France issues 'please explain' to US - Page 6

Kidicious · May 17, 2003, 12:48

French,

This might help you understand the anti-French attitude in America. It wasn't that you were anti-war. It was that many of you were acting anti-American. We don't know if this attempt to stop the bashing is aimed at improving the relationship or pointing out that Americans hate the French. You were the ones who held street demonstrations where protestors held up anti-American slogans. As yet I don't know of any anti-French demonstrations.

You were against the war, fine. You should have left it at that. But you didn't, and complaining about us being a little insulted is suspect.

Spiffor · May 17, 2003, 12:52

Except in the partisan written media and one wide-audience program (Les Guignols de l'Info), I haven't seen any anti-Americanism in the French media, except in one occurence. Maybe I'm wrong, but please direct me to the smear campaigns towards the US organized by the French media. I'm curious.

Spiffor · May 17, 2003, 12:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious
French,

This might help you understand the anti-French attitude in America. It wasn't that you were anti-war.

Sorry, but I don't think so. When I see some anti-French extraordinaires such as Lancer and Walruskkkch, it appears the anti-French sentiment comes from the fact that 'we stabbed you in the back'

I can understand the Yanjs don't like our classical antiamericanism, which is real. However, this antiamericanism has had a very significant revival since Bush has been elected.
I remember, in highschool, nobody understood why I was 'anti-American', and I was kind of the school's freak. Nowadays, many people wonder why I'm not more extreme ?

Whaleboy · May 17, 2003, 13:02

Indeed, I was referring to the government and media policies. People are free to think and speak as they wish in Britain, France and (unfortunately now to a lesser extent due to the USA PATRIOT act [surveillance et al]) America.

There are people that dislike America in Britain, France, Russia, Germany, plenty of them in Iraq (believe me... its scary), and probably even some in America itself!

What is unAmerican behavior? What is American behavior? I always get concerned when a society starts definining specific behaviours that are somehow inherently "good", and a broader range of others that are inherently "bad", or in this case "unAmerican". In this context, that would mean the descriptions of some of the anti-war, anti-bush, environmentalist, and anti-capitalist protestors and their arguments, which seem to be perfectly valid elsewhere in the Western world.

America has a proud history of dissent, from the abolisionists to Martin Luther King. To suddenly brand dissent against the leaders and the majority opinion as somehow "unAmerican", is a fallacy, and somewhat ignorant.

HershOstropoler · May 17, 2003, 13:02

Spiffor:

Really odd, hmm? I get accused of anti-americanism on a regular basis on certain online forums, yet in real life conversations with people here, I usually try to put the brakes on other people's condemnation of America.

The Bushies are real PR geniusses.

Kidicious · May 17, 2003, 13:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Except in the partisan written media and one wide-audience program (Les Guignols de l'Info), I haven't seen any anti-Americanism in the French media, except in one occurence. Maybe I'm wrong, but please direct me to the smear campaigns towards the US organized by the French media. I'm curious.

I don't see a smear campaign in our media. Maybe it's because I have more reputable sources. I'm sure you could find it if you wanted to. There is a bit anti-French attitude by the Bush administration, but I don't think it is severe.

Kidicious · May 17, 2003, 13:22

Quote:

Originally posted by elijah
America has a proud history of dissent, from the abolisionists to Martin Luther King. To suddenly brand dissent against the leaders and the majority opinion as somehow "unAmerican", is a fallacy, and somewhat ignorant.

Sadly, that's not really the case. Sure we have had dissent in this country, but there has always been a negative reaction to it. Dissent has always been branded as unAmerican in this country.

DanS · May 17, 2003, 13:23

The French gov't is getting what it deserves. Actively working against the US and taking the side of a totalitarian dictatorship.

The French people should feel ashamed about France carrying a totalitarian dictator's water.

Whaleboy · May 17, 2003, 13:26

Kidicious: I studied extensively the media coverage of Gulf War II, its consequences and surrounding issues (like the France issue), and one thing become clear. Most of the American news stations, noteably CNN, ABC and Fox were highly biased towards America. The British media was more objective, the BBC was still biased towards the Americans and British, while Channel 4 (an independent news organisation "for the intelligentsia") seemed to be most objective.

The American networks were easily as biased towards America, as Al Jazeera was towards Iraq, although the latter had a much greater quality of analysis, and quantity of reports and sources on the ground. Much of the US news network material came direct from American government and army.

While there is no active anti-french attitude by Bush (if this was no so, he would have been made an international pariah more so than already), there is much passive anti-francism. The lack of condemnation of some of the faulty reporting (which was operating in US govt interests) is a clear example of this.

