France and other Anti-War Activists

Remove all ads!

I think one reason France is being singled out is that it is very vocal in it's opposition to attacking Iraq. It is also one of the most powerful countries in Europe -- their support would really be helpful to the U.S., as opposed to a smaller country with less military clout. There is also a feeling in the States that the French should be a lot more appreciative of America's role in liberating France in WW2. I'm not so sure I buy that one, though, in that the French helped the U.S. to get Independence from the Brits a few centuries ago, so WW2 could be seen as a payment of that debt, and now the matter is closed. You can't hold history over people's heads forever -- present realities have to be considered!

To wrap up, I think France is making a mmistake by not supporting action against Iraq, but it is their decision to make, and changing the McDonald's menu isn't going to do anything but make the changers look stupid.

 

Actually, we consider the help we provided in World War I as payback for their help during our nation's birth.

Of course, they helped back then because they hated the British with a passion. Now the U.S. has taken the role Britain once had.

The feeling in the U.S. is that they do not appreciate or even acknowledge what happened in World War II. For instance, when the movie "Saving Private Ryan" was being filmed, the French prevented filming at the graveyards and beaches of Normandy. That was a slap in the face.

It could be too that after two major wars, France has a broken will. They cannot fight, cannot stand up for themselves, cannot acknowledge that the world is an dangerous and evil place, cannot get their heads out of the sand.

A pity.

 

Please try to prevent yourself from turning this into some sort of historical debt repayment issue. Good god, why on earth would the war of independance, WW1 or WW2 have anything to do with modern dilomacy. A ridiculous suggestion.
I am pretty much with Slappy on this one, i do have one mroe point however.
Blair and Chirac hate each other. It is widely known fact and quite obvious in their behaviour.
The question is: has Modern politics come to a point where personal rivalries influence major desicions?

Unfortuantly, yes, i think so.

PS: is saw that a guy called platypus referred to the french as' Cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys'

It is people with this sort of view who make me angry and should have been shto at birth. Grow up you little turd. I bet any frenchman in any war could kick your ass any day (stupid american punk).

[ March 13, 2003, 21:17: Message edited by: Sir Dargorn ]

 

Sir Dargorn, I would argue that personal animosity has often been a factor in international diplomacy.

And I just want to state for the record that I wasn't trying to turn it into an issue of war and debt repayment -- I think such thinking is silly as well. But the sentiment is out there, of that there is no debate.

 

"Good god, why on earth would the war of independance, WW1 or WW2 have anything to do with modern dilomacy. A ridiculous suggestion"

Ever filed for a home loan? Or a car loan? Or a credit card with a $20,000 limit?

Every filed for a concealed weapon permit? Ever been in a position where you needed a "Top Secret" security clearance?

Ever applied for Medical School? Or Law School?

 

France or any other nation in Europe that was saved from facism or any other nation that was saved from Communism doesn't owe the U.S. anything.

Just because we helped them, doesn't mean we expect for them to blindly help us.

What we do object to, is ignoring that fact that we helped. This is the case with France.

France has developed a reputation based on its behavior through the 70's, 80's and 90's. This final streak of cowardice was the last straw as Americans see it. I doubt the U.S. will ever ask for them to help again.

 

I think it is pretty brave for them to stand up to the US. Especially considering all the abuse they get and the economical treatment they are bound to get. If you want to talk about cowardice I find it more cowardly to blindly follow the most powerful nations lead like the UK without questioning anything.

 

There also exists a cowardess to oppose evil. No doubt many nations are afraid to act because it may result in them being attacked by terrorists. When a person or nation is compliant and weak out of fear - they are cowards. ... or at best slaves. Apathy of evil, is evil.

This is being quite kind to France. In American culture, cowardice is the one of the worst vices - but not one that one can be condemned on - just pitied. France sold nuclear material to Iraq in the 80's, which are fortunately destroyed by Israel. If France's refusal to act is based on selling nuclear weaponary, even in the face of what Saddam has done with other weapons of mass destruction, then the French Government is evil. In this scenario, they are not weak friends but treachorous enemies.

Its ironic that France does not see the danger in Saddam, just like they failed to see the danger in Hitler. Perhaps France is just naive. This would be the best scenario.

 

I don't think anyone is blindly following our lead. Contrary to popular opinion, political leaders are not stupid; in fact, I bet that for many governments there are various ramifications that many of us on these boards are not aware of. But anyway.

I do agree (as stated before) that France is being somewhat brave by brooking the US. The reason that France garners the most attention for opposing us is, as I also mentioned, because they are putting themselves in the forefront by their rhetoric. Also, Viking's right in mentioning veto power. Russia and China have only become hard on this issue following France's lead; without France for them to "hide" behind, it's doubtful they would have pressed the veto.

France's recent statements are getting under my skin, though. The fact that they would oppose military force under any circumstances strikes me as odd -- I have to wonder how far they are willing to take this. If Saddam kicks out the inspectors again and goes back to old habits, what will they do then?

 

The French are an arrogant bunch, have always been and will always be. Their reasons for opposing the war are generally not that much more noble than the US want to start one, but I still thinks it shows more balls to face up to the most powerful nation in the world than to go smash some desert dictactor that has already been smashed once.

Of course Blair does not follow completely blindly, there are much good for the UK to reap when being being extremely favoured by the US, everyone has reasons for what they do on that level, quite often very convincing but I still cant see any courage or bravery in attaching oneself completely to the single most powerful country throughout the history of the world.

Blackhawk, what were you talking about btw??

 

My wife sent this link to me -- don't worry, I cleared it with Tal -- and I thought it would be fun to post it. Bear in mind that I'm not totally anti-French (though I disagree with present policy) but regardless of where you stand, some of these are pretty funny.


http://forums.parenthood.com/viewmessages.cfm?forum=21&topic=38565

 

Yes, that's it. France is motivated by the belief that Iraq's market for rocket fuel is bigger than the USA's market for everything else. That's why they've decided to oppose the US on this one.

I'm getting really tired of hearing that the French approve of Saddam. Did no one bother to read the French government's link I posted in which they categorically state that Saddam must go, and the only issue is the method of his removal? This may come as a shock to some of you, but there are better sources of information on French foreign policy than Marge Simpson.

 

Take it easy, Sprite, I just posted those quotes for fun. Besides, I don't think the French would care if the extent of their trade with Saddam were discovered -- it's already common knowledge that the US themselves have sold tons of things to Iraq in the 80s, to bolster the effort against Iran. I don't care where the Iraqis got their gear -- I just want to make sure they don't use it anymore!

 

On another note, I'd like to point out that contrary to certain arguments on this board, no government except Iraq denies that Saddam has illegal WMD's. This includes France, Russia, and China. Their argument is simply that the inspection process seems to be working fine. If the inspection process is intended to suspend Saddam's ability to use WMD's, I'd say they're right. If, however, it's intended to remove them... well, I have my doubts.

Incidentally, Sprite, I'm not sure what link you are talking about, and I find that to be a rather dubious statement. I'm not saying they didn't make it, but questioning whether they meant it. If you're really intent on removing a dictator who refuses to step down, how exactly are you going to accomplish that? By inspecting him to death?