France issues 'please explain' to US

[LoneWolf]

What do you mean when you say "justified"? Justified in your political view?

[Ramo]

Yes. And again, why should their opposition over Iraq warrant trade barriers?

[LoneWolf]

Well, obviously, if you think they are right, and you do not have any loyalties above your own opinions, then no action would be justified.

So what are we doing here, jacking off?

[Ramo]

Let's say they were wrong for the moment. Then why would trade barriers be justified?

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I also have another firend who loves the USA, but she has many problems.

Unacceptable American bashing : even ordinary girl could love the USA.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Oh bull. Our political system isn't changing. It's the same as it ever was, and just like the rest of the democratic world.

It is changing, and is already quite different from western europe. Short list:
- role of money in campaigns
- institutionalised corruption in shaping policies
- fundamentalist influence
- extreme nationalist influence
- spoils system
- disfunctional media
- correcting function of the judiciary weakened
- much bigger role for character assassination

"It seems like you have already decided about us. The only thing that I'm trying to figure out is why you don't understand that we will have a bad taste in our mouths about it."

Well the Iraq episode has almost convinced me that America is a hopeless case. And I want all and every institutionalised political cooperation between Europe (EU, core EU, whoever goes along) and the US terminated. Why you would have a "bad taste", no idea. Maybe because you expect the whole world to love you?

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Yes, Antiamericanism is indeed deeper in France than in other countries , partly because France isn't powerful enough to do its messianic mission, and witnesses the US doing their messianic mission. Nobody can doubt antiamericanism is more significant in France than in other places in the West.

In the meantime, I doubt it. There is a massive negative opinion groundswell against America going on. From some polls and personal experience, I get the impression that the 80 or 90 % who are against Bush's policies are blurring into being against America as such.

[Whaleboy]

*Reading some posts on the last couple of pages*

The Americans view France as having hurt America (a flawed interpretation we all know, but still, many Americans hold that view), so America is going to hurt France back?

*** for tat, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Forgive me if I am missing something, but is that not destructive, irrational, emotional, and somewhat immatue?

Move on, get over it, and repair the damage done by Gulf War II, lets not prolong the pain, the wounds in international relations. I fail to see how that is doing anyone any good.

[Spiffor]

On topic :

This thread is about France asking for a smear campaign that is organized by the US government to stop. Whether these allegations are true or not are not the topic here, since nobnody knows what is going on in the Information section of the defense department.

My question is : IF the US government is actually promoting a smear campaign towards France, do you think it is OK, or do you think it should stop ?

[Worthingtons]

France tried to smear the US to the entire world by effectively making them go to war w/o UN resolution. So no, if the US govt is promoting it, then they are right to do so!
Cheers
Matt

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Rothy
France tried to smear the US to the entire world by effectively making them go to war w/o UN resolution.

Pesky french, forcing a war on Bush. Horrible.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Spiffor
On topic :

This thread is about France asking for a smear campaign that is organized by the US government to stop. Whether these allegations are true or not are not the topic here, since nobnody knows what is going on in the Information section of the defense department.

My question is : IF the US government is actually promoting a smear campaign towards France, do you think it is OK, or do you think it should stop ?

I think that the whole smear campaign is childish regardless of who is promoting it. People need to grow up. France has embarrased herself. She really doesn't need more help now. And, yes, I still eat french fries.

[Spiffor]

Lincoln :
I'm glad to see you are reasonable This whole thing should abate, and we should try (we personally at 'Poly) to stop it at a personal level

[Cruddy]

My angle on this "please explain" line is any dialogue is prefable to no dialogue.

Just sitting in your own corner and bad mouthing an ally (to anyone that will listen) that does something you don't like is a green light for further aggro.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


It trully amazes me that garbage threads like this (didn't start like this, but turned into one right quick) can last so long! The geenral bias, ignorance, prejudice, its all just so amazing!

They all seem to work the same way: a group of self-righteous rightwingers get themselves nicely worked up on an anti-french froth, then some fool thinks they can reason with these people, and then it just degrades from there. These threads are always the same, and they lead to the same end, nowhere. i guess if this is how people want to waste energy, well, its thier business.

And in the long span of history, this little spat will mean as much as the Fashoda affair. (hmmm, what was that?)

Sorry, GePap, I dropped out yesterday. But I have been trying to figure out why the French right became "anti-American." We all know why the French left (as well as most of the European left) is anti-American. But de Gaulle and Chirac both seem to have lead France down a path that is seriously anti-American.

