|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
Here are some interesting articles form the Economist on Frace. First, France kicking tail in Cote d'Ivoire: quote:
Côte d'Ivoire's peace conference
France got them there
Jan 16th 2003 | PARIS
From The Economist print edition
By military as well as diplomatic means
“SCORE a try for Africa,” urged Dominique de Villepin, France's foreign minister, as he welcomed the main players in Côte d'Ivoire's four-month civil war to ten days of talks in Paris that started on January 15th. The leaders of all three rebel groups, as well as of the ruling and opposition parties, were then whisked away to the woodland grounds of France's national rugby training centre. Once there, they were locked away behind closed doors and told to sweat it out for peace.
One notable absentee was Côte d'Ivoire's president, Laurent Gbagbo. Mr Gbagbo, who had earlier expressed his wish to attend the conference, did not give any explanation for his absence, and some believe that he may have been advised to stay at home in order to prevent yet another attempted coup. But even without him, the French were able to hail the presence of all parties to the conflict as a diplomatic victory in itself.
It was a victory made possible only by a sharp increase in the number of French troops—from 700 to 2,500—deployed in their former colony. A week earlier, the French légionnaires had showed that they meant business by launching their fiercest riposte so far against a rebel group in the cocoa-growing west, firing 260 mortar shells in less than two hours. The shell-shocked rebels signed a temporary ceasefire for the duration of the talks (an arrangement that the other rebels groups had already agreed to). This opened the way for the arrival of a first contingent of Senegalese troops, as part of a long-awaited West African peacekeeping force.
The French, however, plan to stay on even after the African peacekeepers arrive. Mr de Villepin dismisses accusations of neo-colonialism as nonsense. Their intervention, the French insist, has saved Côte d'Ivoire, a country with the second-richest economy in West Africa, from a total bloodbath. But some of the rebels see France as an interested party rather than a neutral mediator.
“The only thing separating us from taking power in Abidjan [the commercial capital] was the French,” groused Guillaume Soro, the leader of the main northern rebel group, which led the armed rebellion on September 19th and proceeded to take the northern half of the country within days. The mere presence of French troops at vital arteries prevented the rebels from advancing south to the capital.
The talks in Paris will partly concentrate on reforming the controversial Ivorian nationality laws, which have left northern Muslims feeling excluded. But an even fiercer debate will focus on whether to hold an early election. Mr Gbagbo, who was elected in October 2000 in an election generally believed to have been flawed, insists that there should be no new poll until the one due in 2005. But all three rebel groups, and the prominent northern opposition leader, Alassane Ouattara, argue that a transitional government, including the rebels, leading to early elections is the only way to a lasting peace.
French paratroopers and legionnaires don't fuck around.
But here is an article which might provide even more insight on the French pique with the US:
quote:
Why France continues to annoy the United States
THE president, apparently in a fit of pique, in October abruptly postpones a long-planned summit with Britain. The agriculture minister criss-crosses the European Union to sabotage the European Commission's plan to reform EU farm policy. The foreign minister last week enrages the United States by implicitly threatening a veto at the United Nations over any assault on Iraq. Such is the behaviour of France over the past four months—and doubtless there is more to come.
Next week, for example, a reconvened summit with the British (previously postponed thanks to a row between Tony Blair and President Jacques Chirac over that aborted farm reform) takes place just as France again has enraged the British (and many others besides) by inviting Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe to an impending Franco-African summit in Paris. Mr Mugabe's murderous campaign to squash his black opposition and steal white farms makes him a British bête noire, and the EU has banned him from visiting any part of the Union, but the ban runs out on February 18th, albeit that it is expected to be promptly renewed. The French say they have asked him to their conference, starting on February 19th, in the cause of bringing peace to the Congo. What else, yawn the cynics, is new?
France has been an awkward member of the western alliance ever since the end of the second world war, witness a string of diplomatic clashes with America over the Suez campaign in 1956; over France's colonies in North Africa and elsewhere; over France's insistence on its own nuclear force de frappe; and over its decision to leave NATO's military structure. Witness, too, General de Gaulle's veto on British membership of what is now the EU.
But all that is relatively ancient history. Why is President Jacques Chirac, heir to the Gaullist tradition, now so keen to revive its mannerisms? One reason may be personal. Until the French left lost the general election last June, the centre-right Mr Chirac had spent five years in a loveless “cohabitation” with a Socialist government. Now he is free to release his pent-up energy and fulfil his re-election promises to “make a united Europe our horizon” and to “do everything to resolve international conflicts”—free, of course, to fulfil those promises on his own terms as the EU's senior leader.
A second reason is that Mr Chirac, in common with virtually all French politicians, is uneasy with the concept of an American “hyperpower” (the word was coined by the Socialists' foreign minister, Hubert Védrine) that has no need or (in French eyes) no willingness to listen to the advice of lesser powers. Mr Chirac is not instinctively eager for a supranational EU; like De Gaulle, however, he sees a united Europe as a necessary counterweight to the American hegemon. (“What is the point of Europe?” asked De Gaulle. “It must serve to prevent domination either by the Americans or by the Russians.”)
