Depends how many knives you want in your back next time. Never trust a turncoat.

So that people learn that trying your best to fuck us over can be a bad idea?

Weren't you the one talking about how our founding fathers would be dissapointed in us for not going to war over the assassination attempt on Bush Sr. If that's an affront to national honor, how about trying to hinder us in every way possible at every step all the while claiming to be our friends at the top of their lungs? Doesn't our honor demand a beat-down of the french for insulting us so badly?

You know what, I came here today in the hope that there had been yet another senseless rant against the French since it would provide me the perfect opportunity to make a point about one thing they have over the US and UK, but this just isn't cricket old boy!

But I digress; Amazon.fr quite simply knocks Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com into a cocked hat. So far I've found five different albums I've been struggling to track down, literally for months, exclusively available on the French Amazon site, yet completely unavailable on both the US and UK counterparts.

Bravo!

But on a more serious note, it seems somewhat bigoted to complain about French motivation for obstructionism when so, so, so many nations behave likewise when it suits them. Let's consider the issue of France and two of the Coalition nations, and events at the recent G8 summit, where the US hawks' favourite villain Jacques Chirac proposed a move that could have helped end the vicious circle of poverty and famine in African nations.

To give a little more background on the topic, it's worth pointing out that these problems are deep-rooted and are largely a result of Western nations dumping overspill produce on African nations, with the help of massive subsidies from their parent countries. Many European nations do this. So does the US. These subsidised goods mean that local farmers cannot hope to compete with the prices of overseas sellers, and so the local economy's money is leeched abroad.

In addition to this rather loathsome practice, whilst some nations provide aid in the form of money (which can be used to purchase food from local suppliers), the US provides food aid as food only. Perversely, this has proven to be sent in quantity inversely proportional to need. Shockingly, the US Department of Agriculture states that this program is “designed to develop and expand commercial outlets for U.S. commodities in world markets”

But back to the point. President Chirac proposed that they would stop subsidising produce exports to Africa if the US did likewise. But what happened? Tony Blair, he who less than two years ago said that the state of Africa “is a scar on the conscience of the world”, blocked the initiative. For what purpose? I leave that for you to discuss and consider. But to continually harangue against France seems a somewhat narrow political view, when clearly political obstructionism goes on all the time, even when it is clearly immoral, as was the case here.

In yesterday's beautiful article on Capt. Robert K. Morgan we were reminded of the bravery and loyalty and sheer guts of our soldiers in WWII. Well, there's over 60,000 men, just like Cpt. Morgan, who made the ultimate sacrifice to save the French. They never made it home and are entombed there. That alone should be enough to garner some solidarity between the US and the French. That this happened over a half century ago? So what. They went, they fought, they died saving their asses. So now they should be relegated to an "Oh well....?"

I dont think the French attitudes and actions before, during and after the Iraq war were motivated by anything other than pure anti-Americanism and political posturing.

These guys were supposed to be our allies folks.

Payback.

I want them, and the rest of the world to know that you don't stab us in the back fro the hell of it and get away lightly. And If My personal boycott of French-made items helps in even the slightest way toward that goal, it will be worth it.

I guess I would say I'm lukewarm on the boycott. I'll substitute products made by companies based elsewhere... when it's convenient. But once you realize all that a true boycott would entail, you start to make a value judgment. And I'm just not willing to give up some of the things the French produce, publish or sell for the level of their transgressions.

I think it's silly to suppose that anti-Americanism was France's main motivation. The French are not idiots. Boycotting France is a poor idea. I've got a longer piece about France here:
http://www.freewebs.com/grahamlester/france.htm

The French opposed the war (wrongly) for the same reasons many Americans did. An extensive boycott would begin to turn presumed anti-Americanism into genuine anti-Americanism.

I am not mad at the French. They are as they are. When the French Government publicly apologizes for its actions, I'll consider buying French products again. Anger is wasteful, I'm just gently trying to teach the French that actions carry consequences. If we stop the boycott now then France will presume that we can be ignored. You do not have to agree with us, but we expect the courtesy of a hearing. France is a 19th century power in a 21st century world. They can change that, but they won't so long as it works. I look forward to good relations with a France that respects the US.

