State Terror Capitalists ♠ Capitalistes Terroristes d'Etat |

Article copy (alternate language)

Peut être avez vous pensé que vous y étiez allé un peu fort avec les français dernièrement. Peut être avez vous pensé qu'après tout, il était plus que temps d'oublier la querelle et de "s'aimer à nouveau."

Pensez-y encore :

...La France n'était pas seulement le plus gros contributeur de fond de l'Irak Baathiste; les banques françaises ont financé d'autres régimes odieux. Elles sont les prêteurs n° 1 de l'Iran, de Cuba et des ennemis passés et présents des USA, tels que Somalie, Soudan et Vietnam.

Par Mike Gonzales dans le Wall Street Journal, et non sous-entendu de bonne foi par Stephen Pollard (ne manquez pas les commentaires, les lecteurs de Stephen marquent quelques points intéressants)

Les idiots français se réjouiront à la seule idée que leur gouvernement et leurs banques d'état et privées prêtent des millions de dollars aux ennemis de l'Amérique.

Le dernier carré de français décents et réfléchis se sentira nauséeux à la seule idée que leur argent durement gagné est distribué aux pires dictatures sur la face de cette terre, y compris à celles qui se sont vouées à notre propre perte, dans le but de s'opposer à la plus grande démocratie.

On pourrait appeler cette trahison de nos prétendues valeurs un "suicide par procuration", mais le suicide étant involontaire (tout au moins pour le dernier carré susmentionné) j'aurai plutôt tendance à y voir un meurtre prémédité de la nation française et de son peuple par les élites dirigeantes et financières françaises.

Parmi le dernier carré, ceux dotés d'un estomac particulièrement solide auront encore le temps, avant de foncer aux toilettes, de noter avec un sourire désabusé, que le prêt ressemble furieusement à un don.

A moins de croire sérieusement que Cuba et la Corée du Nord sont des clients solvables.

En conséquence, la dernière pensé avant de vomir est que cet argent de plus en plus durement gagné va continuer d'affluer en soutien de plus en plus d'Etats assassins, pour autant qu'ils soient ennemis déclarés de l'Occident.

Je promets une bringue d'enfer le jour ou je serai finalement débarrassé du passeport et de la nationalité française. Cela devrait être amusant. Soyez-y.

En attendant, j'espère qu'il se trouve suffisamment de monde dans le camp de la liberté pour comprendre que dans cette guerre, la partie la plus significative de la France a choisi le côté opposé.

1071 - Jean Bart

Jean Bart
- Link

In 2002 Iraq accounted for accounted for 0.15% of our exports and 0.30% of our imports. As far as food suppliers go, France ranked behind Australia in 2002, 13th to 8th respectively. One US corporation between 1998-2002 did $100 million in business with Iraq; that corporation's name is of course Haliburton. Other US corporations did another $400 million in business with Iraq over the same time period. In 2001, the US bought by itself ~40% of Iraq's oil exports. As far as debt issues are concerned, France is owed ~$1.8 billion, while the US is owed $2.1 billion. The fact is that lots of countries had a very cozy relationship with Iraq over the years, including of course the US and France, and that your accusations are bit like the pot calling the kettle black. Re: the other countries mentioned - the fact that French banks do business around the world is hardly surprising, nor should it be stopped. The best way to liberalize - wow, capitalism, who would have thought of that; no one here apparently, you anti-capitalist goons - the world's economies is by doing business with them, not by throwing up useless embargoes (e.g., Cuba). The fact is that America has been more than willing to trade with and loan money to rather odious regimes - Romania, South Africa, and even the USSR - the fact that France does the same thing that the US has done historically and still does (China, the various "republics" of central Asia, Egypt, Jordan, etc.) and that you criticize and otherwise try to single out French actions without doing the same re: American actions again sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. Dissident Frogman, A word of advice from an American President, specifically George Washington; to paraphrase, don't love another country more than your own. BTW, I suggest that if you really want to become an American citizen, that you stop the pretense of being a Frenchman, give up your passport tommorrow and move to the US. In other words, get some damn backbone and act on your beliefs.