In that French sense, Britain is an untrustworthy European, since its first reflex is to side with America. Indeed, that reflex is as true with the professedly pro-European Tony Blair as it was with his Eurosceptic predecessors, despite a Franco-British defence agreement signed by Mr Blair at St Malo in 1998. In their hearts, the French saw that accord, along with plans for an EU rapid-reaction force, as a step towards creating a Europe-only alternative to NATO. Britain, however, worried that such an alternative might weaken NATO and lead to American disengagement from Europe. The consequence now, with little to show for the St Malo accord, is disappointment on both sides of the Channel.
It has often worked—in the past
The third reason is that being awkward has often paid dividends. After all, it enabled De Gaulle's France to “punch above its weight”, for instance by boycotting meetings of European ministers in 1965, so forcing its partners in the then-European Economic Community to recognise a national veto even when Europe's treaties demanded decisions by a majority vote.
The question is how to ensure that being awkward will still pay dividends when the EU ups its membership from 15 countries to 25 and when American military and technological power is greater than ever. In short, how to be relevant—a problem that became humiliatingly obvious to France when the Americans virtually ignored its allies' offers of help against the Afghan Taliban in October 2001, despite the allies' first-ever invocation of the NATO treaty's article 5, namely that an attack on one member, in this case on the United States, is an attack on all.
France has three answers to the challenge. One is to underline Mr Chirac's declared view that “war is always the worst solution”, especially in the Middle East. America's recent neglect of the Arab-Israeli dispute, so the French argue, is bound to lead to more anti-western terror; a war against Iraq will only worsen the problem.
The second answer is France's strong belief that multilateralism is a better guarantee of a stable world than unilateralism. The French acknowledge, of course, that America can win on its own a war against Iraq—but winning the peace will mean a sustained effort for which America on its own may, fear the French, have neither the patience nor the means.
The third method is the one used by every president of modern France: the forging of a common European policy shaped, as much as possible, to satisfy France's interests, in particular by persuading Germany to take its cue from France. Over time, it is this last effort which may prove the most significant. Look carefully through the joint Franco-German contributions to the convention now meeting in Brussels to design the EU's future, and there is a commitment to decide foreign policy issues by majority voting.
Losing independence?
On the face of it, this is an about-turn by France, which has always jealously guarded its independence (and so its veto) in Europe's so-called common policies on foreign affairs and defence. In fact, the EU's Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 had already whittled away a need for unanimity, with France and others talking about “coalitions of the willing and able”. By allowing “constructive abstention” for those who by nature or constitution would oppose any military intervention, the treaty made sure that powerful players, such as France and Britain, could not be stymied.
Now, by endorsing majority voting, France satisfies Germany's federalist instincts while giving up little of substance: after all, France will surely muster a majority for most of its foreign-policy and military wishes, yet preserve its own right to go ahead unilaterally (shades of Mr Bush's America), as in its dispatch of troops last September to an ex-colony, Côte d'Ivoire.
But in the meantime, there is Iraq. Ever since President Bush began talking of regime change and the disarming of Iraq, France has insisted that the road to Baghdad must be via the UN. Prompted also by Mr Blair, Mr Bush has so far stayed on this multilateral track, as in the UN's Security Council resolution 1441. However ambiguous its wording, France hailed the resolution as its own diplomatic victory.
Is France now, however, about to suffer a diplomatic defeat? Arguably Dominique de Villepin, France's foreign minister and long-time adviser to Mr Chirac, made a mistake when, after a UN meeting on January 20th supposedly on terrorism, he declared: “If war is the only way to resolve this problem, we are going down a dead end. Already we know for a fact that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are being largely blocked, even frozen. We must do everything possible to strengthen this process.” At which point, he added that France would remain “true to its principles, to the very end.” Since Colin Powell, the United States's secretary of state, viewed by the French as a sane and lonely moderate in the administration, had been at the same meeting, Mr De Villepin's remarks amounted to a diplomatic ambush for no apparent reason. Why embarrass, and so weaken, a potential friend?
Whatever the reason, France is playing a risky game. Threatening to use its UN veto may persuade America to give the arms inspectors more time. But if the veto is used, and American goes ahead regardless, the veto and the Security Council system suddenly become meaningless—and France's claim to be the guardian of multilateralism may look empty. Which is why it is still quite likely that France, in the end, will back an American war, especially if it comes a bit later rather than sooner.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826 |
"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."
-Mark Twain
well said, mr clemens.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
What do you find about French entertainment to be "superior" to American entertainment, Dave?
I've been to France and I found the general attitude there to be extremely snotty, though it could very well be merited. In my experience, the French generally will either pretend not to speak English or ignore you completely if they can tell you're American(i.e you can't speak French).