Unfortunately, I have to refute your piece about there being no "smear campaign". If you watched Fox news from late february until a couple of weeks ago, you would eat your words.

Not only is "dumbed down" media patronising and weak, it is downright dangerous, as the lack of analysis leaves it wide open to bias, which would otherwise be checked by reason.

Whaleboy · May 17, 2003, 13:30

Dissent was branded as unAmerican at the time, in the case of the abolishionists by those who would keep slavery. In the case of Martin Luther King, those who would keep the inequality of black people, groups like the KKK.

The establishment at the time dislikes dissent, but history judges it as an honourable and most American of things. Something I remember said "Without dissent, there is no America".

What would you suggest the alternative be, when people have a different view than the government? Blindly follow, not make an issue of it, leaving the running of the nation to politicians and businessmen with their own agenda. For the undesireable to triumph, good people must do nothing (that from the perspective of someone who sees the war as bad, but can be expanded to view as all dissent).

Jaakko · May 17, 2003, 13:32

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
The French gov't is getting what it deserves. Actively working against the US and taking the side of a totalitarian dictatorship.

"Taking the side of a totalitarian dictatorship?"

Accusations of that level require a bit more than a bald assertion.

As a smart man, I'm sure you understand that it's well possible to be against the US' recent actions regarding Iraq, yet not be on Saddam's side. Ends do not justify the means and all that.

So, let's hear your reasoning.

Whaleboy · May 17, 2003, 13:34

"The French gov't is getting what it deserves. Actively working against the US and taking the side of a totalitarian dictatorship."

Im sure the French will see it differently. Your view is no less subjective that the French, thus it should not be forced on the French. Unfortunately, forcing subjectives on equal subjectives seems to be an American trend in foreign policy of late, one that I would ideally like to see confined to the history books.

Actively working against the US?? What are you? The international policeman? Such vigilante/gangster mentality can only be bad, and I sincerely hope that it is only held by you. America is NOT holier than thou, it is NOT inherantly good (nor is any society), thus you should not regard it as such. It is merely a nation, a piece of paper.

Americans are human first, American second. In that respect, you are no different to the French.

Whaleboy · May 17, 2003, 13:36

France was never working for Saddam Hussein. There seems to be a perception that people who protest against the war, and take action against the war, are somehow supportive of Saddam Hussein.

I am a libertarian, I hate dictatorships more than most, and given the choice of Iraq and America, I would choose America. However, I do not believe that America would force its subjective view onto a no-less valid subjective. That is the major concern of many of the more intelligent anti-war protesters, we are not all loving Saddam Hussein. I believe the view to the contrary was very popular on some US news networks in the run up to Gulf War II.

DanS · May 17, 2003, 13:36

Jaakko: The French actively worked against the US on the issue. DeVillepin was in Africa rounding up opposition to us on an issue that we viewed as vital to our national interests.

France was carrying Saddam's water.

Ted Striker · May 17, 2003, 13:37

Part of that bias you are talking about comes from a deep set shared belief that all Americans have. One thing that Americans do during a crisis is to band together and stick together until the crisis is overwith.

Dissent is positive and welcome before any action is ever taken. THAT is the time for argument.

But once the President has made a decision, it's understood that there is no going back and that we all need to rally around until the crisis is overwith. When there are lives on the line it becomes counterproductive to start questioning life or death decisions that have already been made.

Pretty much everyone feels that way. Except for turncoat whores like Jane Fonda.

Ted Striker · May 17, 2003, 13:39

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Jaakko: The French actively worked against the US on the issue. DeVillepin was in Africa rounding up opposition to us on an issue that we viewed as vital to our national interests.

France was carrying Saddam's water.

Yup.

It's one thing to offer a different viewpoint but going actively against the US, and especially for a power play of all things.

Whaleboy · May 17, 2003, 13:42

Hardly. Part of free speech is that the time to speak and protest is down to the individual. If someone wishes to protest, or speak out at any event, at any time, then it is their perogative to do so, and if they fail in achieving what they want, then while outsiders may see their actions as counterproductive and irrelevant, many others will see it is honourable. Part of the mentality of protesting is the act of removing ones name (figuratively) from the events that one does not wish to be part of. That is in histories view.

There is no specific time for argument. If the protestors feel that their protesting will harm an action that they believe is wrong, then it is logical for them to protest.

DanS: You have failed to show how trying to stop the Americans from doing what they did, was "carrying Saddam's water".

badman · May 17, 2003, 13:43

I hate it that people can't be reasonable and seperate having different opinions from being friends.

Why is a country like France which has a long history of friendship towards the US suddenly no longer an ally just because they didn't back your war against Iraq?
I just don't get it...
Does being an ally of the US mean that one has to do everything the US tells one?

