lol Lola

The forums here typically leave threads to run on their own legs, however, I agree in locking and/or removing any threads that devolve from healthy discussion and debate to flames.

Elkay - your previous post sparked off a conversations that lead to much flaming, flames not necessarily created by you, but the result is the issue.

Whether your post was intended to spark discussion or flame is irrelevant to me - the thread in itself had lost its ability to be productive on these boards and was locked. No further explanation is needed.

1) the assault of there culture by american culture (this wording is missleading because the funny thing is, french is insecure about there culture and its ability to be changed by america even existing in its current form)

What is american culture? I will say that european countries are inundated with american fast-food chains and products, but how do you define your culture as something people would be afraid of being "converted by"? (this isn't a response, I'm actually interesting in knowing)

2) the fact that america is strong and french is week economicly and militarily (the hate the guy on top is bad syndrom)

France isn't particularly weak economically. *shrug* .. and on the military front .. I can't speak for france but I know that I don't envy the ability to wage war, not in the least. (french AND canadian, hah)


-Exit

A lot of people simply dislike France for the reason that it seems that, regardless of the past, they don't seem to take any action. Hell, I'm not anywhere close to a history expert - but on a rundown here, it seems France is the country to save, and the one to talk a problem to death until it smacks them in the face.

There is a lot of talk about the dangerous of pre-emptive action. But on the other side of the coin, how many times does it seem that we are a race bound by only reacting to disasters we could have prevented?

I am not arguing the case or the justification - as a reasonably skepticle person, I believe there is TS level information about both Iraq and our intentions that I am not aware of. If anyone is believing the press to come out of the US, or any country for that matter - well, what can I say? You are what you eat.

Does anyone have any real stats on military technology / numbers? We've got some major players, but in the event of a crisis demanding military power - what does France have? Canada? Isn't that the sum of what we have just keeping NYC in order? I bet there are more guns in NYC combined. What are the French going to use, cresaunt trebuchetes?

No one criticizes Germany because we know they are some mushroom cloud layin' muthafuckas, and we know Russian has some serious tools, but France - hell they might as well have a red carpet in their country labeled 'Invading Forces: Move your Armored Infantry Here, Goverment Building This Way (Quiet, Debate In Progress) ----->'

:D

OK, OK, so I poked some fun and made some jokes, but at what point will all of those politician stuck on their lofty perches of intellectualism debating going to find the world around themselves crumbling with no one to talk to anymore?

hehe .. well, france does have "Teh_BoMB" as it were.


-Exit

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Exitilus
France isn't particularly weak economically. *shrug* .. and on the military front .. I can't speak for france but I know that I don't envy the ability to wage war, not in the least.

---

lol... trying not mention anything about a white flag.. or 3... man our cultures are like black and... uh white... it semes

Edit: I find it hard to reconsile your statememt with my belief that WW2 happened exactly because of the belief's that go along with your above statement.

as for your other questions... I have heard some quotes from native's of france that leads me to think this. Not sure I could add much by going deeper... as I say I am not an expert on what are french reasons for anti-americanism.

What reasons for anti-americanism do french have that you beleive that is not rooted in envy, greed and insecurity... Or do you truly think french think america has truly and willfully fucked things up or is just plain evil.(if so please give some examples) (that is a reason that would not be rooted in envy, greed or insecurity)?

Honestly this is not a fair question because what motivates humans in general is envy, greed and insecurity so I have rigged the question by asking it.. still it would be interesty to see if you think that french have holyer than thou reasons for anti-americanism (holyer that thou is what they accuse us of) or do you think french could admit that they are as flawed as we are and let by gone's be by gone's

Say what you want about the various foreign policies..

We get called the 'ugly american' because we don't, in general, try to learn about other cultures, especially when we travel abroad. This would piss be off too BTW.

The French on the other hand, have a reputation for being rude to foreigners in general. In fact.. I was once told "The French don't hate Americans.. they hate everyone, including themselves" by a friend of mine who is in fact.. French.

Stereotypes, as much as we hate them and denounce them, DO have some basis in fact. Otherwise.. they wouldn't evolve into stereotypes.

