Elidroth
03-26-2003, 12:25 PM
A french reporter asked Colin Powell why the USA wanted to occupy Iraq. Powell responded:
Following war, the only ground the USA has ever asked to occupy was that required to bury our dead.
I'm paraphrasing because I can't find the exact quote. What's becoming painfully clear is France is only objecting to protect their financial interests with the current Iraqi regime. Now that it's becoming very clear that regime's days are numbered, France is jumping on the 'rebuilding of Iraq' bandwagon. Their acts are not even thinly veiled.. they're just blatantly driven by their own monetary interests.
Strange how the 3 countries most vocally in opposition, who're supposed to be our allies are being revealed as having broken the UN trade embargos with Iraq. Russia selling GPS Jamming equipment (which didn't work by the way), Germany and France selling weapons and spare parts, and by the way purchasing oil at VERY nice prices.
Can't wait to see just how deep this trail goes when we get our hands on the documentation buried in Baghdad. Personally.. I think THIS is why these countries are so vehemently against the war on Iraq.. because they're trying to hide something.
Saztin
03-26-2003, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Exitilus
...
I'm not just pro-France - I hold French citizenship.
That's more than offensive - the way you're acting is part of the reason a band of terrorists slammed two innocent-filled passenger jets into the twin towers.
-Exit
So you justify killing thousands of civilians... good show Frenchie.
Saz, not a french hater...yet!
Exitilus
03-26-2003, 12:56 PM
I never said anything about moral justification.
Nothing justifies what happened in New York. I'm saying that the attitude displayed is likely related to why the americans aren't exactly on top of the international popularity scale. (neither are the french for that matter, but for vastly different reasons)
-Exit
Saztin
03-26-2003, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by Exitilus
(neither are the french for that matter, but for vastly different reasons)
-Exit
My thoughts exactly...
Those who live in a glass house shouldn't throw stones.
waright
03-26-2003, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Exitilus
I never said anything about moral justification.
Nothing justifies what happened in New York. I'm saying that the attitude displayed is likely related to why the americans aren't exactly on top of the international popularity scale. (neither are the french for that matter, but for vastly different reasons)
-Exit
americans aren't exactly on top of the inernational popularity scale becuase we are at the top of the standard of living scale. Some of the reasons why we are at the top of the standard of living scale are the same reasons why a lot of people in europe hate us (I find this a failing of europe not america). Why I think Bush should have had a different reason for going after Sadam in the public (namely Sadam's attempt to take out a former president) I find one thing evident. If France was the superpower of the world the world would be shit cause the french can only screw up and dont have and never had (in the last 80 years) any balls.
If france was in charge every nation would have nukes... since gosh they at least got paid in the process... I daresay if they could have built a nuke plant for hitler they would have... oh wait maybe the french have morals.. sadam has only killed like 10% (total guess) of the number of people that hitler killed so sadam is ok for the french to enable him to get nukes...
Edit: oh and yes america did also help sadam at times but at least we have the balls to say we screwed up and are going to try to fix the mess we helped to create.. france has no such moral capability in this reguard
Vinilaa
03-26-2003, 01:45 PM
If you are interested in an intellectual point of view:
©The News & Observer, Sunday, March 16, 2003
Like cats and dogs
Yves de la Querière, a French-born American, is an associate professor of French at UNC-CH.
THE N&O: As a French-born American, what is your take on the tension between the United States and France?
YVES DE LA QUERIÈRE: I'm used to all these ups and downs. It started in the 18th century during the War of Independence and has not stopped since. There has always been a big cultural misunderstanding on both sides. At least among people who are not highly educated and wordly, it's a cat and dog relationship. I like cats, I like dogs, but you cannot expect them to be together in an enclosed fence. That's against their nature.
THE N&O: How are we different?
DE LA QUERIÈRE: Americans like action. If there is something wrong, fix it, don't waste time discussing the origins of the problem and the consequences of what you are going to do. So they assemble all the tools they need and go to work. For instance, at the beginning of my stay in the United States, I was complaining about the lack of a good textbook for a French course. Someone said, "Why don't you write one?" I got a lesson in American thinking that day.
Of course, the problem with this is, it works for small, safe things such as writing the textbook you need. For bigger things such as war and peace, if the problem hasn't been correctly identified or is overstated, perhaps the quick fix will be worse than leaving things the way they are, or taking more time to find other solutions.
THE N&O: What do the French like?
DE LA QUERIÈRE: The French favor analysis first. And they love to discuss issues, compare ideas, etc. On the negative side, it might be said that they like discussion for its own sake. When you are in parties or social dinners in France, politics is not at all a taboo. People get into heated debates about it and find it fun. Here the French way is often perceived as all talk and no action. That's what some Americans blame the French for now.
THE N&O: Are there other differences?