Ah, thank you for letting me know I'm senseless and ranting, Ben. Much appreciated.

I the meantime: your position seems to boil down to "all are immoral, therefore, nothing is immoral." No thanks, I don't work that way. But, since you took the morally bankrupt position of opposing US action in Iraq, I suppose your attitude is no surprise. But for the record, I'd end all agricultural subsidies in the West. Too bad it seems to be politically impossible.

In the meantime, the US will continue to go and do things that the Europeans ask them to do, as we have done so many times, quite often for humanitarian reasons. French and German opposition were entirely venal and selfish; we've a right to be angry with them. Call us irrational if you wish: we weren't the ones opposed to taking out the mass-murdering fascist.

The agricultural subsidies of the EU, primarily perpetuated by the French (remeber those charming French farmers burning live sheep?) do far more economic damage to Africa, but the French have blocked any reform in that regard for years. Chiraq's G8 proposal was a red herring to attempt to shift the blame elsewhere.

The French despise us. The time has come, because of the actions of the French, for us to act towards them the way they have been acting towards us for decades.

If the French want us to like them, and to treat them as friends and allies, they need to EARN it, as they have earned our current disgust.

Why remain mad with the French? French anti-Semitism, anti-Iranian dissidents, anti-freedom. And that's just for starters.

Not all the senseless ranting is yours, Dean. Just look above at the comments from Chris, Cacique and Tony; these are irrational arguments based on preconceptions without any room for open-minded consideration of other factors.

And exactly what does a boycotting of French products do? How many "French" products sold in the US are not produced by multinationals? The media coverage of these boycotts would suggest an irrational fear of any negative publicity more than a genuine political sense of right or wrong, hence this kind of nonsense.

To call my viewpoint morally bankrupt is quite baseless and petty though; it is quite possible for someone to take issue with the status quo without actually having an alternative solution. That doesn't make me immoral, on the contrary it is evidence that I have a sense of morality that I don't back a war in which people will die. Do you think I perhaps have something to gain from opposing the war?

What I do find morally bankrupt however is a stance that suggests it is “politically impossible” to end a practice which causes poverty and starvation. As I once heard someone say, “We say there is no choice only to comfort ourselves with the decision we have already made”.

I say nuke johnny frenchman and try Chirac, along with Nelson Mandela, the Pope and Hans Blix in the ICC for war crimes. Actually no, perhaps a spell in Guantanamo Bay will sort out these dangerous warmongers, followed by a nice sharp ride in Texan's old sparky chair! I toast Donald Rumsfeld, he is the greatest human to walk this earth, and it is only his courage and that of corporate America that has made the world a better place for the millions of us owning stock. Now let's get Iran, Syria and Belgium boys!

Modulo Ben Darlow, there have been some good observations on this thread. Ben, try not to call people names if you want to be taken seriously.

I don't have much of a problem with Germany, Russia, or many of the Arab states regarding their war stance. I myself was very conflicted on the war, and my support was lukewarm at best. (Though the postwar revelations have certainly solidifed my belief that the war was the right thing to do.)

My problem with France has a specific beginning: the "they missed a good opportunity to keep quiet" comment from Chirac. When you oppose us in good conscience, I have no problem. When you threaten our supporters, I have a big problem.

Since then, their actions have only served to confirm that the attitude Chirac showed them wasn't an anomaly. Declaring that they would never accept force as an option (an act which, ironically, made the use of force inevitable). Welcoming Mugabe to France. Meeting with the Iranian mullahs and Arafat. Defending Hamas.

The fact that they do some good things in the world doesn't, in my mind, excuse them. Neither does their cooperation on some issues, especially while they contradict us on others.

Ben: you claim Dean to be bigoted, that France is somehow not subject to criticsm because 'everybody else does it', then bring up Africa, as if that justifies their weasel performance regarding Iraq. Oh, and a European country stopping price supports? Don't make me laugh. Half the continent bloats itself on subsidies.

But then, I suppose even if Chirac did reduce the subsidy, that would make it acceptable that France is a center of anti-Semitism, Iraqi appeasement, and Iraqi armaments?

BTW, I agree with Dean that the US price supports are ludicrous; not just for humantiarian reasons but for financial ones. Most of that money goes to large corporate farms anyway.