France and Germany boycotting American goods does what exactly? Do they think that somehow we'll say "OMG.. the French and Germans aren't buying Coca Cola!! STOP THE WAR NOW!!"

The sooner the respective countries realize that quite honestly neither gives 2 shits what the others think of them and moves on.. the better off we'll all be.

As for the WW1 & WW2 issues, let's take a hard look at what happened. Keep in mind these timelines are VERY generalistic and not specific in any way. In both cases.. Germany attacked France (and other parts of Europe) in an attempted land grab basically. In WW1 we were reluctant to assist in a large scale, but did so to stop an act of aggression by the people who assisted us in our time of need some 125 years earlier. In WW2, it was again initially with reluctance that we helped until WE got attacked and then basically it was "Oh yeah? Fuck with us will you" and the gloves came off and we went into full motion, kicked the crap out of Hitler's Nazi regime and booted their ass out of France. In WW1, France didn't exactly roll over and play dead. In WW2, I think they were just overwhelmed by the speed and ferocity of the German attack. Regardless.. the major difference between the 2 conflicts is.. we have people who were alive during WW2, fought during WW2, watched their friends die in France during WW2 who are now at least in part in the power structure of the USA now who are saying "UH.. WTF? over.." It's OK that we went and spilled our blood to give you back your country and now you won't stand united with us in this struggle? What's worse is it seems more and more likely that the reasoning behind this attitude is purely economically based, along with a healthy does of covering your ass for breaking UN trade embargoes. So again.. people are saying "uh.. WTF?" and all the French government is doing is basically thumbing their noses at us.

When you compare the actions of France, with the actions of Great Britain, you see a vastly different recollection and rememberance of what the USA has done for them in their time of need. What I find most telling of this tale is the fact that the British recognize and remember what we've done for them, IN SPITE of the fact that we separated, fought with, and beat them in our war of independance.

As for Germany? Fuck if I know what their problem is.. but I do know there has been resentment of US military forces in Germany for a long time now. Guess that's the price you pay for stepping on your dick twice in less than 50 years.

Quote:

---

The French on the other hand, have a reputation for being rude to foreigners in general. In fact.. I was once told "The French don't hate Americans.. they hate everyone, including themselves" by a friend of mine who is in fact.. French.

---

Well, if he's from france, he probably has a step up on me in that respect - I've only spent a few summers there, visiting family and whatnot. I speak french with an accent and am obviously not a resident - yet I have never been shown any hostility whatsoever. From what I've heard, completely heresay, the french aren't too nice to americans in general, but are warm to many other groups. (or, atleast not cold to)

Quote:

---

What reasons for anti-americanism do french have that you beleive that is not rooted in envy, greed and insecurity... Or do you truly think french think america has truly and willfully fucked things up or is just plain evil.(if so please give some examples) (that is a reason that would not be rooted in envy, greed or insecurity)?

---

The french are very proud of their history - as are americans - and the history of the two countries are rooted in very different events. France prides itself on being cool (in the calm sense), calculating, and I suppose a bit in its snobbery. The united states seems to pride itself in its freedoms and economic / military dominance. (the three areas are surely tied together) I do suppose there must be some remenants of envy, as europe is likely still reeling from no longer being the world's power-center, but am not sure that's as dominant as in generations past - those who actually witnesses more of the decline.

Quote:

---

The sooner the respective countries realize that quite honestly neither gives 2 shits what the others think of them and moves on.. the better off we'll all be.

---

Agreed.


-Exit

In the locked thread, I think it was Vin that posted them, there are two very good articles about the differences between the US and France and their cultures. Pretty good reading, if you haven't read them, they are worth a look.

Exitilus, I guess from your posts that you're a french canadian? likely living in Quebec? Just to take this little quote from your post...

"US: We want to go to war, for X reasons.
France: We don't find your reasons convincing, we won't support your war.
US: Please?
France: No, we said that already.
US: Pretty please?
France: No!
US: You suck, you cheese eating surrender monkeys!"

Sounds vastly familiar to this :

Quebec government: We want to take a referendum to leave the country and form our own country!
Results: no.

