russian hardware."
Posted by: DJ | 2006-06-22 11:35:58 AM
So, DJ, the Israelis thought the French were their allies, but the French didn't think the Israelis were their allies.
Don't name some nation who thought the French were their ally and found out differently.
Name a nation who France spent blood and treasure on.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-06-22 1:42:25 PM
The USA. Cornwallis is victorious at Yorktown w/o the French navy. Charles V, Duke of Lorraine led 40,000 at the Battle of Vienna. The Crusades, Louis VII of France and King Philip II Augustus of France. St. Louis IX of France led two Crusades in his life.
For nations love is B.S. It's all about self-interest.
"At 0800 hrs, 8 June, 1967, eight Israeli recon flights flew over 'Liberty,' which was flying a large American flag. At 1400 hrs, waves of low-flying Israeli Mystere and Mirage-III [French]fighter-bombers repeatedly attacked the American vessel with rockets, napalm, and cannon. The air attacks lasted 20 minutes, concentrating on the ship's electronic antennas and dishes. The 'Liberty' was left afire, listing sharply. Eight of her crew lay dead, a hundred seriously wounded, including the captain, Commander William McGonagle.
The attack on 'Liberty' was fading into obscurity until...intelligence expert James Bamford came out with Body of Secrets, his latest book about the National Security Agency. In a stunning revelation, Bamford writes that unknown to Israel, a US Navy EC-121 intelligence aircraft was flying high overhead the 'Liberty,' electronically recorded the attack. The US aircraft crew provides evidence that the Israeli pilots knew full well that they were attacking a US Navy ship flying the American flag.
Why did Israel try to sink a naval vessel of its benefactor and ally? Most likely because 'Liberty's' intercepts flatly contradicted Israel's claim, made at the war's beginning on 5 June, that Egypt had attacked Israel, and that Israel's massive air assault on three Arab nations was in retaliation. In fact, Israel began the war by a devastating, Pearl-Harbor style surprise attack that caught the Arabs in bed and destroyed their entire air forces."
So, Speller, the Americans thought the Israelis were their allies, but the Israelis didn't think the US were their allies? Or did Israel, like any powerful nation kill innocent American allies cause it was just sex after all?
Posted by: DJ | 2006-06-22 7:06:03 PM
Yes, to the Israelis having sex after all.
On 22 May 1967, Egypt announced that the Straits of Tiran would be closed to "all ships flying Israel flags or carrying strategic materials", with effect from 23 May.
EGYPT started the Six Day War by the blockading of Israeli shipping in the Straits of Tiran.
Blockading the shipping was an Act of War.
So, France is France is France? They are on their 3rd Republic now. I don't see one part of France joining another part of France as some sort of international alliance.
The crusades were all ordered by Rome. No country was willingly anyone else's ally, they just obeyed the pope.
You might have me there, with the Yorktown reference. I'm still studying it.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-06-23 2:28:26 PM
You must have missed reading the last portion of my post, where I mentioned Joe Bat's Arm and the oil refinery?
Posted by: Lady | 2006-06-23 4:55:44 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.