The Times Online describes NATO’s response to Barack Obama’s impassioned plea to make a stand in Afghanistan. The Allies listened politely, left some small change on the table, then smiled and waved.
Barack Obama made an impassioned plea to America’s allies to send more troops to Afghanistan, warning that failure to do so would leave Europe vulnerable to more terrorist atrocities. But though he continued to dazzle Europeans on his debut international tour, the Continent’s leaders turned their backs on the US President.
Gordon Brown was the only one to offer substantial help. He offered to send several hundred extra British soldiers to provide security during the August election, but even that fell short of the thousands of combat troops that the US was hoping to prise from the Prime Minister.
AdvertisementJust two other allies made firm offers of troops. Belgium offered to send 35 military trainers and Spain offered 12. Mr Obama’s host, Nicolas Sarkozy, refused his request.
The derisory response threatened to tarnish Mr Obama’s European tour, which yesterday included a spellbinding performance in Strasbourg in which he offered the world a vision of a future free of nuclear weapons.
Two effects may be observable here. Since Europe knows that America has to fight radical Islam to defend Washington, New York and Los Angeles — even if America were alone in the world — then they know that Obama will pick up the slack if he is determined to defeat the Taliban. They can “free ride” secure in the knowledge that in so doing, America will secure Europe as a byproduct. Maybe they’ll make a token contribution, but no more. But on the other hand, if European politicians feel that Obama isn’t determined to defeat the Taliban after all, then there’s no sense coming along for the abortive ride. Either way the incentives are to leave the US twisting in the wind.
Long ago, the mice had a general council to consider what measures they could take to outwit their common enemy, the Cat. Some said this, and some said that; but at last a young mouse got up and said he had a proposal to make, which he thought would meet the case. “You will all agree,” said he, “that our chief danger consists in the sly and treacherous manner in which the enemy approaches us. Now, if we could receive some signal of her approach, we could easily escape from her. I venture, therefore, to propose that a small bell be procured, and attached by a ribbon round the neck of the Cat. By this means we should always know when she was about, and could easily retire while she was in the neighbourhood.” This proposal met with general applause, until an old mouse got up and said: “That is all very well, but who is to bell the Cat?” The mice looked at one another and nobody spoke.
One of the more interesting things about the troop commitment is how differently newspapers are covering it. For example, the NYT says, “STRASBOURG, France — With protesters raging outside, NATO leaders on Saturday gave a tepid troop commitment to President Obama’s escalating campaign in Afghanistan, mostly committing soldiers only to a temporary security duty. … As expected, European allies agreed to provide up to 5,000 new troops for Afghanistan, the White House said Saturday. But 3,000 of them are to be deployed only temporarily to provide security for the August elections in Afghanistan.”
The Washington Post seems to agree with the New York Times that it amount to a good luck handshake from allies before sending their regrets. The WaPo write, “NATO Backs Obama’s Afghan Plan but Pledges Few New Troops”. Other papers put a more positive face on the numbers. The BBC, for example, writes:
The reason for the smiles – the Obama effect. The new US president has enthused, galvanised and re-invigorated Nato at one and the same time. He has spoken the kind of language Nato countries have been wanting to hear from Washington for several years. … Making the case for the Afghan war at home is still a problem for many Nato governments – pressure from the Americans is not going to let up even if Washington’s positions are couched in an accent more acceptable to European ears.”
But as Mandy Rice Davies once put it, ‘they would say that, wouldn’t they?’ Smiles, while welcome, are not the same as money or troops. Unless Europe comes up with more than a temporary number of limited duty reinforcements — about a brigade’s worth — the logistics may be stressed far more out of proportion to what they will actually be allowed to do. Let’s see what happens, but for now, it looks like not much has happened.
Europe has decide to appease Muslim ideologies they have little choice due to demographics. Why should they help in Afghanistan when the cost are high and the result so little? WE have decided herr on the Belmont Club that Afghanistan has little to offer and is a losing proposition logistically.
You can’t call the Euros free-riders when the truth is they’re uneasy-riders: they have taken his martial measure and found it short.
Who would proffer martial aid to a man that slams his allies and his own nation while praising to the heavens the memes of his enemies?
Why should Poland or the Czech Republic join in project anabasis?
As ever I maintain that the Pashtun project can only be solved with Indian mountain troops.