I think the "we saved your ass in ww2" mentality is absurd, and if anyone is in debt, it's the U.S, both figuratively(the Revolutionary War) and literally(the Louisiana Purchase).
That all being said, the French are jackasses. End of story.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
The best thing to come out of France was the croissant...
and the Statue of Liberty......
France and England have tried to get the upper hand on America and each other for years..they tried war, funding war (cival war), and diplomacy (league of nations, united nations). America at first was a tool to get at each other, but then we became too powerful. Now we have more in common with England due to language and pop culture..so they are more of a friend.
France will stand in our way in everything we as a nation will do. period. The possible war in Iraq is about oil as far as the French are concerned because they need Iraqi oil. I still have no clue why America is going to war with Iraq unless we are going to use Iraq as a launching point for more wars against Iran, syria, etc....
The world has more important fish to fry than Iraq....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
What do you find about French entertainment to be "superior" to American entertainment, Dave?
It is not intended to achieve box office success. It is often art for art's sake.
Also the lowest common denominator is higher in France than in the US (or other Western countries) - so when they make a film, they assume that you have some sort of artistic education.
Broadly speaking its a subjective issue, though - even for me, catch me on a Monday and I like arthouse films, and on a Friday when I'm brain dead I like action movies.
quote:
I've been to France and I found the general attitude there to be extremely snotty, though it could very well be merited. In my experience, the French generally will either pretend not to speak English or ignore you completely if they can tell you're American(i.e you can't speak French).
Parisians get snotty about tourists. The rest of the French in France are extremely pleasant.
quote:
I think the "we saved your ass in ww2" mentality is absurd, and if anyone is in debt, it's the U.S, both figuratively(the Revolutionary War) and literally(the Louisiana Purchase).
That all being said, the French are jackasses. End of story.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
It is not intended to achieve box office success. It is often art for art's sake.
Also the lowest common denominator is higher in France than in the US (or other Western countries) - so when they make a film, they assume that you have some sort of artistic education.
Broadly speaking its a subjective issue, though - even for me, catch me on a Monday and I like arthouse films, and on a Friday when I'm brain dead I like action movies.
Ironically, my favorite director is Jean-Pierre Jeunet, the writer/director of films like City of Lost Children, Delicatessen, and, of course, Amelie.
I don't think it's fair to discredit American entertainment for being box office oriented(and I don't think that's quite the case as much as you might think). The demand for entertainment(of any kind) is much greater in the U.S than anywhere else, so the market is much, much wider. While action movies(which aren't as much of an American innovation as they are an Asian one) are prevalent, they represent only a small portion of the industry.
Perhaps in the terms you speak of(producing art for artistic success rather than financial success), I can agree, France's entertainment industry is superior, though "idealistic" seems to be a better choice of words in my mind.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 425
I'm Brian Fellow! 400+ posts
|
|
I'm Brian Fellow! 400+ posts
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 425 |
I cant understand French people. It's like they don't know how to talk, that's crazy!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/14/60minutes/rooney/main540729.shtmlFrance's Unpaid DebtNEW YORK, Feb. 16, 2003 You can't beat the French when it comes to food, fashion, wine or perfume, but they lost their license to have an opinion on world affairs years ago. They may even be selling stuff to Iraq and don't want to hurt business. The French are simply not reliable partners in a world where the good people in it ought to be working together. Americans may come off as international jerks sometimes but we're usually trying to do the right thing. The French lost WW II to the Germans in about 20 minutes. Along with the British, we got into the war and had about 150,000 guys killed getting their country back for them. We fought all across France, and the Germans finally surrendered in a French schoolhouse. You'd think that school building in Reims would be a great tourist attraction but it isn't. The French seem embarrassed by it. They don't want to call attention to the fact that we freed them from German occupation. I heard Steven Spielberg say the French wouldn't even let him film the D-Day scenes in “Saving Private Ryan” on the Normandy beaches. They want people to forget the price we paid getting their country back for them. Americans have a right to protest going to war with Iraq. The French do not. They owe us the independence they flaunt in our face at the U.N. I went into Paris with American troops the day we liberated it, Aug. 25, 1944. It was one of the great days in the history of the world. French women showered American soldiers with kisses, at the very least. The next day, the pompous Charles de Gaulle marched down the mile long Champs Elysee to the Place de la Concorde as if he had liberated France himself. I was there, squeezed in among a hundred tanks we'd given the Free French Army that we brought in with us. Suddenly there were sniper shots from the top of a building. Thousands of Frenchmen who had come to see de Gaulle scrambled to get under something. I got under an Army truck myself. The tank gunners opened fire on the building where the shots had come from, firing mindlessly at nothing. It was a wild scene that lasted, maybe, 10 minutes. When we go to Paris every couple of years now, I rent a car. I drive around the Place de la Concorde and when some French driver blows his horn for me to get out of his way, I just smile and say to myself, "Go ahead, Pierre. Be my guest. I know something about this very place you'll never know." The French have not earned their right to oppose President Bush's plans to attack Iraq. On the other hand, I have. © MMIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
More bullshit anti-French rhetoric. Its tiresome. "They won't play ball!"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
But they did invent croissants.....
and VD....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 545
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 545 |
yep, yah gotta love those french bastards. can yah hear me baby!???