Quebec government: Please? Let's try a second referendum!
Results: NO

Quebec government: Pretty please? how about a third referendum??
Results: HELL No and if you try it again the referendum goes nation wide!
Quebec government: Wahhh


And in response to saying France ows the US, or allies in general, nothing? Nothing? You know, WW2 may have been over 50 years ago, in a world much different than todays... but by saying that France owes the other allies nothing, is a HUGE disrespect to all the soldiers that did die. And it was you who was just preaching to not disrespect them. They may have died over 50 years ago, but they died for France. So yeah, they owe them something.

Nah, I actually live in ontario. And yeah, the connection between the two situations is funny, haha. I'm not "french-canadian" as it's generally understood - my mother is came from france in her early 20s, thus being where I got my citizenship from.

Quote:

---

And in response to saying France ows the US, or allies in general, nothing? Nothing? You know, WW2 may have been over 50 years ago, in a world much different than todays... but by saying that France owes the other allies nothing, is a HUGE disrespect to all the soldiers that did die. And it was you who was just preaching to not disrespect them. They may have died over 50 years ago, but they died for France. So yeah, they owe them something.

---

But that's the thing - they didn't die for france, they died for europe. If anything, the germans are the people horribly in debt to the allies/united states. The french, british, and whomever else owe the united states thanks, but they surely don't owe them political favours that would go against the wishes of the general european populace. The united states fancies themselves the international bastion of democracy - that isn't too consistent with them pressuring international leaders to bow to the wishes of the AMERICAN public regardless of what their own citizens want.


-Exit

Ramblings of a low int shaman......

FDR was opposed to the war and was elected, in part, because of his stance not to involve the US with the European conflict. And the US would not have been directly involved in WWII at all had the Japanese not bombed Pearl Harbor. The US then declared war on Japan (but not Germany). Three days after Pearl Harbor the Germans declared war on the United States mainly because of the treaty between Japan and Germany (your enemy is my enemy type of thing).

ENGLAND and France tried diplomacy with Germany before WWII for sometime. It wasn't until Germany invaded Poland that England and France took military action (which basically amounted to France telling England to "Go get him"). Main reason for this was that England had a treaty with Poland that stated England would come to the aid of Poland if they were attacked.

Fast forward....

France is the one everyone picks on because they are the ones that are seen as leading the "No" vote side. Russia and China may be as vocal now but they are seen as following France's lead. The same way everyone points at the US rather than England or Spain.

The issue to re-start the conflict was more of an issue of timing more than anything else. Remember Reso 1441 was signed by EVERYONE and stated that they ALL thought Iraq currently has chemical and bio-weapons. France, Russia and China (and yes, Germany) had a resolution that would have supported military action AFTER giving the inspectors time to do their work (never went to vote). BUT, the timing of the military action would have be at the height of the summer. The Coailation forces wanted to go now, everyone else wanted to go later. France, Russia and China would NOT have sent troops that would have been on the front line so why would they care when the military action starts, right?

The United States felt that 16 (yes, SIXTEEN) resolutions over the last 12 years asking Iraq to disarm was a tad bit much. Especially seeing that Iraq ignored every single one of them.

People seem to have forgotten that we have all (including Russia, France, etc...) been at war for the last 12-years with Iraq. A cease-fire doesn't equal a Peace Treaty. Same goes for North Korea. We have a cease-fire, not a peace treaty there as well. So yes, the United States has been at war for the last 50-years (well, through the United Nations anyway).

Funny that when President Clinton sent troops in THREE times without asking for UN approval, no one seemed to care and the UN eventually sent troops for support (Bosnia, Kosovo and Somaliea(sp)). But this leads to....

Bush lost most of his support from the European allies long before 9/11. Pulling out of atleast FIVE treaties within the first month of office kinda pissed people off. That whole "kiss me before you fuck me" thing.

Of all the heads of states, I think I like Tony Blair the most. The man stood up for what he felt was the absolute most important and correct decision and never once faultered. I think that if he is that commited to this cause despite that kind of pressure, there has to be other things going on that he (and Bush) feel that they cannot reveal until after the conflict is over.