Pakistan’s desire for strategic depth is a sham. The Kush are not the Urals; Kabul is not Tankograd.
The Pashtun connection is lucre, pure and simple. We need to change the economics of the contraband trade.
BTW the analogy is twisted since we’re the cat and it’s the mice that are pulling a Gulliver on us. The drawn out nature of the AfPak briar is the front line of the SCO shadow-war scam.
China is playing all sides against the middle. She’s the other patron of Pakistan and must surely be ISI’s lover.
GUARDIAN paper mocks ‘World’s Greatest Orator’…
GUARDIAN paper mocks ‘World’s Greatest Orator’…
Nato Protesters Tear Gassed In Strasbourg Demonstration By French Police During Summit World
Some of the protesters – throwing rocks – tried to storm a massive police blockade at the Pont d’Anvers bridge, and were driven back by water cannon, tear gas, flash bombs and rubber bullets.
Elsewhere, stacks of old tires were also set ablaze.
A visit to a cancer hospital by First Lady Michelle Obama was cancelled in the wake of the violence.
—
Hope they don’t let this mar their critical reports on the latest in bare-armed fashion.
Gee, is this the Hope and Change that we all expected? I suppose that he can blame this on Bush for fighting the “wrong” war in Iraq and alienating our “allies” in NATO, but really? The European nations have seen their future, and and engagement in Afghanistan is not part of it.
I think this is of a piece with what Mr. Fernandez posted earlier, viz. Mark Steyn. Europe is certainly not poor, or broke, but the cradle may be broken, and consciously or subconsciously, they are evading risk. Whether it all becomes “Eurabia” or not, they have to keep a lid on their potential domestic turmoil.
So the era of “America Alone”, is going to come sooner rather than later.
Barack Obama may achieve a diplomatic miracle yet. In response to this flamboyantly empty suit we may see an alliance of Germany, France and Poland, with England possibly joining after Labour gets the boot. Obama seems to be achieving what the scolding of Donald Rumsfeld failed to achieve, the infusion of New European values into Old Europe. Merkel could start the ball rolling if she really lets loose and denounces Obama . To pull this off in the face of rioting masses of anarchist youths would demand a spine not seen since Maggie Thatcher was ousted. It would demand a no hold bars expose on all fronts laying out everything the BND can offer.
Strategic Depth has rather different requirements in the age of suicide terror attacks.
Probably our greatest weakness is PC.
So BO goes to Europe, trashes his country and his predecessor, and gets stiffed. That is what I call leadership.
Fat Man,
“trashes his country and his predecessor,”
—
I was disappointed to hear that Dennis Miller missed that.
Peggy Noonan seems to feel GWB and the country Deserve it.
…she stopped thinking long ago.
The question is, will the Left finally lose its faith in appearance over substance if even The One is spurned, or will their desperate desire for approval from Old Europe blind them still?
The Best Thing about Being on the Left
Is Never Having to say
“I Was Wrong“
“It takes one to know one.” Those folks in Europe have seen so many empty suits that they probably can spot them a mile away by now.
Hope and Change, indeed.
The Brits could send sizeable mini-library of DVD classics to entertain the troops.
I just heard that The Messiah did not send transportation to the Airport for Brown.
…and instead of staying in the Big House, like Old Tymes, he had to get a hotel room.
Classy.
…meanwhile, illustrious pop figure/groupies get their own private 747 round trip to Strasburg.
http://www.la-croix.com/article/index.jsp?docId=2369951&rubId=4077
5000 more men will be sent to Afghanistan + 150 gendarmes to train the afghani police…
seems that Europe pays quit its part
http://www.nato.int/docu/manuel/2001/hb090801f.htm
and seems that we aren’t on vacations
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=677_1220547746
Will Obama change his position after failure?
also, Nato as the new summit was ment for, to redefine the rules, An european Nato should get more autonomy, also it is viewed as an european army, since the different european countries didn’t favorise the idea of a mere european army, anyway that is the explanations that I got here
Josh
This can’t be failure! They (the Obama Administration) will just advance upon a different axis! These aren’t the droids you were looking for. Hey, see that shiny thing?
And NATO can have all the autonomy that they wish. I think it is high time to have a Supreme NATO commander who is not an American. Let’s see how that works out. Pass the popcorn.