Now, I proposed American anti-colonialism as a possible cause. However, one of the French posters here said that de Gaulle actually agreed with American anti-colonial policy. (Really?) What was French reaction when we sent our troops in to Vietnam in a major way? Did they see this as a noble effort to stop communism, or an American effort to take over IndoChina? If the latter, I can understand why de Gaulle would feel that the US had stabbed France in the back.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
- correcting function of the judiciary weakened

Eh?

And, yes, I still eat french fries

Wouldn't you rather eat Belgian fries considering that's where they originate? I have no idea how they came to be called french. Is french toast even french?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Odin
People should't be bashing France, they should be bashing Chirac, the hyper-nationalist Degaulle want-to-be, if the Frenchies knew how he helped Saddam with nukes The french army would be in Bagdad with us. We shoulden't be harrassing the French people with boycotts, just embarrass the crap out of Chirac.

Odin, I don't buy this. The people of France supported Chirac's position by a 90% favorable position. This means all of France supported Chirac, from the extreme left, to the center to the right. Perhaps the only people who did not support Chirac were some fringe group of French veterans of WWII who still like Americans.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap

Quote:

Well, we were\are under attack. Bush is responsible for preventing further attack. He gets to pick the plan and he will be responsible if it fails. That's just the way it works. So I don't know who is or isn't being rational. I just know that the system is working the way we planned it to.

There are just so many things to say about this comment, so many!

Lets begin: Iraq has 0 to do with 9/11, (attacking Iraq does nothing to weaken Al qaeda, the ones that carried out 9/11, as this week shows), except ina a round about way: the American people would support the pres. attacking anywhere if they thought it would somehow make them safe post 9/11: 9/11 gave the admin. the excuse they needed to carry out policies they had pre-planned but could not have pushed politically otherwise.

Iraq was, well, about Iraq, not 9/11. People who think Iraq is about 9/11 are overlooking some very BIG things along the way, and if they think attakcing Iraq will make us safer from Al qaeda, well, that is just another huge misconception.

GePap, do you totally discount the possibility that a hostile country that has bio-weapons and was developing nuclear weapons could give those weapons to a terrorist group to use in a clandestine attack?

This was the nut of Blair's argument, BTW.

FYI, the Brits believe the ricin that was used in the recent attacks in England came from the terrorist base in Eastern Iraq.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Our Foreign Minister is asking the US government to take steps so that its services stop giving false rumors to the media that will further hurt France's image.
At least, that's what I read in the article.

Even though nobody is happy here on the consistent degradation of France in the US media, our government isn't trying to shut the FOX up.

Spiffor, welcome to the world. The US media has a long history of uncovering the dirty on dirty politics. Right now, FOX and its allied media are on the warpath against the French. There is nothing the US government can do about it, and you should know that. de Villepin's thesis seem to be that the US government is behind FOX's assault. I really doubt that. But if you or anyone has any evidence that the US government has fed FOX false information about France, I may change my tune here.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Most US apologists in France come from the right, if not all of them. During the pre-war diplomatic crisis, former PM and influent advisor Alain Juppé suggested to tone down the opposition in order not to rip apart the transatlantic friendship.

However, it is true the right-wingers can be antiamerican to some extent, and this antiamericanism is the result of the clash of egoes between our two countries. Both France and USA are countries with universal values, i.e countries which know better.
And the typical antiamericanism in France comes from the fact we are pissed that the cowboys are now in charge rather than the rational and intelligent us (ok, I'm exaggerating ). More seriously, the American messianism bothers the left wingers like in most other left-wings in the world. And it pisses some right-wingers because it is not France which is doing the job.
There was a classical assumption in the wake of the French enlightenment that France was a special country which was lucky enough to host this enlightenment, and had to spread it around the world. At least, it was the ideological background behind the agressive wars waged by the Revolution and by Napoleon. This "Civilizing Mission" was also the ideological justification of the African colonization.

This messianism is a real trauma to me, as it has been a complete failure. The noble ideas behind spreading democracy and modernity to the world have been spoiled by megalomania, greed, and the ignorance of what the targeted populations wanted.
When I see Bush's US, I think they are doing exactly the same mistakes as 19th century's France. Exactly the same.

Spiffor, finally, an intelligent post.