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
The South China Morning Post had an editorial this morning specualting that it is France and Germany's frsutration with unilateralism which is the cause of their opposition to an invasion of Iraq.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
Dave, it could be that France, Germany, Russia and China all have trade agreements with Iraq of one kind or another...legal or illegal...
Ya think???
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
Or it could just be that its democracy in action. Voters don't want a war. Voters decide elections. Politicians want to keep voters on side. Politicians oppose a war.
Make more straightforward than scraping around for contracts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 425
I'm Brian Fellow! 400+ posts
|
|
I'm Brian Fellow! 400+ posts
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 425 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826 |
quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
I think the "we saved your ass in ww2" mentality is absurd, and if anyone is in debt, it's the U.S, both figuratively(the Revolutionary War) and literally(the Louisiana Purchase).
yet no one claims a debt to mother africa for sprouting life
even if yer statements above panned out, the "in debt" ideal, i believe, has to do with time -- specifically lifetimes. anyone alive during the revolution and/or the louisiana purchase is now long gone; a memory swallowed by history. conversely, there are quite a large (allbeit diminishing) number of americans who actively took place in the "ass saving" of france -- an event as recent and modern as color tv.
similarly, there are a decent number of living frenchmen whose asses have been saved by said americans.
thus, the notion of a debt.
(not the idea that something was done only to receive something in return... but more so the "how could you have forgotten what was done for you" mentality)
quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
That all being said, the French are jackasses. End of story.
ill buy that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,016
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,016 |
Zod ate some Freedom Fries today! Much tastier than French Fries. ![[biiiig grin]](images/icons/grin.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826 |
that was actually gonna be my first in-the-morning post :)
believe it or not, tons o'resteraunts (non-chain) in the metro area over here have changed the name of their fries from french to freedom.
crossing it out on the menu, printing up new menus, even big signs on the door "now serving freedom fries" -- its actually pretty funny (and please, no unnecessary comments on how the french were not involved with the fried potato stick)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
We call them "chips", or "hot chips".
This is quite amazing though. A change in cultural history right before our eyes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,016
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,016 |
Zod will have some Freedom Bread for breakfast!
And then will practice his musical talent on a Freedom Horn!
And later Zod will give his Freedom Whore a Freedom Kiss!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
And what about your Freedom Letters?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 545
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 545 |
It's funny. The French now say they want more information concerning Iraq. The last time they did this it rolled through France with a German flag on it. hehehehehehehehehehehehe
[ 02-21-2003, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Lesbo ]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205
fudge 4000+ posts
|
|
fudge 4000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205 |
Let´s start a "We hate France Club"
I must say that I do not like the French people and France itself, this said I hasten to add that I have nothing against individuals, except fanatics who continue to claim that their nation, religion or culture is the greatest in the world.
With nations there are more factors than just economy, military power and political influence
One of them is a nations space program, where the USA holds absolute power!!! except that the European Space agency is currently developing a system called Galilei (is that spelled correctly?) which will render GPS absolete!!!
But the USA holds absolute power in this field!!!
There are other things which I won´t start describing now regarding nations!!
Religion, the greatest religion in the world, no such thing exists!!! religion is a purely personal matter and to each individual, his and her´s religion is the greatest!!!
Culture, well, american culture may impose itself on other nations, but it will never surpass the individual nations core culture if you take my meaning.
And to claim that American culture is the dominant in the world, well, America is the dominant nation in the world. And besides, a part of the american culture is based on stupidity (no offence, but its true) Your freedom, your freedom to anything you want, your freedom to sue fastfood chains because the food is fat! your freedom to sue people whose bags you trip because you yourself doesn´t keep an eye on where you put your feet!!!
C´mon people, you have to admit that many of the lawsuits going on in your nation is sheer stupidity, well, there may not be that many, I could be exaggeration a little, or a lot.
But it is stupid, and a complete and utter waste of time and resources!!
One could also account the greatness of a nation as to how much your people is proud of it, and I now for a fact that the people of the US is not the winner here!!!
...........I´m beginning to forget what we´re discussing here!!!
I´m getting dizzy!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205
fudge 4000+ posts
|
|
fudge 4000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205 |
quote:
Originally posted by Cowgirl Jack:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/14/60minutes/rooney/main540729.shtml
France's Unpaid Debt
NEW YORK, Feb. 16, 2003
You can't beat the French when it comes to food, fashion, wine or perfume, but they lost their license to have an opinion on world affairs years ago. They may even be selling stuff to Iraq and don't want to hurt business.