But that's beside the point, since it doesn't address France's four hundred year-old goal of "leading" Europe. The froggies have been trying that ever since Louis XIV.

I will say it's not so much "anti-American" as it "pro-French", although I don't doubt they still look down on Merkans. I suppose we're only good enough to be enforcers for the French when they need real muscle. :)

I find your definition of "irrational" to be somewhat unusual; is it irrational to penalize a person, or a country, who has very obviously set out to thwart whatever you try to accomplish? You have the same problem with your use of the word "preconception"; their statements are actually postconceptions, since they are in reaction to French attitudes and actions. And, finally, you claim they are close-minded. Probably because they don't agree with you. :) Perhaps if you provided "other factors" that might mitigate French actions already cited here, that might go a tiny way towards establishing your position.

Right now all you are doing is calling the opposition irrational, closeminded, and subject to preconception. By default I suppose that defines you as rational, open-minded, and welcoming new ideas.

Yeah.

I have a question: is it better for you to hold to your precious morality so that American soldiers don't die, but Iraqi civilians do? Or is it morally better that some soldiers do die, willingly, so that Iraqi civilians finally have the opportunity to lead a civilized life?

I've seen your attempted claim of morality before, in Great Britain, where the students of Oxford refused to fight for King or Country. That made it a lot easier for Hitler...

It's very easy to sit back and keep your own morality pure, while others die.

I believe it was Edmund Burke who said "For evil to triumph, it is merely necessary that good men do nothing."

Oh, Dean, to answer your original question: perhaps one good reason would be that France recently arrested about 150 Iranian exiles living in France who were members of a group organized to resist the current government in Iran. Can't have them thar revuhlooshunaries runnin' around, talkin' bout dimmacrisy in the Mideast, yah know? heh.

Ben,

Irrational argument? An "Irrational" argument is the French stating, in no uncertain terms, that they would veto any resolution put forth by the US prior to the war without even so much as reading it. That the french were opposed to the war in Iraq? Fine. Oppose all you want, but don't betray your ally. The Iraqi's didnt save them during two world wars did they? So why side with them?

Why should I, as an American, not have the right to voice my opinion and sentiments by boycotting anything French? Why is there something wrong with that?

You say you have a sense of morality for not backing a war in which "people will die." Hmmm, I guess all those cadavers in the multiple mass graves they found aren't worth anything huh?
Putting an end to a barbaric regime that kills it's own people, wages war on it's neighbors, harbours and assists terrorists and is in the process of creating chemical and biological weapons isn't a worthy moral endeavor from your point of view?

In any case, its neither here nor there, the French are a non-entity. We obviously know now that they can't be counted on as our ally. And what Patton knew during WWII:

"I'd rather have the German army in front of me, than the French army behind me."

Vive le boycott!

Oh priceless.

you claim Dean to be bigoted...

Er, when?

I suspect Casey and many others have missed my point though. I was not trying to deflect blame from France or any other nation for their role in the crippling subsidies and their effects; merely to highlight that it happens across the board, from many nations. I could spend hours digging up stories of the US, the UK, France, Germany, Russia, Spain, Italy (etcetera etcetera) having done something despicable - the bottom line is this; many nations have done ill to others over the centuries, to dredge these up to support a theory against one country in the modern day is senseless antagonism. Exactly what has Louis XIV got to do with modern French policy?

I've seen your attempted claim of morality before, in Great Britain, where the students of Oxford refused to fight for King or Country. That made it a lot easier for Hitler...

My attempted claim of morality? Hitler? I'm twenty-three years old, you buffoon. There really must be something quite funny going on in your head if you think I'm supposed to feel in some way responsible for actions that took place 40 years before I was born. I'm not even sure what point you're trying to prove - not wanting to fight in a war is immoral? So howcome you're sat at your desk typing responses to weblogs and not fighting in the deserts of Iraq?

For the record I am not pro-France, in much the same way I am not anti-US (or anti-UK, either - which strangely enough nobody has accused me of as yet). I am however firmly against the bully-boy policies put forward by certain governments. Unfortunately a great many people who have taken up the cause of slating France have done so in what is pretty much a racist, blinkered way; like the boycotting of products and constant references to the Second World War.