Well, Obama’s convinced me of one thing with his somewhat-less-than-successful trip: he’s definitely not the Antichrist.
Hell, I wish Lord Zero WAS the Antichrist: at least he’d now have Europe on-board with Afghanistan after performing a few “signs and wonders.”
Twelve Spaniards turned loose in Afghanistan? My God!! Gives me the shivers! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!
Second thought: do many Afghan policemen speak Spanish?
FWIW, Debka is reporting that:
‘German chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy told Obama there was no point in sending reinforcements to Afghanistan if US troops were on their way out, especially after Washington had opted for an “Iranian solution” for the conflict without reference to Berlin or Paris.’
The ‘Iranian Solution’ according to Debka is Obama’s plan to flip Iran into a military partner in Afghanistan.
If true, I feel sorry for the Israelis.
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1384
maybe 12 will do it –remember Cortes in Tenochtitlan in the 1500s –outnumbered 10,000 to 1, took the empire.
Marie Claude #18: Good video. Those were paras????
Fortunately, that is more open country than was VN. Gives the grunts much better opportunity for both fire and movement and fire and manuever.
I do have a feeling though that the riflemen
need a heavier caliber personal weapon. Cannot be sure, but it looked as though their
atempts at suppressive fires wound up being
dependent upon the 7.62 NATO belt-fed and the rocket launcher.
Perhaps the new 6.8mm SP would fill the bill without sifnificantly adding to the total weight the rifleman must carry.
Caliber aside, the French service arm does appear to be of sound design.
A few thousand more skirmishes like that and the Afghan countrysidejust might be under friendly control for a change.
Well Buddy, Cortes also wound up with every non-Aztec indian that could figure out how to lend a hand. Aztecs had made themselves plumb unpopular you know.
“Course the Spaniards had to show those new allies how to whup Aztecs before they became allies.
Weren’t the Yurps supposed to be in charge of training Afghan soldiers already? Since they aren’t allowed to actually point their rifles and shoot at bad guys or anything — not enough money in their national budgets to buy bullets, you know. So they were relegated to the back where they wouldn’t have to actually waste a bullet and I *thought* they were supposed to be training Afghans. And then they were all pulled out and went home because America started transferring Marines from Iraq to AFghanistan, so of course, Europe wasn’t needed any more. And now, they’re promising to return to their piddly paltry back-up detail, and we’re supposed to act like it’s a big deal? I doan thin’ so, Pierre.
Dave, yes, paratroopers from Castres (red bérets)
http://www.troupesdemarine.org/actuel/unites/8rpima.htm
Also I heard that they are too light equipped ; in that video they are patrolling and not on a “forecasted” operation, I think there also were infantry men involved (3/4 of the video), not seen though ; when a missile is launched, the sergent said that the infantry relayed them on the other side of the hill, then they must have been heavier equipped. Still you can notice that there isn’t an aerian assistance, they were suppose to get one. This is the major problem for our troops there, the aleatory helps from helicopters and or planes
Well I’m no arms specialist, theus I can’t tell what they ought to have
And finally, after all the talk about needing Europe to “like” and “respect” America, we see that Europe’s goodwill cannot be banked into anything tangible.
Perhaps we Europeans simply can’t afford to support American efforts in Afghanistan, because the USA’s failure to properly regulate its financial industry has meant that the Wunch has been able to wreck the American economy, taking those of all the European nations with it?
Also, perhaps, the insatiable appetite of the USA for illegal drugs, and the failure to do anything effective about that, is providing a large proportion of the financial resources needed by the Taliban?
It is also possible that if the real culprits of 9/11 had been attacked in the first place, instead of attacking a country that had nothing to do with it, Afghanistan would not have been a problem anyway. Of course, that was impossible – given that the US President of that time, and his family, were and are personal friends of the King of Mordor and also had, and have, a large financial interest in the area.
How much Islamic terrorism would there be now, if the Grand Mosque was a pile of rubble and the Black Stone ground up for roadbuilding gravel?
One Stone to rule them all, one Stone to find them, one Stone to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them, in the land of Saudi where the Shadows lie.
Unfortunately, we don’t have an Aragorn. Nor do we have a Jack Ryan. We have an empty suit instead.
