France issues 'please explain' to US - Page 8

Whaleboy · May 17, 2003, 14:42

" Sad really. What do you have to prove to everybody? Or do you have something that you haven't provent to yourself yet?"

I thought this was a debate on France and the US, not a psychoanalysis via internet forums!

I am not an arrogant person who finds himself to be somehow more intelligent than anyone else, I am merely comfortable and objective with who I am, and have no problem with justifying my position with references to my character, inclination and skills.

I trust that your ad hominem arguments are a sign that you concede the argument, or would you like to put forward some valid points?

Whaleboy · May 17, 2003, 14:44

I do not claim to be representative of the British people, only the people that I protest with. Our concurrents at one stage comprised over 2/3 of the population, before our national pragmatism set in

Whaleboy · May 17, 2003, 14:45

Yeah, at least the BSD's give some serious performance. For those that need not a mouse to use a computer.

Ted Striker · May 17, 2003, 14:46

Valid points are useless.

Ad hominems are fun.

chequita guevara · May 17, 2003, 14:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious
The French govt took active measures to undermine US diplomatic efforts. War is just an extension of diplomacy.

What diplomatic efforts? You mean the bribing of various nations?

Ally doesn't mean slave. This anti-French stuff is BS, especially when they've been instrumental in preventing terrorist attacks against US targets in Europe.

Whaleboy · May 17, 2003, 14:52

Would it be a fair assesment to say that the US is governed by the morals of the profit forecast, the ethics of the market? (Needless to say, these are fallacies and contradictions in terms)?

I must leave to threads new, I've said my piece here so one must let it be. Anyone who would like to continue this interesting debate, please PM me.

Ted Striker · May 17, 2003, 14:56

To some extent yes.

To apply profit morals to Iraq? No.

Kidicious · May 17, 2003, 14:59

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What diplomatic efforts? You mean the bribing of various nations?

Ally doesn't mean slave. This anti-French stuff is BS, especially when they've been instrumental in preventing terrorist attacks against US targets in Europe.

Look, I wasn't making a judgement about French diplomacy. I was just saying that it was against the US interest. Now that's fine if you have calculated that you will get bad press in the US for it, but now they are just whining because of the bad press as though they didn't expect to get it.

badman · May 17, 2003, 15:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious
War is just an extension of diplomacy.

It was Carl von Clausewitz who said that in 1832 (171 years ago). I thought we had left such poor thinking behind, it definitely lead to WWI.

Kidicious · May 17, 2003, 15:11

Quote:

Originally posted by badman

It was Carl von Clausewitz who said that in 1832 (171 years ago). I thought we had left such poor thinking behind, it definitely lead to WWI.

Appearantly some don't realize the consequences of diplomacy. France took action to prevent the war that was adversarial to US diplomatic efforts. That affected the US in a negative way. Maybe you can see how war and diplomacy are connected in the real world.

edit: btw, don't you think it was adversarial diplomacy that led to WW1?

Ned · May 17, 2003, 15:37

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

I thought it was your cat.

It is very strange that Tass thinks of Bush as a Pus-sy.

HershOstropoler · May 17, 2003, 15:40

Quote:

Originally posted by badman

It was Carl von Clausewitz who said that in 1832 (171 years ago). I thought we had left such poor thinking behind, it definitely lead to WWI.

Still better than the present Washington version: "Politik ist die Forstetzung des Krieges mit anderen Mitteln."

Ted Striker · May 17, 2003, 15:41

Nein. Das ist nicht eine gut Idee Herr Rechtsberater.

HershOstropoler · May 17, 2003, 15:43

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.

You are taking the side of a regime that has started an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign country, and your leaders should be hanging under the Nuremberg standard that another America had established, a long time ago.

The American People should be ashamed of supporting their criminal leaders, actively working against international law.

HershOstropoler · May 17, 2003, 15:45

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.

Alternative version:

You are actively supporting an authoritarian regime that sponsors terrorism against the world's largest democracy.

The American People should be ashamed of carrying Musharaf's water, pissing on the Indians.

Ted Striker · May 17, 2003, 15:46

I agree. All those thousands of mass graves and bodies that the Iraqis are finding in the desert probably don't enter into the equation either.

How dare we pick on Cinderella.

Ted Striker · May 17, 2003, 15:49

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler

Alternative version:

You are actively supporting an authoritarian regime that sponsors terrorism against the world's largest democracy.

The American People should be ashamed of carrying Musharaf's water, pissing on the Indians.

Real easy to make black and white views like that when you don't have to make decisions.