So, in your terms, the French left sees French idealism and messianism as a colossal failure and opposes American idealism and messianism for the same reason. The French right still sees France in the role moving the world toward a better future. Thus their leading role in the formation of the European Union for example. They resent that America has taken over the leadership position in spreading "enlightened" civilization to a relatively uncivilized world.

But most French believe the new "cowboys" in charge of the American government are repeating the mistakes that the French and other Europeans made in the 19th and 20th centuries during their colonial periods. Is this a correct summary?

[Ned]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


It is changing, and is already quite different from western europe. Short list:
- role of money in campaigns
- institutionalised corruption in shaping policies
- fundamentalist influence
- extreme nationalist influence
- spoils system
- disfunctional media
- correcting function of the judiciary weakened
- much bigger role for character assassination

Except for the third item on your list, electing an honest politician has helped tremendously on reversing the decline of the '90s.

[HershOstropoler]

"Eh?"

Your SC is a political joke.

"Except for the third item on your list, electing an honest politician has helped tremendously on reversing the decline of the '90s."

You mean "would help".

[Whaleboy]

"France has embarrased herself", "France smeared the US to the whole world", other such quotes and conceptions are of course entirely subjective, as are the many counter arguments available to the US. They all boil down to a stalemate, a state of equilibrium in which no-one side is more correct than another.

Therefore, it is inprudent to use ones own subjective when dealing with anothers subjective. In that sense, one must seek an objective solution.

Penalising the French, or penalising the Americans, or the British, or the Germans, or the Russians, or indeed the entire UN (for whatever reason, that is irrelevant) for daring to defy the will of the US (boo hoo) is clearly not a reasonable solution. Be that via xenophobia, trade sanctions, or indeed entire trade wars.

The objective solution would be to "kiss and make up" so to speak. I repeat that I fail to see why punitive retaliatory measures do anyone any good. In these days of unstable economies, some aspects of the US and UK in recession, Europe doing little better, it is prudent to work together, cooperate, trade with each other, not antagonise each other.

Xenophobia, ignorance, patriotism and demonisation (among the people) have a nasty habit of turning into all out racism. In this day and age, it is the last thing we need. The USA have reasons for what they did, the French have reasons for what they did, both happen to disagree with each other (the reasons are not being discussed).

Respect the fact that each other have reasons and respect them, and get on with running your respective nations, without trying to outdo, attack or discriminate others.

[Sandman]

FYI, the Brits believe the ricin that was used in the recent attacks in England came from the terrorist base in Eastern Iraq.

What attacks?

[Ned]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"Eh?"

Your SC is a political joke.

"Except for the third item on your list, electing an honest politician has helped tremendously on reversing the decline of the '90s."

You mean "would help".

No actually, most Americans agree with your list. Many voted for Bush precisely to elect an honest politician. Gore lost almost solely because he was linked with the most corrupt and dishonest person who ever held the job as president. (Despite the fact that he did an good job, overall.)

[HershOstropoler]

Clinton may have been the most dishonest, but was his more corrupt than the Bush admin? Hard to tell.

The only difference may be that for Bush and co, ideology and corruption have converged.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sandman


What attacks?

A few months ago, IIRC. I can get you links if you really want them. However, you should know better than I abuot these attacks. What I heard, though, is that the Brits believed the ricin involved in those attacks was made in Iraq.

[HershOstropoler]

They found ricin that was supposedly planned to be used in an attack, IIRC.

As for the source, can't remember. Maybe Tony read that in a polsci master's thesis.

[Ned]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Clinton may have been the most dishonest, but was his more corrupt than the Bush admin? Hard to tell.

The only difference may be that for Bush and co, ideology and corruption have converged.

Well, HO, you may believe that every action that Bush takes is for a corrupt motive, but very few here in the US believe that. The ones that do appear to be politicians who have an interest in making the accusation without proof, and the extreme left who appear to actually believe it (and many other conspiracy theories) without proof.

There is no denying that Bush was elected in a time of peace and prosperity over the popular VP of a sitting president because of the massive corruption of the Clinton regime.

[HershOstropoler]

"Well, HO, you may believe that every action that Bush takes is for a corrupt motive"

Not every. As far as one can see, it is a mix of corruption and ideology. Also the decision making is broader, obviously.

I don't think the tax cuts are primatily bribes motivated. The awarding of contracts to Bechtel is either corruption or cronyism. Like all of Bush's business "career".