I can see and understand that there are a LOT of things we, the general public, will NEVER know and that the United States and England *may* have information that they cannot release to anyone because it could jeopordize future operations. (We have a guy on the inside and if we tell you everything we know then Saddam will know we have a guy on the inside since only 10 people in the world are suppose to know where they keep their weapons type of thing.)

While I am not a Bush fan (yes I'm from Texas and I'm still not fond of him), I do support going in NOW.

I really don't think Bush will win in 2004, so it'll be interesting to see what happens in Janurary 2005.

I have more but it's lunch time =)

"Nah, I actually live in ontario. And yeah, the connection between the two situations is funny, haha. I'm not "french-canadian" as it's generally understood - my mother is came from france in her early 20s, thus being where I got my citizenship from."

Oh well. :( It was still a pretty funny joke though!

I'm not saying that France or anyone should just automatically go along with US and britain etc like puppets because of WW2, that's a very big stretch. But the opposite side of the coin, saying that none of it meant anything and that they owe them nothing, is also quite a stretch. And believe me, there's is NO government opposing the war I'm more disappointed in than my own. Canada will have to suffer the backlash from this mistake long after the freak is out of office.

Forty : very nice post, not bad for an old bear. ;)

I couldn't agree more with your opinion of Blair. He faced a public poll of over 50 percent of British opposing the war, and a revolt from his own party. Yet he stuck to his guns and did what he felt was proper. Oddly, all recent polls in Britain are now showing a major swing in opinion. Now more than 50 percent of people polled there support the war. The exact same thing goes for Austrailia, their government also had an above 50 percent opposed, who are now showing above 50 percent supporting.

If a democrat gets elected in 2004, things will likely be as good as ever between the two countries.


-Exit

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Forty
Of all the heads of states, I think I like Tony Blair the most. The man stood up for what he felt was the absolute most important and correct decision and never once faultered. I think that if he is that commited to this cause despite that kind of pressure, there has to be other things going on that he (and Bush) feel that they cannot reveal until after the conflict is over.

---

Oh yeah.. Tony Blair is a man of conviction and I'm very impressed with him. He's given solid reasoning behind all his actions and decisions and had vigorous debate with parliament. In fact.. I'm very impressed with the British Parliament in this issue. They had heated debate going on until the action started and then said "OK.. time for debate is over.. We support our boys over there!"

Quote:

---

Funny that when President Clinton sent troops in THREE times without asking for UN approval, no one seemed to care and the UN eventually sent troops for support (Bosnia, Kosovo and Somaliea(sp)). But this leads to....

---

There's no oil involved in those places ;)



I feel a little bad about having poked a bit of fun at the french myself....however seeing as so many people are going back in time to WW2 and what France owes us maybe we should go a little further back and remember that if not for the French we would all likey be British citizens still. Awful lot of American towns named Lafayette...wonder who that's for =D. And American culture? Our culture is a conglomerate of all the cultures of the people who came here to found it in the first place. French, British, Spanish, African...etc. There's even a little Native American left :|

In a general sense I am for this war. The UN met and decided that certain rules needed to be followed for Saddam to remain in power. These conditions were not met and therefore action needs to be taken. That is the reason every country in the UN should have for supporting this war....not any old debts from the past real or imagined. I certainly dont feel France "owes" us anything for a war that happened almost 60 years ago that we didnt even get involved in until OUR interest were infringed upon. What they and every other country does owe is the moral fortitude to stand by their convictions. If conditions set by the UN are going to be allowed to go by the wayside then it certainly doesn't work the way it was intended. As Bush said(and I dont agree with much of the stuff he says or is told to say) and I am paraphrasing here...If we wait to act until our only recourse is a response that would be suicide. I couldn't agree more. On a personal note we as Americans have shown ourselves to be vulnerable to terrorist attack. Iraq doesn't have the military muscle to attack us in the open so that will definitely be the route that would be taken. On a general note, Saddam does have chemical and biological weapons. He has used chemical weapons against the Kurds. If we are to honor our obligations to the UN as all countries should then this is the same as an attack against us.