1072 - the dissident frogman

the dissident frogman France
- Link

#21: I'm a bit busy shelving my socks at the moment and consequently have little time to spare for somebody than can pop out of nowhere, and brandish names and figures "“ that could as well come out of the front pocket of his kangaroo underwear, as far as we're informed "“ hardly relevant to the problem at hand, just because he/she was too lazy to follow the link to the original story, read it, and "“ possibly the most important part of the process "“ actually understand the issue. However, experience taught me that the like of yours hardly make the effort to press gently their mouse's button, whenever their cursors pass over those funny bits of text in a different color and changes their shape to that of a cute little hand "“ we call it a "link" - not mentioning their natural apathy when it comes to assimilating the extraneous amount of information this apparently benign action usually brings forward. To help in the process, I shall therefore paste below a digest of the aforementioned information "“ not that I have more sympathy for you than I had for the previous "Mr. Numbers Ready" that happened to hit these pages in the preceding months and miss the point just like you did, but I'm actually trying to save some time in dealing with future ones. Bear with me, and no matter your, err, "interesting" obsession with pots and kettles (no, you don't want to hear about that, trust me) you should be able to comprehend why French actions actually come singled out by the actions of the French alone. You (should) already know the first paragraph "“ although I may be a bit optimistic in assuming that you actually read my post before waving your Fancy Figures of Unknown Origin "“ so let's move on straight to the next: "This type of financing is shared by Germany, France's partner. German banks are North Korea's biggest lenders, and Syria's -- and Libya's. But France is the most active. In Castro's sizzling gulag, French banks plunked down $549 million in the first trimester this year, a third of all credit to Cuba. The figure for Saddam's Iraq is $415 million. But these pale in comparison with the $2.5 billion that French banks have lent Iran. The figures come from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, and were interpreted by Inigo More for a Madrid think-tank, the Real Instituto Elcano (realinstitutoelcano.org). As he says, "one could think that Parisian bankers wait for the U.S. to have an international problem before taking out their checkbooks." French banks seem to be almost anywhere U.S. banks are absent. They lend in 57 such countries, and are the main lenders in 23 of those." And here is the link "“ again "“ just in case: http://www.stephenpollard.net/001303.html I'll leave you to your fancy figures in a minute so you can try to figure out what the Real Instituto Elcano (realinstitutoelcano.org) "“ and therefore my initial post "“ is really about, although with little hope that you understand the difference between the topic of my post and your ejaculating comment. But I shall add to help you that indeed, I wrote "pot". And you answered "kettle". So much for pertinence. On secondary points, I could add that if Cuba is still suffering under Castro's reign, it's more by the wealth of (mostly the) French loans and trade (since the fall of the Soviets) than despite the US embargo. I could also add that you have a lot to learn about Capitalism and free market (start with rule of law and contracts) as well as pure coherence: if it's okay in your book to trade with fishy regimes, then one fails to see why you're blaming the US for doing so "historically". Once you'll get over that self- contradiction of yours, you may start to understand a thing or two about real politics and therefore, you may very well see the difference of strategy between the USA and France, as far as these questions are concerned. I'll give you a hint: on the US side, it's always about using the lesser of two evils to preserve freedom, restore it, and whenever possible extend it somewhere else "“ you may argue that the latter point was just a bonus until recently and you may argue that this wasn't the best politics. I would answer that you could be right IF we were in the best of the worlds. Wake up: we're not. I would therefore add that at least, this politic succeeded in restoring and preserving the West's freedom, as well as what was possible for the rest of the world, despite the Soviet's nuke threats, tanks at the borders and expansionism worlwide. That was Communism yesterday, it's Islamism today (and the putrid remains of Socialism to back it up). Yet today the rules have changed. Wake up: rules and circumstances do change sometimes. Therefore, I wouldn't fail to add that since Afghanistan and Iraq, I can safely assume that extending freedom first and foremost became a priority. Wake up: whatever the old alliances, 'uncomfortable' or not, they're being seriously reshaped. And bad guys are starting to feel cold sweat. Thank God, there are smarter people in any of the White House's corridors than in the whole Palace of the Elysée and Quai d'Orsay. They understood that the world changed, they understood that our freedom cannot be preserved anymore without extending that of others. They understood that preserving 'stability' at the cost of liberty is not an option anymore simply because the worse and lesser evils can "“ or will "“ feed on each other, simply because both evils are the origins of the changes in circumstances and rules. They said it recently in London, in more inspiring words than mine. And they've been taking action. Now where's your kettle again I wonder? One last thing, simply because it will serve the other "Mr. Suggest" that will come after you, as well: I assume from your paraphrased 'American President advice' that you must be one of those (crypto) Nationalists "“ you surely sound as one "“ who believe that one's country is where one was born and that consequently, we shouldn't love another country more than the one that fate, fortune, bad luck or Providence (pick your determinant of choice) assigns us at birth. That makes you wrong on several counts, particularly "“ and that's not the least of them "“ as far as America is concerned, since she is the living contradiction to your ill-judged paraphrase. That's actually one of the (certainly many) differences between you and George Washington: the great man had all reasons and facts to know the difference that can exist between the country where you're simply born and the one you dream about, the one where you decide to walk, sail or fly one day, simply because that's the one you love, the one you want to live for and the one you could die for. He also figured out more clearly than you do, that in his day and age America loving Americans weren't necessarily born there. I have news for you, it's been quite an earmark of this great nation ever since. So the next time you feel like quoting a famous US President, try at least to understand him. Anyway, I suggest that you take in consideration the fact that, even though I may make no mystery on this blog about my fondness for the US and my intentions as far as my nationality of choice is concerned for the coming decades, the how, why, when, my beliefs and my backbone are way beyond your concerns, underlying nationalism and advices, thank you very much. The most faithful readers here can have a clear idea about the why but little concern for the rest. It's fine by me if it's fine by them. Some others know a bit more; I call them "friends". Few of them know a lot more. I call them "close friends". It may come as a surprise, but I'm afraid you're none of them. So now is my turn to quote the great man, George Washington. Unlike you, I won't dare to paraphrase him. The advantage is that I will also avoid your regrettable error of interpretation, as far as his thoughts are concerned: "Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence. True friendship is a plant of slow growth, and must undergo and withstand the shocks of adversity before it is entitled to the appellation." Unfortunately, I can't compare to George Washington either and I shall therefore let you guess, at the reading of the final paragraph below, which part of his advice I'm stubbornly NOT following: In any case, "BTW" and "in other words", I suggest you stick your suggestions up the hole that's at the smartest end of your anatomy, shake them swiftly and lengthily, and don't stop until you can clearly see on the other end how little I care for them. Yep, it's not courteous. Against all appearances, it's not intimate either.