DE LA QUERIÈRE:Americans like straight talkers. So President Bush is in tune with most of the nation, his image is largely positive, except among intellectuals. Many French people, not without exaggeration, see George W. Bush as a cowboy, a real-life John Wayne. It's fine in Western movies, they think, but the world is a much more complex place than the far West. They prefer more cultured statesmen, who are far more wordly and have a higher intellectual standing, like former President Clinton.
THE N&O: And how, in your opinion do Americans perceive the French?
DE LA QUERIÈRE: One good example is the exasperation some Americans show about the French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin. A big part of it comes from his opposing U.S. plans about Iraq, but it can also be said that his old-world name and demeanor have a lot to do with it. This official, whom the French see as a refined and efficent diplomat, might be perceived here at times as an effete snob.
THE N&O: You don't seem troubled by the current antagonism.
DE LA QUERIÈRE: A little bit, but not too much. In the near future the U.S might need France more than France needs the U.S.; the same can be said about Germany. It was the exact opposite during the Second World War and the Cold War. Contrary to what has been said here, the French won't forget the help they received. Now, for instance, when Defense Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld talks about the "new Europe" and calls France and others "old," he overlooks the fact that France's economy alone, if I am correct, weighs more than the combined economies of Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Bulgaria! So the French know very well that their money and efforts will be needed to rebuild Iraq because America alone -- and especially "New Europe" -- cannot do it. And they want to take part in a real discussion. Economic reality might achieve what heated words cannot.
THE N&O: Do you think one side or both is being unreasonable?
DE LA QUERIÈRE: I perceive a certain nervousness in some French circles about France's grand posturing at the U.N. There are people there who feel that France should keep a lower profile and remember that the U.S is a good friend. But I also perceive as unreasonable the insistence on the part of President Bush that Iraq is a direct threat to the United States. I understand this in political terms. Since he wants the alliance to come to the side of America, he has to prove that our country could be attacked any time by that country. But, in French eyes, he is pressing a case his administration completely failed to make. The French and most Europeans are totally unimpressed by Colin Powell holding up a vial of water and saying, "This is an example of Iraq's bioterrorism!"
THE N&O: What do the French need to understand about Americans?
DE LA QUERIÈRE: That their way of talking straight and shooting from the hip, like President Bush, is not necessarily offensive. I heard for instance that American business people are warned, when they go to France, not to start talking business first. There you start with small talk, warm up your counterparts and then come to serious matters. The French should understand that Americans are, well, American, and should not be expected to behave the French way. It is too easy to call "arrogant" a behavior you are not familiar with.
THE N&O: What do Americans need to understand about the French?
DE LA QUERIÈRE: First of all, these days, that for a foreign nation, being a friend of America does not necessarily mean agreeing with everything our president decides to do. "Either you are with us, or you're against" is not realistic, to say the least. In spite of the current dispute, the French are friends of the U.S. Go to France, talk (if you can) to ordinary people, and see for yourself.
More generally, Americans should understand that their way of life and their brand of democracy are only their own. That our institutions work very well here doesn't necessarily mean that other nations must copy them. And I am not sure that the more propserous nations of Europe (the so-called "old Europe") are very inclined today to blindly accept American "leadership."
THE N&O: If France blocks the U.N. resolution on war in Iraq, will there be long-range fallout?
DE LA QUERIÈRE: Unfortunately, I think so. Americans never forget anything. I'm afraid it will linger on for a long, long time. This is evidently not in either side's best interest.
©The News & Oberver, Sunday, March 16, 2003
Simmering Suspicion Now on Boil
Interview with K. Steven Vincent, professor of history at
N.C. State University who specializes in European history
THE N&O: Is this a new low in U.S.-French relations or just the latest chapter in a long, strained alliance?
K. STEVEN VINCENT: I think it is a new low. It grows out of deeply rooted historical differences, but things have changed in the last decade, and especially in the last couple of years, that have made this a more difficult relationship than ever.
THE N&O: What's the history?
VINCENT: It goes way back. During the Revolutionary period, there was a very deep, positive association between our two countries. The French, remember, fought on our side against the British. But already in the early 19th century, some ambivalence in French perceptions of America emerged. [French philosopher Alexis de] Tocqueville, for example, praised many things about American democracy, but he was disturbed, for example, by what he saw as the cultural mediocrity of this country and by the tendency to elevate pedestrian minds into political office.
Since World War II, this ambivalence has become more pronounced. Right after the war, there was a perception by French commentators that America had some repellent qualities in addition to its attractive ones. It was attractive because it was a savior of democracy and a beacon of liberty against totalitarian regimes. The French, in fact, are still immensely grateful for the actions of American servicemen in World War II. But very quickly, there was a fear that American power was overwhelming and that American materialism could overwhelm France's cultural landscape. [Writer] Louis Aragon lambasted America as a "civilization of bathtubs and Frigidaires." After the war, some of the ambivalence that was deeply rooted historically became elevated and more conscious. In many respects this was about French identity, less about America than about the French themselves.