The biggest problem with enforcing UN regulations is that you have a room full of politicians with differing opinions. Recipe for a waste of time and very little accomplishment. Imagine if Hoss didn't have officers to make some semblance of a plan for nightly raids...how much would get done? =D

The difference is that not getting a raid planned is of no real consequence. In the Iraqui problem....people will die. As in all wars no matter how justified the reasons, innocent people die as a result of the power struggle amongst the leaders. There are a lot of Iraqui soldiers over there that are fighting the "evil americans" because that is what they are taught....kinda like we have people here talking about the French without any practical experience.

Debating differing opinions is all well and good...but people are people the world over. I guess I just hope that this war is over soon....Saddam is ousted...and not too many people have to die.


Will probobly come back and read this later and wonder wtf I was babbling on about :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Buazag Bonesteel
There's no oil involved in those places ;)

---

Actually that's not true. There was a disputed pipeline issue. I haven't had much time to research this or I'd post a link but I'm sure the information is out there.

But an otherwise great post Buaz ;) I'm not sure that I agree with all of it but I appreciate the thoughtful honesty that went into it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Buazag Bonesteel
There's even a little Native American left :|

---

Yeah, I'm still here contributing my 1/4 Chiricahua, 1/4 German, 1/4 Croatian, 1/4 English .02 to the culture. :p

Nevermind that France wanted nothing to do with getting rid of Saddam and wants everything to do with rebuilding Iraq after Saddam. Here's the kicker: France says Britain and the U.S. should not have a role -- it's up to the United Nations to decide.

So -- France offered not one soldier, not one plane, tank or ship, convoy or grenade. Not one missile. Not one drop of blood. Yet, France is going to decide the new Iraq?

Heh, I don't think so.

I don't know what amazes me more: How callous the French are, or how arrogant they are. People are still dying in Iraq and they are already tripping over their corpses to cash in on Iraq?

France couldn't lift a rifle to help us, but is more than willing to go for a few of their precious Euros to screw us?

We fight and die to free a people whose suffering you more than happily ignored. They saunter in to set up shop so that they can merrily profit?

France schemes to sell brie, after we've given blood?

France plots business storms, while our guys are choking in sandstorms?

France notifies the world they're ready to do deals, while we have servicemen in this country notifying families of killed soldiers they're ready to do funerals?

What the French lack in guts, they more than make up for in nerve.

France wouldn't help the Iraqi people when they needed rescuing, but is more than willing to dive in and take the money because maybe France needs rescuing.

The French are as morally bankrupt as I hope soon they will be financially bankrupt.

Pity the poor country that calls you a friend and realizes the hand it's holding, is only digging for spare change. It makes me sick.

Hummm well might be me but there is no huge anti-US movement in france.
At least i dont feel it nothing on tv or in medias telling us to boycott or kill any US peep we see in the street

I mean am not gonna hold a grudge toward 250M americans nor stop drinking coke just because their countries foreign policy is against the one from my country.

Am against war like most french are, france started to quiet down toward wars since ww1 thats pretty much the reason of hitler rising and ww2. French ppl didnt react because they didnt want to get involved in another conflict.

Am not a political expert nor even that good at history so wont try to go in details .

Something tho i find quite amusing is that people who were shocked by the atrocities of the NY attentats can support the bombing of cities cus in the end the result is the same
Innocent civilians die along with some tactical/political targets.
Remember the paranoia you guys faced after the attentats ? now try imagine what ppl in irak feel atm during the night a bomb can hit there house they can wake up with half of there families dead or not wake up at all.
There is no clean war, wars kill ppl whatever happens wars kill innocent ppl and therefor there are anti war movements.

The day wars will just kill soldiers and building they will prolly get more support as they are to some extent a radical but fast way to solve conflicts.

Am not anti-american
nor specially pro-french
Am just some normal human beeing intending to live in peace

PS : always nice to see a bunch of fine political experts with huge history and economy backgrounds discuss world key issues on eq gaming forums

Yeah, I really like Tony Blair too. He is very well spoken and intelligent, yet he doesn't seem to dodge questions etc like other politicians do (or he is just better at it). I can't really put my finger on why, but I have a huge amount of respect for him. He deserves a ton of credit for having the balls to hop on the bull (the US) and trying to steer it's course towards a diplomatic solution. While that eventually failed, I respect him for trying.