1073 - Ab213

Ab213
- Link

Hello, c un site trop genial je savais qu'il existait des gens dans ce pays capable de dire tout haut, ce que je dit tout haut et que tout le monde pense à voix basse!

1074 - philippe

philippe
- Link

The DF wrote : I'll leave you to your fancy figures in a minute so you can try to figure out what the Real Instituto Elcano (realinstitutoelcano.org) "“ and therefore my initial post "“ is really about, although with little hope that you understand the difference between the topic of my post and your ejaculating comment. Well I've read the elcano institute report. It says : Although these figures could be interpreted as a sign of political antagonism, a fairer assessment of the lack of coincidence between French and US lending policy would probably point to France's universal approach as opposed to the traditional isolationism of the US. At least, such is suggested by an overall analysis of the loans granted by French banks (US$ 1.1 trillion). Its main borrower in absolute terms is the United States, to whom it lends nearly a third of this amount. Among its top ten borrowers are six immediate neighbours. In relative terms, it is very noticeable that French banks provide 100% of the funds obtained by one country, Somalia. Overall, France is the leading funder of 41 countries, mostly concentrated in Africa, where only Eritrea, Malawi, Saint Helena and Sierra Leone fall outside its ambit. As with Spain and the UK, the countries in which France occupies the leading position coincide with its main foreign-policy objectives, particularly la francophonie, which consists in bringing together its former colonies (plus some others) beneath the banner of the French language. It is very significant that of the 41 countries for which France is the leading lender, no fewer than 28 are members of the organisation. Paris is the leading lender to Africa and the Middle East, for which it provides 24% of the regions' international private borrowing requirements. On the other hand, it is noticeable that France is the leading lender for Japan, which absorbs 16% of French international private loans. I'll suggest you read it too, because you seem to miss the point. You also wrote The French idiots will be happy at the simple idea that their government, its state and private owned banks are lending millions of dollars to America's foes.[...]The last square of decent and thoughtful French will feel nauseous at the idea that their hard earned money is distributed to the worse dictatorships on the face of this Earth,/i> , all this under the title State Terror Capitalists. You are certainly aware, as you've made the effort to press gently your mouse's button, whenever your cursors pass over those funny bits of text in a different color and changes their shape to that of a cute little hand "“ we call it a "link", that the report is about international private lending, not your tax money distributed by the Gvt.

1075 - philippe

philippe
- Link

between 2 socks, you should enable html tags on your comments...

1076 - the dissident frogman

the dissident frogman France
- Link

"These sums make Paris the main supplier of international private finance to Shia ayatollahs, Saddam Hussein and the Cuban compañeros. (...)" Sounds to me that my post is right on target. "the report is about international private lending, not your tax money distributed by the Gvt." Exactly right. Which is why I wrote - as you quoted me - "it's (...) private owned banks are lending millions of dollars to America's foes." Now I stand by my decision to mention the French state (and its tentacular grips in the various half-private financial institutions) in the mix. Just to amuse me between two socks, try to convince me that there is no collusion at all between both of them in this country. Try to convince me that the patterns emerging from this report are nothing but coincidental. I can always use a good laugh. (And oh, as for your suggestions on what I should do on my blog, I suggest you read the last paragraph of my previous comment. And shake it as well.)

1077 - josh

josh
- Link

The USA may look good from across the Atlantic but we have our issues too. Corporate fraud and the drug war are issues that aren't even addressed over here. I agree that we are fighting terror the right way, but when it comes to domestic issues, America is falling apart.

1078 - SparcVark

SparcVark
- Link

Come now, Josh. Corporate fraud and the war on (selected) drugs are indeed issues, but you have to be quite disingenuous to suggest that they're "not even addressed". Falling apart? Let's not play Chicken Little here.

the dissident frogman