Dear Leader went to Froggieland and apologized for our “dismissive and disrespectful” attitude toward the yurps who cant/wont muster a few thousand warriors to help in the Afghan (or anywhere else for that matter). All thay can get is a few clerks.
Dear Leader cant connect those dots?
Jimma, astonished, said “He lied to me.”
Deja vu all over again. (Without the pseudo Christian veneer and the dancing eyebrows)
This wont end well.
Fletcher Christian:
From what I understand, AIG’s most egregious trading subunit was London based.
FWIW
Also, it would seem that “you Europeans” that took it in the shorts were no less complicit than were California Flippers in search of Real Estate paid for bliss.
…and of course, France was responsible for additional blood and treasure (and time) being spent by their acting out on their pique over losing their “special” contracts with Saddam H.
Fletcher@32
Would this be those same EUpeons, who upon the US having done exactly as you suggest (removal of the House of Saud, descrating a shrine to nearly 1 BILLION Muslims) would have:
a)wrung their hands and rent their breasts and marched in the streets over the “just” ferocity of our retribution?
b) been then forced to side with your 10s of millions of Muslim immigrants – all of whom would take great umbrage – or face having every one of your cities destroyed by enraged mobs that outnumber your security forces by at least 20:1, thus making the EU an outright enemy of US?
c) got most of their energy from the ME (US < 18%), so that any disruption in ME oil flow causes the economic collapse of the entire EU, along with mass starvation in Asia, while funding no means to insure your logistics?
d) stolen billions more from the Iraqis through OFF scam, while sellings arms to mutual enemies and simultaneously disarming yourselves?
e) blamed US no matter what happens to avoid fixing the EU’s problems?
f) demanded US “help-for-free” in your oncoming calamities?
g) supposed that a WMD will not be used against the EU first?
I could go on. Smugness and blame and helplessness and appeasement are not helpful attitudes, when manning the barricades. Denial is over by then.
Doug, I can’t let you saying that France was the alone benefiter of the “oil for food” cheat, which was merely fictionned as the “Plame” case, by some well intentionned persons who need to justify their rightful plans for invading Irak, which apparently was easier to achieved than an iranian invasion. The Saudi pushed quite well this agenda, having their private entries in DC and Texas.
There are true sources that contradict this conspiraty.
“In an interview with the Rocky Mountain News last month, he noted that the United States imported far more oil from Iraq than France during the sanction years and that the United States had the right to review every contract approved under the oil-for-food program.”
http : // www .washingtontimes. com/news/2004/may/03/20040503-123158-1229r/?page=2
http : // www .hartford-hwp. com/archives/51/040.html
c) got most of their energy from the ME (US < 18%), so that any disruption in ME oil flow causes the economic
That’s not what serious historians and or reporters are saying, most of the oil sites belonged to anglo-saxon Cies or disguised as sub- anglo-saxon Cies
stolen billions more from the Iraqis through OFF scam, while sellings arms to mutual enemies and simultaneously disarming yourselves?
“In an interview with the Rocky Mountain News last month, he noted that the United States imported far more oil from Iraq than France during the sanction years and that the United States had the right to review every contract approved under the oil-for-food program.”
WT 4/05/04
when ??? no arms were sold after the first irakian war there, at least by the French, the fictions telling so, were mere invention, helping the former administration to pass over an predictable UN “veto”
OK, my # 36 is waiting for mod
anyway :
Who armed Saddam?
From Lev Lafayette, 26 July 2002
1. The British Foreign Office’s Report on Strategic Export Controls (released last night) shows that:
a. Arms sales to Indonesia increased from #2m to #15.5m. Licences include all-wheel vehicles, components for aircraft cannon, combat aircraft and military aero-engines. This to a country that committed state-sponsored terror in East Timor.
b. Arms sales to Pakistan increased from #6m to #14m. This to a military dictatorship that created the Taliban.
2. In light of these figures, and the rhetoric of war against Iraq, some points need to be made. Given that Saddam is often described as a man who is willing to kill his own people by using chemical weapons, it’s worth examining who armed him in the first place.
3. In the 1970s, Saddam approached the USSR, until then his conventional weapons supplier, to buy a plant to manufacture chemical weapons, but his request was refused. Saddam then began courting the West, and received a much more favourable response.