Or you could just be really selfish and not do anything by cowardly sitting on the sidelines when **** hits the fan.

Oh wait that's what they do in Österreich.

HershOstropoler · May 17, 2003, 15:50

"All those thousands of mass graves and bodies that the Iraqis are finding in the desert probably don't enter into the equation either."

Whose equations? Washington's? Don't be ridiculous.

"How dare we pick on Cinderella."

I could have done without that mental picture.

HershOstropoler · May 17, 2003, 15:51

"Real easy to make black and white views like that when you don't have to make decisions."

I'm just Hersh.... or Dyl Ulenspiegel, if you prefer.

Ted Striker · May 17, 2003, 15:52

I prefer Herr Rechtsberater.

Kidicious · May 17, 2003, 15:53

HO,

We know we get bad press all over the world for our relations with other nations. It goes with the territory. France should do the same. They chose their path, now they must deal with it.

HershOstropoler · May 17, 2003, 15:57

Kidicious, if your leaders, your press, and certain uberpatriots would just acknowledge that and cut the selfrightous sanctimonious bullshit, you would be in a much better light.

And we could concentrate on things like pointing out that Chirac is a pompous idiot.

Kidicious · May 17, 2003, 16:16

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Kidicious, if your leaders, your press, and certain uberpatriots would just acknowledge that and cut the selfrightous sanctimonious bullshit, you would be in a much better light.

And we could concentrate on things like pointing out that Chirac is a pompous idiot.

You don't expect our leaders to be self-rightous? Show me one leader who is not self-rightous. The only case where a leader will admit a mistake is if he is absolutely forced. They are always campaigning and so they are always self-rightous. I suggest that you French worry about your own matters more. I don't see any way you can gain by being so concerned with the faults of American leaders.

HershOstropoler · May 17, 2003, 16:24

"You don't expect our leaders to be self-rightous?"

That's not per se the problem, and just not admitting mistakes is a bit different IMO.
The problem is the untempered selfrightousness. No diplomacy, no compromise, no doubts.

"I don't see any way you can gain by being so concerned with the faults of American leaders."

We Euros have to make a couple decisions about our relationship with you. Hence the interest in the continuing degeneration of your political system.

Ned · May 17, 2003, 16:45

Man, this is a long thread. But after reading, I have two questions:

First, when de Villepin, and indeed the French, say that they are "allies" of the United States, what do they mean?

Second, do the Europeans recognize that when they attack Bush, for whatever reason, they are attacking America? Half the American people voted for Bush. Seventy percent approve of the way he is handling his job, particularly in the foreign policy area. While there are many in the US who agree with much of the anti-Bush sentiment held in France and in parts of Europe, but they are not in the majority.

What you must recognize therefor, is, at least for the present, there is no real difference between anti-Bushism and anti-Americanism to Americans.

But, back to the first question, what do the French mean when they say we are "allies."

HershOstropoler · May 17, 2003, 16:53

Well Ned, under your logic, when you attack Chirac, you are attacking France? 80 % voted for him, and 90 % approve of the way he is foreign policy in this area.

But I suppose you genuinely hate France anyway, so it doesn't matter.

As for "allies" - a defensive alliance that serves no realistic purpose.

Inverse Icarus · May 17, 2003, 16:56

thats france saying "remember those good times we used to have?"

gsmoove23 · May 17, 2003, 16:56

Quote:

What you must recognize therefor, is, at least for the present, there is no real difference between anti-Bushism and anti-Americanism to America.

Well, I for one am offended by that remark, but I guess it doesn't matter since less then 50% of the American people didn't vote for me.

Ned · May 17, 2003, 16:57

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Well Ned, under your logic, when you attack Chirac, you are attacking France? 80 % voted for him, and 90 % approve of the way he is handling his job, particularly in the foreign policy area.

But I suppose you genuinely hate France anyway, so it doesn't matter.

As for "allies" - a defensive alliance that serves no realistic purpose.

Did I attack Chirac? No. The reason why is because the dispute is not about Chirac, it is about France. The reason it is about France is that the French people supported and continue to support Chirac.

As to the "ally" bit, yes, it is a defensive alliance only. However, given France's behavior with Turkey, France is not even a reliable defensive ally.

As to the "no purpose," I would agree. France clearly has indicated that it will not help defended the US. We should also make it clear that our days of defending France, if ever again that might become necessary, are over.

The Mad Monk · May 17, 2003, 16:58

I suppose we are.

Democracies are 'of the people, for the people, by the people', etc., so I suppose the people do bear the responsibility of their leaders' actions -- in a way that those under a dictatorship don't.