The French are simply not reliable partners in a world where the good people in it ought to be working together. Americans may come off as international jerks sometimes but we're usually trying to do the right thing.
The French lost WW II to the Germans in about 20 minutes. Along with the British, we got into the war and had about 150,000 guys killed getting their country back for them. We fought all across France, and the Germans finally surrendered in a French schoolhouse.
You'd think that school building in Reims would be a great tourist attraction but it isn't. The French seem embarrassed by it. They don't want to call attention to the fact that we freed them from German occupation.
I heard Steven Spielberg say the French wouldn't even let him film the D-Day scenes in “Saving Private Ryan” on the Normandy beaches. They want people to forget the price we paid getting their country back for them.
Americans have a right to protest going to war with Iraq. The French do not. They owe us the independence they flaunt in our face at the U.N.
I went into Paris with American troops the day we liberated it, Aug. 25, 1944. It was one of the great days in the history of the world.
French women showered American soldiers with kisses, at the very least. The next day, the pompous Charles de Gaulle marched down the mile long Champs Elysee to the Place de la Concorde as if he had liberated France himself. I was there, squeezed in among a hundred tanks we'd given the Free French Army that we brought in with us.
Suddenly there were sniper shots from the top of a building. Thousands of Frenchmen who had come to see de Gaulle scrambled to get under something. I got under an Army truck myself. The tank gunners opened fire on the building where the shots had come from, firing mindlessly at nothing. It was a wild scene that lasted, maybe, 10 minutes.
When we go to Paris every couple of years now, I rent a car. I drive around the Place de la Concorde and when some French driver blows his horn for me to get out of his way, I just smile and say to myself, "Go ahead, Pierre. Be my guest. I know something about this very place you'll never know."
The French have not earned their right to oppose President Bush's plans to attack Iraq.
On the other hand, I have.
© MMIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
I don´t like France, heh, I don´t like Sweden, except all it´s hot girls, but I have to take France´s side in this.
The French owe America it´s independance, it´s true that they were liberated by the US and Great Britain, but that argument is perhaps the most pathetic statement I have ever heard, it rivals the Israeli claim that Israel should special privilieges because the Jews was the hardest hit by the Nazi´s. It happened over sixty years ago, it should´nt be a factor anymore, it´s....I don´t know what it is save it isn´t right!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205
fudge 4000+ posts
|
|
fudge 4000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205 |
wait wait wait.......
America declared war on "der dritten Reich" (Nazi Germany)
and when you declare war it is your intent to crush all enemy opposition, and Nazi germany would be hard to crush if the allied nations had just walked around and completly ignored France, they had to throw the Nazis out of France, they had no choice!!!
It was a means to an end, and besides, I don´t think that the leaders of the allied nations at that time decided to liberate France solely for the reason that France would be indebted to them, I don´t think that was even thought of!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826 |
like i said in my post from last week, the idea of the debt is not so much that "we saved you, now you have to help us" ... it wasn't that the US did something for the intent of expecting a favor in return later on.
the "debt" idea comes up because france should remember what was done for them -- not the US. there are frenchmen, alive today, that should remember being taken over by a dictator, and then being set free by still-living americans.
thus, these still-alive frenchmen should remember what dictators like hitler or saddam are actually like, and what their potential is. vividly.
france's recent resistance to help a fellow-NATO country like turkey is horrific and sad, considering how similar their situation was, not all that long ago.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 545
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 545 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
You should be at work..you're not french..you don't get to take 3 months off for vacation...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
quote:
Originally posted by Chant:
The French owe America it´s independance, it´s true that they were liberated by the US and Great Britain, but that argument is perhaps the most pathetic statement I have ever heard...It happened over sixty years ago, it should´nt be a factor anymore...
Good point...but this isn't the only reason. Let me clarify why I posted this. The French argue that war never solved anything. That's hypocritical. It took military action to liberate them...and the French would rather forget that. That's why the 'We saved their butts in WWII' has any merit. It serves as a reminder the sometimes, you have to get your hands dirty. Not as a 'You owe us for saving your butt' arguement.
WWII did not serve as the only example of the US aiding France. They helped in WWI. I mean, people, good people died in some faraway country to defend freedom. We also aided France after the war and rebuilt there economy. And we acted as a shield during the Cold War.
And after all this help, the French look down on us at any opportunity.
The French consider themselves our moral superiors. Never mind the fact that they (the French leaders, there is a large population of the French that I have no issues with) have been dealing with Iraq and oppose the war due to the money they'll lose.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
Whereas the French view this as a war because of the amount of money the US leadership will gain.
Time magazine of 2 weeks ago pointed out that Halliburton is one of the oil companies likely to make a windfall profit out of this invasion. And we all know who worked as a director for Halliburton, right?