4. An American company, Pfaulder Corporation of Rochester, New York, supplied the Iraqis with a blueprint in 1975, enabling them to construct their first chemical warfare plant. The plant was purchased in sections from Italy, West Germany and East Germany and assembled in Iraq. It was located at Akhashat in north-western Iraq, and the cost was around $50 million for the plant and $30 million for the safety equipment.
5. British, French and German multinationals turned the request down on moral grounds or because the Iraqi delivery schedule couldn’t be met—not because their governments objected.
6. The United States took other steps to ensure that Saddam’s rule was strengthened. Mobile phone systems were mainly in the military domain at the time, but the United States government approved the 1975 sale by the Karkar Corporation of San Francisco of a complete mobile telephone system. The system was to be used by the Ba’ath Party loyalists to protect the regime against any attempts to overthrow it.
7. The United States also supplied Saddam with satellite pictures of Iranian positions during the Iran-Iraq war.
8. France provided Saddam with extended-range Super Etendard aircraft capable of hitting Iranian oil facilities in the lower Gulf.
9. While Britain’s Margaret Thatcher mouthed platitudes about not supplying either Iran or Iraq with lethal weapons, Britain’s Plessey Electronics supplied Saddam with an electronic command center.
10. Iraq was also able to buy French-built Mirage-1 aircraft and Gazelle and Lynx helicopters from the British company Westland.
11. In 1976, while on a visit to France, Saddam concluded the purchase of a uranium reactor. Jacques Chirac, then the Prime Minister and now the President, approved the deal. The supplier was Commissart l’Energie Atomique (CEA) and the plutonium reactor was called Rhapsodie. France also signed a Nuclear Cooperation Treaty with France, providing for the transfer of expertise and personnel.
12. In 1978, the Italian firm Snia Technit, a subsidiary of Fiat, signed an agreement with Iraq to sell nuclear laboratories and equipment.
13. Whenever the declared policies of the Western countries stood in the way of an arms deal, Western governments used two methods to get around their own rules and thereby manage public opinion.
a. The first method was the well-established use of the ‘front’. Thus, Western governments supplied Saddam through the pro-West countries of Jordan and Egypt, which acted as a front for Iraq. This was done to overcome Congressional, parliamentary and press hurdles, even when it was obvious to military experts that Jordan and Egypt had no use for the weapons in question. Saddam also set up his own weapons buying offices in the West, with the knowledge of the host governments. For example, Matrix Churchill was a weapons purchasing company set up in Britain.
b. The second method was to extend Saddam massive credits which he could then use for military purposes. Thus, the Banco di Lavoro in the United States gave Saddam US$4 billion worth of credits, ostensibly to buy food, but which was diverted to buy weapons with the knowledge of everyone involved. Britain’s Export Credit Guarantee department kept increasing his credit and much of the money went to the direct purchase of arms. The French government guaranteed US$6 billion worth of loans to French arms makers to sell Saddam whenever he wanted. Whenever the declared policies of the Western countries stood in the way of an arms deal.
14. When Saddam did in fact use chemical weapons against his own people, he did so on the afternoon of 17 March 1988, against the Kurdish city of Halabja. The United States provided diplomatic cover by initially blaming Iran for the attack. The Reagan Administration tried to prevent criticism of the atrocity. The Bush (senior) administration authorised new loans to Saddam in order to achieve the goal of increasing US exports and put us in a better position to deal with Iraq regarding its human rights record.
15. The US Department of Commerce licensed the export of biological materials—including a range of pathogenic agents—as well as plans for chemical and biological warfare production facilities and chemical-warhead filling equipment—to Iraq until December 1989, 20 months after the Halabja atrocity.
Sources:
Saod K. Aburish, Saddam Hussein, The Politics of Revenge, New York, 2000.
Mark Phythian, Arming Iraq, Boston, 1997.
Marie Claire: TLDR stands for “too long, didn’t read.”
Suffice it to say that both you and Fletcher are resorting to an old liberal trick of trying to change the subject from what you are or are NOT doing today, to what may or may NOT have been done then,
Europe is NOT standing up to the Islam threat today. Europe is NOT being a good ally to America, either today or ever. Europe is NOT killing terrorists. What Europe *is* doing, as always, is blaming America.
And Fletcher, you really do not want to go there when you talk about AIG and melt-downs and bailouts since a vast majority of the bailout money being paid to AIG executives by the American taxpayer is streaming into the pockets of business people in London.
