Thomas L. Friedman of the NY Times shows why he's not quite ready to give up his freedom fries: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/18/opinion/18FRIE.html
Of course France wants the US to fail in Iraq. We are stealing the oil they were going to steal. They can't stop us, so they are hoping we fail. So far, it looks good for France.
The lefty blogs are having alot of fun with this column. I read it in my paper this morning, and I thought, is he joking or serious?
> Every single thing is oil, spejic. Ugh. If there was a bank with $4 trillion worth of gold in the vault, would you believe the people who forcibly take it over when they say they did it to repair the termite damage and preserve a historic building? Don't be naïve.
Don't be simplistic. The subject matter here, btw, is about French USA bickering, which has been going on to a greater or lesser extent for decades.
Which should have ended forever on September 11, 2001. Run an internet search on "We are all Americans now" if you don't believe me. The Bush Administration has worked diligently to undermine this alliance since then, and it's probably their one successful effort. Steve Gilliard's blog said it best - they're not an enemy. We're a bad friend.
I just did and got this: Platitude: an idea (a) that is admitted to be true by everyone, and (b) that is not true. -H.L. Mencken
So you seriously think France and Germany want the US to fail in Iraq? Aren't you being a lil bit cynical there?
Powell did everything he possibly could to alienate our traditional allies. Bush and Rumsfeld want Americans to think that Frances was the US to fail. Not only is (was) France competing for the natural resources in Iraq, France was competing for pre-eminence in Europe. The neo-cons find any challenge to US hegemony to be unsettling. That is why France is getting the blame, Germany is getting ignored and Russia forgiven.
France is a red-herring piñata that Republicans are bashing in oredr to avoid addressing the very real failures of Bush's Iraq policies. Anyone who thinks France has ever had, or can have, the slightest influence on the clusterfvck that Bush has created for himself is a political neophyte.
How exactly have we tried to screw them over? When France wants to do something for the sake of its national security, do we go and campaign and send top officials to 3rd world countires on the Security Council to try to get them to vote against us? We wouldn't, at least until they pulled these stunts with Iraq and Lybia, try to undermine France's national security especially if it didn't affect us. And let's not forget that the French have shown a consistent pattern of anti-Americanism ever since the end of WW2. They wanted the security benefits of NATO, but they didn't want NATO troops to be stationed on French soil. Who do you think built the nuclear reactor in Osirak, Iraq, the one destroyed by Israel in 1982 (I believe, around there in any event)? And when the US decided to retaliate against Lybia for a series of terrorist attacks committed against American citizens, guess who wouldn't give our UK-based bombers overfly rights?? That's right, the French. If countries didn't want to aid our war effort in Iraq, that's fine. I understand. France, however, gets especially targetted for 2 reasons: First, they were the only country that not only voted against us in the Security Council (and threatened to veto the war resolution even if it had been voted on and had a majority in favor), but ACTIVELY tried to recruit countries like Cameroon, Gambia, and Mexico into voting against us. Germany and Russia did not do this. Second, while for countries like Germany and Canada their opposition to the Iraq war represented an exception in a generally very pro-American foreign policy, in the case of France it is just another example of a foreign policy that has, with very few exceptions (and then only when there was some clear gain for France, such as in GW1 and Afghanistan), been consistently anti-American since the end of WW2. To sum it up, I think most pro-war Americans viewed Germany, Russia, Canada, etc. as anti-war, which while we disagreed we respected their right to disagree with us; France, on the other hand, was not anti-war but anti-American, which we cannot respect. Do you think that if you had take a poll in Canada at the beginning of the war, only 1/3 would have said they hoped the US wins, and another 1/3 would've said they hoped Saddam wins? Do you think the German foreign minister (OK, maybe that's a bad example since Fischer is a complete whackjob, but 99% of Germans would disagree) would refuse to say that if there has to be a war, they hope the US wins?
What exactly do we have to gain by alienating France for no reason? Nothing. France is challenging US hegemony? Gimme a break. They don't have the economy to compete with Germany, they don't have the military power or diplomatic influence to compete with Germany, the UK, or Russia (they might get the edge militarily over Germany since they have nukes, but in strictly conventional terms Germany probably has a stronger military). The only reason France has any kind of a soapbox at all is because they have nuclear weapons. Take away their nukes, and they're reduced to the level of second-tier European countries like Italy, Spain, Holland, Belgium, and Denmark (nothing against any of these countries, especially since many of them have shown to be true allies in the past few years, but they're not as powerful as the UK, Germany, and if you consider it to be part of Europe, Russia).
Bush has done nothing to improve relations between the US and France. In fact his decision to go to Iraq cost us a ridiculously large amount of political capital. That being said our wallets = tons of political capital. So we can overcome the war on Iraq. Rightfully or not, France/Germany see themselves as the World #2 in terms of power/influence, etc. They truly believed that the war against Iraq was completely unrelated to the war on terrorism. Personally, I agree. That being said, it still was probably the right thing to do. France/Germany would prefer to see us fail and have them/UN come and rescue us. They don't want an Islamic state in Iraq. they don't want Sadaam to return. They do want us to lose face in this war and they do want to look like they were right in the end. They want to come to our rescue. If we do, they improve there standing as the "watchdog" to US hegemony. In my opinion, getting rid of Sadaam is a big plus in the world. If we install a democratic state there it will be a wonderful achievement which could lead to changes in the entire middle east. However, it was not worth the isolation of our allies in France and Germany. Especially since we have yet to find any evidence of WMD anywhere. The time will come down the road when we are attacked again. Who knows when or where it will be or where the attack will come from. Hopefully, at that time, France and Germany will support our action against whatever country at that time. If they do, then I can say no wrong about our allies. If they don't, they weren't that great of allies anyway.
But you do think France does. First of, I would like to ask you, when you talk about 'France', do you mean the French government, or the French people, or both? I can understand how you would think that the French government might be happy to see the US fail, but the French people? Most of the concern in Europe right now is the current mess in Iraq, and how it will influence the Iraqi people in the no so distant future. An Iraqi people without jobs, not enough health care, and problems with their running water and electricity, is in no one's interest in the West. So to think the French people would be happy with the current situation, or the situation even getting worse (which is what would happen if the US fail), is not only very cynical, it is hugely incorrect as well.
Didn't you just write that they were lobbying other Security Council members? I think he meant diplomatic, not military, hegemony.
A convenient scapegoat for the US's administration own failures. As for for the rest of your rant, it isn't worth addressing, sorry.
Then why did a poll show 1/3 of French people wanted Saddam to win, and another 1/3 said they didn't care?
Has France ever done this type of stuff when WE wanted to do something for the sake our natinal security? [Please don't tell me you still think this Iraq invasion had anything to do with US national security.] You see how your entire kneejerk anti-French jingoism is built on such crappy logic, Alex?