Which is why the US is pushing for a UN resolution to legitimise this invasion, otherwise it looks like a grab for oil (Time showed a photo of a woman in Germany with a placard - "Bomb Texas -they have oil too").
The US leadership says a failure of the Security Council to back its previous resolution makes the UN look weak: but in fact elsewhere in the world it makes the UN look strong but not being a tool of American foreign policy.
France is getting a lot of mileage out of this in regions where opposing American interests is a cool thing to do.
Personally, again, I think its the wrong stand to take, but its working for France.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826 |
and thats why i think france is a corrupt sunhumma bitch of a country:
if their source and focus of this argument is over american policy, rather than placing concern on iraqi evils or loss and poverty of innocents or security of a post 9-11 world, thats an injustice to society as a whole.
scrolling back in this nearly year-old thread, you can see how my original view point was more or less indifference towards france (which i hope helps point out im not just a blatant hater). but politically-motivated actions like this, from one of the more prominant (allbeit certainly fading) world power, are disturbing at best.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
Also, France isn't so much anti-war as pro-Saddam. They have 60 billion (I assume this was converted to American dollars, but someone might want to double-check that figure) in Iraq oil. If the US goes to war, there will be a regime change. And France will not get the 60 billion Saddam owes them. Chirac and Saddam have been buddies since 1974. He helped build a nuclear reactor that was destroyed in the early 80s.
In that case, it is Chirac, not the French, that the majority of anti-French sentiment needs to be redirected to. Chirac was acting on his own and separate from France's government. Valerie Giscard D'Estaing, the former French President, said that in 1994. When President D'Estaing found out about this deal, he ditched it. Chirac man is buddies with Saddam. If we win, he will be ruined. Politcally, and possible financially.
This is about anti-Americanism too. The French (at least, the loundest members of their country) hate America. They hate our wealth, and they hate our sucess. And it burns them to see that we are one of the stongest countries in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
I don't think most people really think about the States, anymore than I do unless I'm posting here.
Certainly would guess it doesn't "burn" them.
Does it burn you that China has the fastest growing economy in the world, the largest population, will host the next Olympics, etc etc? Doubt it: you probably don't even register it.
The rest of the world really isn't obsessed with the US. Honest.
France has its own culture and its own politics, enough to keep them busy, except when the French public perceives the US threatening to invade a sovereign state motivated by a desire to obtain oil.
As much as I'm in favour of an invasion on humanitarian grounds, it doesn't change the fact that the Bush administration is clearly and overwhelmingly motivated by a desire to control Iraqi oil fields.
So who is being principled and who is being greedy in all of this? Its a rhetorical question, because for all the intense French bashing in the US and the intense America bashing everywhere else in the world (which I personally am more exposed to), I'm not clear on anyone's motivations.
Whatever the motivation of the French leadership, the French people are opposed to a war because it means American weapons will rain death on innocent civilians. (Most Europeans agree with them.)
The American people are in favour of a war because of a security mentality brought about by 11 Sept. (and the Homeland security alert system, which must drive people nuts), and are bitching because the Europeans don't share the same sense of terror (setting aside the fact that Europeans have been dealing with terrorism much longer than the US).
I don't see the urge to disarm Iraq, but then I didn't have two skyscrapers blown up by terrorists, so I don't share that panic because I'm not in the US. I do clearly see an economic imperative more clearly from the US administration than the French (frankly, international bad debts are rarely recovered).
So overall, I prefer the European view of preservation of life than the American sense of "holy fuck lets do something quickly!" panic.
Obviously, above that, I favour disposing of a tyrant and installing a democracy, but I'm not stupid enough to think that this is not motivated by an oil grab. Watch those fuckers - Bush's friends - from oil companies post-invasion. They'll be like vultures on a fresh corpse.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
You didn't read what I just said about Chirac and oil, did you?
As far as China is concern...Castro made the comment that the country has become more capitalistic. Hahahaha...we 'evil' Americans are capitalistis too, you know. I don't care about the Olympics that much either. We have had the honor and the pleasure of hosting them before, and I have no objection if they host.
I am not in the state of panic as you describe. The US was attack. Now, call me crazy, but I thought the natural and common sense form of action would be to retaliate against those responsible?
And no, Bush is not 'clearly and overwhelmingly' going for oil. We have had so many opportunities to go for oil and get it cheap. No one could have possibly stopped us. Instead, our government (even some democrats), has sarificed the opportunity to get cheap oil.
Dave, our military is so advance, there will be minimal civilian casualties in this war. Have you heard about the 'Human-shields' over in Iraq right now. They went to go protect hospitals and the like from 'American attack'. Guess what? They're mad now because they've been placed (gasp) at military bases. But...they thought the 'evil' Americans were going to bomb the little orphans!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
quote:
Originally posted by Cowgirl Jack:
You didn't read what I just said about Chirac and oil, did you?
