Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Sildegil, Sep 24, 2003.
Can't say I disagree with it too much.
I'm not mad at France. you think i actually expected France to do something? Please.
Wait, you know, they are doing things. The new thing to do over there is vandalize war cemetaries.
Re: Re: In defense of France ... (Time article)
Dare to explain? I have heard nothing relative to war cemetary's profanated in France. I might have missed it tho.
Oh well, that is not exactly correct. We read in newspaper that Americans wish to get corpse back to US from Normandie's cemetaries ...
So, who are the gravediggers ?
Re: Re: Re: In defense of France ... (Time article)
that's just manny trying to change the subject.
Of course France works for its own best interests. Did anyone expect anything different? They have as much to gain or lose in Iraq as we do. They're just doing it diplomatically without getting their hands dirty and IMO it's cynical. France never spearheads such actions around the world - right or wrong. They piggyback on the hard work of others and then expect to be treated as equals. If they put their @sses in danger on a large scale once in a while, they'd get more respect. They enjoy safely debating the issues with nothing to lose and much to gain.
Re: Re: Re: In defense of France ... (Time article)
They don't care about your respect and their policy of getting others to do the shitty bits whilst still getting a say in matters is enduringly successful.
Who's the dumbass here?
That's a rhethorical question, my American tax-payer friend ...
Isn't some other country footing part of the Iraq bill too?
But yes, Matt, you have pretty much crystallized French strategy since 1871. Its proof that 80% of life is showing up. France does nothing, but comes to the meetings, so for some reason everyone keeps taking it seriously.
This time, they were douchebags about it though, which is why the U.S. got so pissed off. No one here wanted to ban German products (not my Beamer!), even though Germany opposed the war too. Even the liberals were angry at France, and considering how much they hate Bush (see Al Franken) that takes a lot!
Yes ... thanks for that Tony. You da man!
yeah ... but "freedom fries"? That makes even me cringe. And I'm not even American.
Besides ... what the French did is something every country with the cojones to try it does on a regular basis. We do it, other European nations do it, the Russians, the Chinese - you sure as shit do it. The affrontery engendered by various loudmouths in the US has more to do with a general dislike of being dicked around by anyone than anything unusual in the French actions.
And no one is saying the French should not regularly be the subject of global derision. It's just that they don't care when they are. And that seems to annoy some people even more than their orginal actions.
I read an awesome comment on the web from some leftwing type.
He wrote that of all the things Bush has done, the one thing he can't forgive Bush for is that Bush made the French look good.
Yeah, I've been wondering what kind of drugs Blair's been on for a while. At least Bush has the oil excuse to go into Iraq - Haliburton's not a British company...........
We're changing them back But until then, please don't remind me.
I disagree. I generally don't dislike the French more than those cheese eatin' surrender monkeys deserve, but this time they opposed us just for the sake of being douchebags. They had no reason to. They didn't care. They just wanted to be annoying. I didn't mind the Germans - they're wussies these days. But the French had the effrontery to propose that we should take it easy on Saddam if he passed a law that prohibited him from having weapons of mass destruction. (Which he did, a day or two later.) They proposed that with a straight face. That's why the French suck in this situation. The U.S. doesn't usually piss off supposed allies just for the hell of it. We want stuff when we do it
Yes, and this (as well as absurd increases in public spending and an obsession with not increasing income tax) results in this...
Just what we need, an "economy drive". How about driving the economy instead, or is that not obvious enough???
That's the point of the article - the French didn't oppose the American proposal (the war) because they were trying to be awkward, they opposed it because they thought it was a bad idea for themselves (and perhaps the world, or possibly the other way round, the problems for the world would cause problems for France).
I think everyone prefers it that the Germans are "wussies" than what they were before.
Nonsense. This is why I dislike French involvement in this whole "MessOPotamia" (to quote the Daily Show) - they didn't oppose it just because they thought it would be a bad idea. They opposed it to oppose the US. I believe the Germans who say that they opposed it on principle. I don't believe a word of what Chirac says on the subject, after he asks Saddam to pass a law that prohibits him from possessing already illegal arms.
I personally liked the spikes on their helmets, but I guess there's no pleasing some people.
I just don't believe a word that any politician says (French, American, German or British). I think "why is he saying that"? And the answer is invariably "to improve his chance of being re-elected". Sometimes this coincides with the truth or what is right, sometimes not.
I just make my own mind up and side with the politician(s) who have the same view.