DanS · May 17, 2003, 13:45

The French knew what they were doing supported Saddam's dictatorship. Unless you believe the French to be fools...

DinoDoc · May 17, 2003, 13:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious
Sure we have had dissent in this country, but there has always been a negative reaction to it.

If it was popular, it wouldn't really be dissent.

Ted Striker · May 17, 2003, 13:45

Have you ever played any kind of team sport elijah?

The best coaches I have ever had will yell and scream and degrade our team all over the place in practice.

But when we have a big game, the coach will get real quiet and just let us play.

Whaleboy · May 17, 2003, 13:46

The belief that Americans should stick together in times of difficulty has no application to a large society. In this context, it becomes something of an analogy of lemmings, following their leaders of the precipice of patriotism, irrationality, ignorance, suppression of voice, and fundamentally, self-destruction.

Accusing the French of power-play is something of a hyprocracy when you consider that it was all the American foreign policy was doing during the time of neo-colonialism and globalisation (1945 - present). You have also failed to provide evidence for that.

Ted Striker · May 17, 2003, 13:47

Quote:

Originally posted by badman
I hate it that people can't be reasonable and seperate having different opinions from being friends.

Why is a country like France which has a long history of friendship towards the US suddenly no longer an ally just because they didn't back your war against Iraq?
I just don't get it...
Does being an ally of the US mean that one has to do everything the US tells one?

USA would have understood if France had said no.

But what people are angry about is that they actively worked against us in the same way that an enemy would.

DanS · May 17, 2003, 13:47

just because they didn't back your war against Iraq?

Please get it through your thick skulls. It's one thing to say you don't agree. It's quite another to send your foreign minister to round up support against it.

Whaleboy · May 17, 2003, 13:49

"The French knew what they were doing supported Saddam's dictatorship. Unless you believe the French to be fools... "

Then you are saying that I, and others that protested, with good intellectual, and libertarian (anti-saddam, but objective) reasons, are "stupid". Perhaps that childish insult could be extended to those who cannot understand others points of view

Team sport is hardly a good analogy for international relations. However, you have confirmed the "us and them" mentality that is prevalent among many who support this war. Ethnocentrism is no basis for international relations, it should stay on the rugby/football/cricket/hockey fields.

DanS · May 17, 2003, 13:50

Then you are saying

Don't put words in my mouth.

Ted Striker · May 17, 2003, 13:51

Quote:

Originally posted by elijah
The belief that Americans should stick together in times of difficulty has no application to a large society. In this context, it becomes something of an analogy of lemmings, following their leaders of the precipice of patriotism, irrationality, ignorance, suppression of voice, and fundamentally, self-destruction.

Accusing the French of power-play is something of a hyprocracy when you consider that it was all the American foreign policy was doing during the time of neo-colonialism and globalisation (1945 - present). You have also failed to provide evidence for that.

No. America didn't have to make a power play because we were already the #1 power anyway by 1945. Western Europe was decimated so USA filled in the rest of the vaccuum.

I don't think you've experienced teamwork, you would instinctivley know what I was talking about. And yes it does apply to the larger society. One of the reasons America kicked so much ass in WW2 was the cohesivness on the home front. People banned together and made sacrifices so we could keep the troops supplied. That made the war shorter and less bloody. If people had started dissented around 1943 after the US had committed, things would have been MUCH worse off.

Of course you are Libertarian so I know your views are to the extreme. Screw the government eh? They are stealing from you...

Whaleboy · May 17, 2003, 13:53

"Please get it through your thick skulls. It's one thing to say you don't agree. It's quite another to send your foreign minister to round up support against it."

You mean in the same way that the US bribed, bullied and blackmailed people to become part of the coalition of the "willing"? Look at Turkeys $1B dollar aid package, that was waved in front of them should they support the war.

If I was looking for international allies to support me verbally and economically against another who I disagreed with, I would do the same as the French and Americans (though in that latter case, using more moral means).

The actions of an enemy would be to form an alliance to go to war with one. The actions of a critic would be to find fellow voices. The French were doign nothing wrong when they did exactly the same as the Americans (ends not means of course)

"USA would have understood if France had said no."

So it understands the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese, and the millions who protested?

badman · May 17, 2003, 13:55

"Please get it through your thick skulls. It's one thing to say you don't agree. It's quite another to send your foreign minister to round up support against it."

Sure, but it's the French's right to advocate against the war just like it's America's right to advocate in favor of war.

Well, perhaps America and "old Europe" really shouldn't be allies any longer... but then who would be your ally except for Poland, Spain and the UK? I think those aren't too many allies...

Ted Striker · May 17, 2003, 13:57

UK is a better ally than 10 Frances and Germanys anyway.