Actually I did, but I give it as much credence as I give earlier comments about German financial interests controlling the German government's agenda. The Germans must have been outraged by such a comment. (I don't know that for a fact as I haven't read about it.)
I admit the French are acting in a Gaullist tradition of seeing themselves (as the leader of Europe) as being a "natural" counterbalance to American influence, and that this is tainting their views, to their discredit. But talk of a French commerical conspiracy against a war sounds as kooky to me as Jack the Little Death's "Big Oil is responsible for 9/11" theory.
quote:
As far as China is concern...Castro made the comment that the country has become more capitalistic. Hahahaha...we 'evil' Americans are capitalistis too, you know. I don't care about the Olympics that much either. We have had the honor and the pleasure of hosting them before, and I have no objection if they host.
But that's my point. No objection probably means you don't give a shit one way or the other. Now, apply that in reverse to the rest of the world and their thoughts on the US generally.
quote:
I am not in the state of panic as you describe. The US was attack. Now, call me crazy, but I thought the natural and common sense form of action would be to retaliate against those responsible?
Please let me know how you formed the conclusion Iraq was responsible for 11 Sept.
Please direct me to one credible link to confirm this.
The US did retaliate against al Qaeda, and with some success (setting aside the abyssmal failure of not neutralising Osama bin Laden). Al Qaeda and Iraq are not linked.
quote:
And no, Bush is not 'clearly and overwhelmingly' going for oil. We have had so many opportunities to go for oil and get it cheap.
When? The Gulf War? Bush I had no UN mandate to invade Iraq. He wanted to go further but could not. No other opportunities spring to mind. If you can think of any, let us know and I'll debate them with you.
quote:
No one could have possibly stopped us.
That sort of talk makes you sound like North Korea. Or perhaps just imperial.
quote:
Instead, our government (even some democrats), has sarificed the opportunity to get cheap oil.
Dave, our military is so advance, there will be minimal civilian casualties in this war.
We've discussed this before, and from memory you failed to rebut my comment that smart bombs cannot prevent the famine, infant mortality and disease that will follow an invasion.
I really respect the fact that the US military and policy-makers has sufficient humanitarian concern (a cynic would say an eye on the TV-watching voting public) to use smart bombs. But no amount of munitions will stop the predicted deaths from the destruction of public infrastructure.
quote:
Have you heard about the 'Human-shields' over in Iraq right now. They went to go protect hospitals and the like from 'American attack'. Guess what? They're mad now because they've been placed (gasp) at military bases. But...they thought the 'evil' Americans were going to bomb the little orphans!
I did hear about the human shields. I thought it was hopelessly naive. Of course Saddam is evil enough to use them on military targets (I specualted to my wife that instead Saddm would put ammo dumps next to hospitals protected by human shields).
The best way for people like that to help is to get jobs, instead of stupidly martyring themselves and letting themselves be manipulated, and donate to UNICEF, the Red Cross, and similar charities. (Which is what I will be doing when the war starts.)
As an aside, reading some of your posts in particular has been an intriguing insight into how some Americans view the hostility that much of the world regards the US.
Rather than taking the blame for decades of roughshod foreign policy (a bit unfair, perhaps, as the American people generally decided to ignore foreign policy and left it to their governments), it seems some Americans instead externalise the blame, attributing it to "jealousy". "It wasn't us, its them!"
I've no doubt at all some people in some parts of the world are jealous of the US (Jiang Zemin is in awe of US technology, and Arabs generally who think of themselves as morally superior to the West choke at the existing scenario of being lower down the military food chain).
But if you think its pure "jealousy", then you didn't pay attention to why 11 Sept happened.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
Re-reading this, rather than amend what I've written, I should add that I do appreciate your comments, Cowgirl Jack. Rob has told me before that I can sound snide, and I do get carried away with the slow venom drip.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205
fudge 4000+ posts
|
|
fudge 4000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205 |
quote:
Originally posted by Chant:
quote:
Originally posted by Cowgirl Jack:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/14/60minutes/rooney/main540729.shtml
France's Unpaid Debt
NEW YORK, Feb. 16, 2003
You can't beat the French when it comes to food, fashion, wine or perfume, but they lost their license to have an opinion on world affairs years ago. They may even be selling stuff to Iraq and don't want to hurt business.
The French are simply not reliable partners in a world where the good people in it ought to be working together. Americans may come off as international jerks sometimes but we're usually trying to do the right thing.
The French lost WW II to the Germans in about 20 minutes. Along with the British, we got into the war and had about 150,000 guys killed getting their country back for them. We fought all across France, and the Germans finally surrendered in a French schoolhouse.
You'd think that school building in Reims would be a great tourist attraction but it isn't. The French seem embarrassed by it. They don't want to call attention to the fact that we freed them from German occupation.
I heard Steven Spielberg say the French wouldn't even let him film the D-Day scenes in “Saving Private Ryan” on the Normandy beaches. They want people to forget the price we paid getting their country back for them.
