| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Blast from the past : 2001-05-16 european parliament debate excerpt |
| 2006-07-21 |
| This came to my mind because of the recent jacques myard proposal for France to use its Military Might(Tm) to rein in Israel. The whole debate is pretty instructive, see for example Überdhimmi anna lindh after whom was named an Eurabia institute (cf. #3), but this paul-marie couteaux gets to be the most outrageous one. This guy is now with Philippe De Villiers, catholic conservative sovereignty pol, interesting in his denunciation of France islamization and who cannot be suspected of antisemitism (he's pretty popular among french jews), but who is very suspect in my eyes with such companions. Coûteaux (EDD). – (FR) Madam President, the most surprising thing about our debate is our surprise, for Israel's expansionist policy is the inevitable and predictable result of the growing imbalance in the region, the stability for which we bear much of the responsibility. Firstly that is because since 1967 most of our states, with the notable exception of France, have continued to give the State of Israel – a state that is growing increasingly self-assured and domineering – the impression that it can violate international law and UN resolutions with impunity. In reality, here as elsewhere we have followed Washington and persist in closing our eyes to the theocratic excesses of this religious state whose governments are under the thumb of fanatical parties and minorities that are just as bad as the other groups of religious fanatics in the region. That is why we should envisage imposing sanctions on Israel. There is, however, another serious imbalance for which we are in part responsible, namely the imbalance of forces. I have no hesitation in saying that we must consider giving the Arab side a large enough force, including a large enough nuclear force, to persuade Israel that it cannot simply do whatever it wants. That is the policy my country pursued in the 1970s when it gave Iraq a nuclear force. We have now destroyed it. So we will carry on with our policy of imbalance and what is happening today is merely the annoying but inevitable result of our collective blindness and cowardice. |
| Posted by:anonymous5089 |
| #4 Rarely fatal? This punk is proposing to give nuclear weapons to people whose ideology is more agressive and expanwsionist than Nazism itself And while we are at it this guy is proposing to ally with the movement who killed 73 of his compatriots in a single day. France should be napalming Hizbollah instead of whinning about it. |
| Posted by: JFM 2006-07-21 08:23 |
| #3 If it comes down to a fight between the EUropeans and and the Jews I'll side with the Jews. I expect nothing in return. If it is between a nuclear Iran and an civilization in EUrope I will let EUrope slide into barabrism and destroy Iran. EUrope has evidenced quite enough that it's word is not worth much and it's treaty obligations matter for naught. This is just how the EUropeana have treated us here in the US. Turn about is fairplay. It's also quite over due. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-07-21 08:20 |
| #2 drivers propel tons of mass that can prove fatal in a collision. MPs propel mass quantities of hot air, that while highly pollutive, are rarely fatal. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-07-21 07:05 |
| #1 Why is that drivers are controlled for use of alcohol and drugs while memebers of parliament aren't? |
| Posted by: JFM 2006-07-21 05:37 |