There are deep cultural forces shaping French identity that make the French suspicious of some of the values that they see as central to American culture. When I think about French identity, I think about two themes. The first is Catholicism, which emphasizes power and poverty, not material wealth. The second is a political preference for either greatness and prestige -- I'm thinking of [the late Gen. Charles] de Gaulle here -- or for a compassionate solidarity, which is what the democratic left and the socialist left have historically represented. Many scholars have noted that French politics, historically, has alternated between these two.
The United States is seen to represent very different values. It represents modern values that many French live by but that are not valorized in their culture -- things like individualism, capitalism, rootless urban living, philistinism, the pursuit of material culture. The intellectual and spiritual values that have dominated French aspirations (as opposed to French reality) help explain the demonization of the United States. In the past decade, these deeply rooted suspicions have been joined by, or strongly reinforced by, a number of developments.
THE N&O: Such as?
VINCENT: There's a fear, first of all, of economic domination by the United States. This was particularly the case in the 1990s when the U.S. economy was booming, while in Europe there was double-digit unemployment and economies that were not so robust. Second, there is a fear of cultural domination. There is a fear that English is becoming the international language and that even the computer and Internet technologies are dominated by U.S. companies. Thirdly, there is a fear of military dominance by the United States. U.S. expenditures on the military and on weapons are so massive in both real and comparative terms that European influence is diminishing. So, I think, what happened in the 1990s was a growing anti-Americanism that drew on deeply rooted suspicions and ambivalence but was strongly reinforced by the kind of pre-eminence the United States was establishing economically, culturally and militarily.
That got things to a low simmer. These fears have been accentuated by two recent developments. The first is the diplomatic clumsiness of the current administration. When American leaders call heads of state "pygmies," label countries as "evil" and denigrate powerful European allies as irrelevant, you get a tremendous reaction, not just in France but everywhere in Europe. The brash and pugnacious style of the current administration has caused immense damage.
But what has really gotten anti-Americanism to a boil in Europe generally and France specifically is the sense that the U.S. administration is motivated by a new doctrine, this doctrine of pre-emption. I think many Americans underestimate the degree to which Europeans in general and the French in particular find this doctrine disturbing. They think it is na•ve to believe we can create democracy in unstable regions like the Middle East. And because they believe it's na•ve, they wonder if American action is motivated by imperial designs.
Traditional notions of defense of one's country were based upon defending oneself against attack, or in some cases against imminent attack. This is what pre-emptive strike used to mean. The current administration seems to be suggesting something different: If one believes that sometime in the future a nation could be dangerous to one's security, then one has the right to attack. It's the kind of justification for war that Germany used in 1914, when they claimed they were "encircled" by hostile powers. So, many people are troubled by this new policy of "pre-emptive" war.
THE N&O: How does the existence of the European alliance change the chemistry between the United States and France?
VINCENT: European governments, including the French, are concerned about their position in Europe in addition to global considerations, so certainly intra-European relationships are at play. Moreover, the French have always favored a strong Europe to counter the strength of the United States. So, undoubtedly, this is also a factor.
But when I try to think of why the Chirac government opposes an invasion of Iraq, a number of issues come to mind. Some of these are very practical. It is good constituent politics on the part of Chirac; with 80 percent of the French population opposing war, it is obviously a popular stance to take.
And there are clearly material interests involved. The French have a stake in Iraqi oil. The French oil giant TotalFinaElf has the largest position in Iraq, with exclusive negotiating rights to develop fields in the Majnoon and Bin Umar regions. This could all be brought into question by a U.S. invasion.
There are also French business interests in Iraq and potential military contracts. I think it is a mistake, however, to believe these very concrete interests are the whole story. To reduce the motives of the Chirac government to these interests would be to overlook what I think is really at the heart of it: the concern about the revolution in international relations that the United States seems to be pursuing; and the concern that a war will very likely create more instability in the region.
Exitilus
03-26-2003, 02:25 PM
Whether or not I acted maturely in response to the initial post aside, it was just inflamatory. Seriously, pictures of a graveyard - people who DIED defending their country. (as an aside .. why be so agressive? what is your *personal* reason?)
Thank you for posting those Vinilaa - realistically, that's the way the issues should be raised.
-Exit
Inizen
03-26-2003, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Exitilus
Thank you for posting those Vinilaa - realistically, that's the way the issues should be raised.
or i could smack you around and call you frenchie-lover =/
Karendra
03-26-2003, 02:37 PM
just send the fucking statue back to france while you are on it . Be consequent . i am realy tired about all this inflamiour bullshit wich is around all boards to bad it has reached ours now too. Be pro war or anti war or whatever i can live with that . a few GOOD and NEW jokes fine with me. but this fueling the hate because someone OMG disagreed !
make good arguements and not this total BS.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.