Americans have a right to protest going to war with Iraq. The French do not. They owe us the independence they flaunt in our face at the U.N.
I went into Paris with American troops the day we liberated it, Aug. 25, 1944. It was one of the great days in the history of the world.
French women showered American soldiers with kisses, at the very least. The next day, the pompous Charles de Gaulle marched down the mile long Champs Elysee to the Place de la Concorde as if he had liberated France himself. I was there, squeezed in among a hundred tanks we'd given the Free French Army that we brought in with us.
Suddenly there were sniper shots from the top of a building. Thousands of Frenchmen who had come to see de Gaulle scrambled to get under something. I got under an Army truck myself. The tank gunners opened fire on the building where the shots had come from, firing mindlessly at nothing. It was a wild scene that lasted, maybe, 10 minutes.
When we go to Paris every couple of years now, I rent a car. I drive around the Place de la Concorde and when some French driver blows his horn for me to get out of his way, I just smile and say to myself, "Go ahead, Pierre. Be my guest. I know something about this very place you'll never know."
The French have not earned their right to oppose President Bush's plans to attack Iraq.
On the other hand, I have.
© MMIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
I don´t like France, heh, I don´t like Sweden, except all it´s hot girls, but I have to take France´s side in this.
The French owe America it´s independance, it´s true that they were liberated by the US and Great Britain, but that argument is perhaps the most pathetic statement I have ever heard, it rivals the Israeli claim that Israel should special privilieges because the Jews was the hardest hit by the Nazi´s. It happened over sixty years ago, it should´nt be a factor anymore, it´s....I don´t know what it is save it isn´t right!
I am, a little ashamed......
I have not yet read the response to this thread, but I must say in advance that I am sorry about this post, it was harsh, too harsh, but I lost my temper here as I was already angry "pissed off" by something entirely different, I just let my emotions got away.
But that does not change the fact that I find the idea of France not being entitled to their own opinion and that they have lost their right to oppose the US. in the Iraq matter preposterous!!!
America claims that it is the high and mighty guardian of democracy in the world and that it is the best example of a democratic nation in the world. And to then claim that another nation cannot express its opinion, or oppose America in any matter that goes against that nations interest......
There is only one word for this idea: Hypocrit!!!
All nations have the right to either side with, or against America, wheter indebted to America or not. If America claims otherwise it has lost its right to call itself the greatest guardian and example of democracy in the world!
I hope this cleared up a little of what I actually meant in my previous post?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205
fudge 4000+ posts
|
|
fudge 4000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205 |
"The French argue that war never solved anything. That's hypocritical."
Cowgirl Jack
------------------------
I´m with you on that, to the end!
I heard in the news today that a small Pizza house on a small island in Denmark has refused to serve Germans and Frenchmen because they oppose military action against Iraq, the American response to this (and yes, there was an American response) was a naval base in America ordering a Pizza to go!!
Fed-ex or UPS???
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
I heard the story too, Chant. I have the address to the pizza place and have been encouraged to send a thank-you letter! I find the entire thing quite funny. quote:
Re-reading this, rather than amend what I've written, I should add that I do appreciate your comments, Cowgirl Jack. Rob has told me before that I can sound snide, and I do get carried away with the slow venom drip. -- Dave
Hey, free speech is what it's all about. You have your opinion, I have mine. I tend to have a sarcastic tone, and I do a poor job of clarify the passages in which I am sarcastic (ex. the portion on China). I will try withhold the sarcasim if it continues to be a problem.
I'm also in an awkward position. I am only 18 and have only been given one opportunity to vote (which, I am proud to say, did participate in). That means that I have never seen Regan or Carter other than old men and JFK has always been dead to me. I was in elementary school when Former President Bush went into the gulf. In middle and early high school, the Clinton scandles errupted. My senior year in high school, we were attacked by terroriest in NYC and the Pentagon.
It is these events that have shaped my opinions. However, I think the past is very important (be it Roman culture or WWII airplanes) and I do my best to learn about the things that have affected my country. Considering how shity my high school history education was (except for US History--thank you Mr. Trojak) I am constantly trying to gather more information.
quote:
When? The Gulf War? Bush I had no UN mandate to invade Iraq. He wanted to go further but could not. No other opportunities spring to mind. If you can think of any, let us know and I'll debate them with you.
Like I said, I am new to being a student of history, but wasn't there a treaty where we were obligated to aid Kuwait? Either in the 40s or 50s, I'm not quite sure. And Former President Bush could not go foreward. This is one time I really have issues problems with him. There was some delima where Iraqi rebels of some sort (I'll try and look up more info saw it, I saw it on TV so I don't know where its written down) that were hoping for US aid, but Bush told the troops not to move because getting rid of Saddam was not one of the goals of the Gulf War. Those rebels were killed off while nearby American troops watched, horrified.
If anyone has any info on this, I'd be glad to hear it!
|
|
|
|
|
