I trust you will.

But will you be there to celebrate the event with emotion and dignity, or to roll dead drunk under the table, saturated with Chablis (or possibly one of those acceptable - sorry, I mean elegant - Australian Chardonnay) ?

#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.

“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.)