As for the specific example you talk about, I would actually argue the contrary. I think Schroeder opposed the war because he thought this anti-Americanism (or anti-Bushism, at least) would be popular and help him scrape home in a very tight German election last year. Chirac had no such immediate political calculation, since he had just been elected to a seven-year term (by defeating le Pen).
It's a five-year term actually.
Did they change the rules? I thought it was seven years since Chirac was elected the first time.
So Chirac acted like an obstinate jackass why? Really, that's the one question that I can't get an answer for. He seemed obstructionist just for the sake of being obstructionist.
As for the Germans, they never said "the US is wrong, we dare you, we'll never support you", they merely said "we disapprove of the war." I believe that Schroeder felt not going to war would help his position, sure. But he wasn't nearly as anti-American as Chirac. Not even close.
Oh, and the "they only do it to get re-elected" theory isn't always true, especially in this case. Blair, for instance. How in the world is this helping his re-election bid?
Chirac opposed the war because he thought it was a bad idea.
He also opposed it because 90+% of the French population opposed the war as well. This is a point often ignored when Americans discuss European leadership's attitude to the war. In Western Europe, the populations were almost uniformally hostile, even in countries like Spain that supported. I think only Britain (which was split roughly 50-50) had anything like a majority supporting.
So if anything the likes of France and Germany should have been more obstinate, to truly represent the feelings of the public.
Uh, yes it is.
Blair feared that there would be a backlash from American-supportive media (Murdoch, Telegraph, Mail) if he opposed the war. This would create space for the Tories to criticise him effectively, and perhaps make them more electable.
By supporting the war he closed down any space for the Tories. He has opened up some space for the Liberals, but they are not a real threat to win the election (since they are a 3rd party).
Most of you didn't understand anything, I'll try to explain somethings,
first, why france didn't join US for the war?
because, we think that war is a serious thing, and we can't accept LIES(arms,faulse articles, links with al kaida...) and wrong reasons to vote for war, so france(and many other countries were agree) said they would give a VETO to a resolution for war, and US decide to act in out of international laws in doing the war without a resolution(with england).
and today, we can see that the situation is cahotic in Irak, no security for people, no electricity, no water...
And terrorists from around the world gone there to kill american soldiers, and we see that's impossible today to put quickly a democracy(this would be an iranian like country), and american need now, UNO to help their troups, this obviously will possible only if, power in Irak is transfer for UNO or iraki people and this is our problem today because US want to keep total control, this is not acceptable...
I'm pessimist because the situation is terrible and I can't see how Irak could be reconstruct...
Indeed they changed the rules in 2001 one year before the presidential elections. Before that you're right it was a seven-year term (since 1875 !).
So hopefully Chirac will go away in 2007. I agree with him on the Iraq topic but he's still a jackass.
Oh come on. I really marvel at this misconception amongst all the Americans who rail against the French for being "douchebags". The French opposed the war because they have significant national interests riding on the status quo - or at the very least an approximation of the status quo - in Iraq. If you cast your minds back, that is one of the main charges the spittle-flecked mouthbreathers on your side of the Atlantic were chucking around at the time of this little bunfest. Now all of a sudden the common perception is that the French were just "being French" which is as wrong as it is, face it America, infantile.
Contrary to popular belief, the US does not have a divine right to run the world unopposed. Other nations have interests that often run counter to whatever nutcase idea Bush will come up with and they, as is their right, will do what they can to uphold those interests. They don't even have to be pure or noble interests, they can be grubby, shameful interests that harm others but benefit them and they would still not be doing anything you lot don't do. Or us lot. Or that lot.
I really think the American public needs to get over it's "yah boo sucks" mentality in matters of global politics.
Plus, I agree with another comment from earlier in this thread - if you have to whinge pointlessly about another nation's actions over the war in Iraq, make it Germany. The vast majority of Germans hate you lot and us for what we did in Iraq and Schroeder used the massive discontent to great political effect, standing on a blatant and unapologetic ticket of populist anti-Americanism and shading an eminently losable election as a result.
So, turn in your Beemers, America.
The French had an interest in keeping Sadam in power but they probably knew from early on that Americans are going to take over Iraq and that there was no way to stop that. What really changed thighs was Schroders pre-election speech. He was trailing in the polls and Cheaney gave him perfect ammunition.
He said that the issue was not weapons inspections, but regime change. Schroder used that and ran the rest of his campaign on the “ no German soldiers in Iraq” slogan. The French saw that as a perfect opportunity to divide Germany from America. They went with Schroders stance to show that they should be Germany’s prime ally.