Which makes me wonder even more whether or not oil money filtered through European/English banks was used to start the domino crash of the entire world’s markets, because obviously, the target of such manipulation was the America economy and buying the election of a pre-chosen Presidential candidate. Too bad you Yurps will once again suffer even more than America because while we will still be driving our cars, reading our internet news, and will not be starving to death, the same cannot be said for any of the EU countries (talked to anyone from Finland lately?), nor China, nor Russia, nor Africa.
Tee hee.
“also, Nato as the new summit was ment for, to redefine the rules, An european Nato should get more autonomy, also it is viewed as an european army, since the different european countries didn’t favorise the idea of a mere european army, anyway that is the explanations that I got here”
Translation: Yurp generals want to be put in charge of American soldiers and armament. Ain’t gonna happen. Never. Ever. Never.
P.S. So does the UN. Kofi used to propose this about every six months as a solution to the crisis du jour. The rest of the world recognizes our military’s lethality even if Code Pink doesn’t, and really slathers over the prospect of being able to play with it, if they can just figure out how to wrest control away from that doggone Pentagon. So far, their various guilt trips and blackmail schemes to do so have failed.
NahnCee I know how well intentionned you are, weren’t you the initiator of F*ck France point com ?
Is there any reason to think that European armies have maintained an ability to fight? They employ millions in what has become a unionized jobs program with good paychecks and empty-offices (name plates suggest semi-retired politicians and apparatchiks) that still produce winning marksmen and show-bands, but what else? Last I looked they didn’t have ammunition (save for materiel provided by the U.S. that turns out to be long past its “use-by” date).
I can’t believe that these (old-Europe) socialists who don’t have the ability to keep 10s of cars from being torched every evening (still happens, unreported) could stop a competent attack by trained militia. Good thing that the Turks accept the mistreatment of their expats – else they could march to the Channel with few losses (union rules for soldiers.. oh my.)
I hope it works out for them but there’s no history of this kind of decay ending in anything but badly.
Is there any reason to think that European armies have maintained an ability to fight?
have a go with the french paratroopers, you courageous !
“They employ millions in what has become a unionized jobs program with good paychecks and empty-offices (name plates suggest semi-retired politicians and apparatchiks)”
Last I check it was even worst in your country !
“Last I looked they didn’t have ammunition (save for materiel provided by the U.S. that turns out to be long past its “use-by” date).”
in your dreams ! they don’t fire when it’s not necessary, spare the amunitions for the right target !
“I can’t believe that these (old-Europe) socialists who don’t have the ability to keep 10s of cars from being torched every evening (still happens, unreported) could stop a competent attack by trained militia.”
that’s may-be because you’re ignorant of the laws, the mayor is responsible for the security, and like in your big cities they are “liberals”
“Good thing that the Turks accept the mistreatment of their expats – else they could march to the Channel with few losses (union rules for soldiers.. oh my.)”
what are you babling there ?
Sarko just refused to O to integrate Turkey to EU
blablablabla… etc
“In an interview with the Rocky Mountain News last month, he noted that the United States imported far more oil from Iraq than France during the sanction years and that the United States had the right to review every contract approved under the oil-for-food program.”
—
WHO is “HE?”
If “HE” is Joe Wilson, I will consider it case closed, given that every word uttered from Joe Wilson’s mouth is deceitful trash.
If not, I may read further.
dunno if HE is Joe Wilson, the article doesn’t precise it
neither in this one :
http : // washingtontimes.com/news/2005/sep/07/20050907-113942-1008r/
Anyway this “oil for food” was a big enterprise for cheating, that the UN didn’t ignore, some of its members got richer with the intermediaries wadges ; all developped nations had some interest to buy Saddam cheaper oil rather than to the other OPEC productors (200 enterprises in the world). This is a raison why the Saudi pushed the red button on, seeing that their socialist enemi was getting along a boycott that should have kept him out of the oils business
The thrust of the post was more to Obama than anyone/anything else. Obama for all the adulation he gets is probably in a weaker position to get solid contributions from Old Europe than W was, not that W managed to get a whole lot. Why should they try?
Trust fund kids the first to rounded up were often times the loudest protesters against the only nation really capable of defending from the round-upers.