And whilst we're reciting pithy quotes, how about this one: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”

Ben,

Boycotting is racist? And I suppose the dead American soldier buried in France is to be forgotten now to comply with the pc crowd?
Gimme a break man.
I suppose France's reason for not wanting the use of force in Iraq was completely humanitarian too now, right?

You're obviuosly an intelligent guy, but still rather young. Ill end with another "pithy" saying.

"El diablo sabe mas por viejo que por diablo."

Because it's not over! France is stearing the EU in a direction such that it can oppose the US superpower, thereby creating a balance of world superpowers.

They are also refusing to list Hamas as a terrorist organization. Villapin doesn't want them excluded from the dialog on Middle East peace even though Hamas itself has made it clear that they are not interested in any dialog, just the recovery of land stolen from them by Isreal (meaning all of Isreal).

They are cracking down on Mujahedeen Khalq (an Iranian opposition group) whom they define as terrorists, because, even if it does use terrorist tactics (questionable), they are on the US side idealogically.

I don't think it's coincedence that they support Hamas and the US opposes them, or that they oppose Mujahedeen Khalq, who's ideology, if not tactics, is compatible with US policy on Iran.

Steven Den Beste is tracking these issues at USS Clueless.

The French do things for the same reason everyone else does things. They don't do things just to piss off America. Are you all so self-centered mindless fools that you think everything any other country does is purely to piss off America? Other countries have to govern themselves. What's the problem? France did what France had to do. This isn't the world of James Bond. France isn't just a bunch of super villains trying to take over the world or something. It's a country. USA does alot of things other countries don't like, but you don't see all of us assuming you're doing it just to spite us.

By the way, for anyone who uses WWII as some pathetic reason to hate the French: Yes, the French got taken over by the Nazi's pretty fast, and didn't do much to retaliate or try to gain back their freedom, blah blah blah. Maybe if you put down your narrow-minded patriot-blinders for a second and actually open a history book, you'll change your tune. France was completely ravaged from WWI, where they took pretty much the blunt of the war. They had no army to defend themselves with. And if you think America "saved" them for some altruistic reason, then turn to page 2 of your history book please. They did nothing until Japan attacked pearl harbour, and then they only partook in the operations that made money. Most of America's force was focused on Japan. There were financiers in America that could benefit from "saving" France, and those financiers had alot of sway. The end.

"What have you done for me lately?"

dowingba,

Would you please send us some data to back up your "financiers" theory. Its the first Ive heard of it.

"I could spend hours digging up stories of the US, the UK, France, Germany, Russia, Spain, Italy (etcetera etcetera) having done something despicable - the bottom line is this; many nations have done ill to others over the centuries, to dredge these up to support a theory against one country in the modern day is senseless antagonism. Exactly what has Louis XIV got to do with modern French policy?"

I don't recall anyone citing the behavior or Louis XIV. I think the discussion is focused much more recently, and the examples are extremely germane to the discussion. Do you not believe that the same nation that overwhelmingly complied with Hitler's Final Solution and afterwards overwhelmingly failed to shit the Vicchy collaborators out of all positions of power can be depended upon to oppose tyrrany and murder now or in the future. Past performance remains alarmingly predictive of future performance, at least in this area. As a French journalist once said: "What surprises me is not that Watergate happened. What surprises me is that anyone cares."

What we can depend upon is that the French will almost automatically end up on the wrong side of any geopolitical situation in which we have interests. Not simply "wrong" in the sense of "anti-US," but "wrong" in the sense of "screwing over the world to support a colonial influence enabling a first-world lifestyle on a 32-hour work week."

WWII: France rolls over and lets the Nazis roll through Paris unopposed. The entire British expeditionary force narrowly escapes destruction by virtue of the "Miracle of Dunkirk."

Vietnam: France insists on US support of their colonial war as a condition of French support of NATO, so the US turns against our WWII ally against the Japanese, who in 1947 had been begging Truman to invest in their country.

Bosnia/Kosovo: the US has to intervene to stop genocide taking place in the Europeans' own backyard because the Security Council will not authorize action.

Gulf II: France insists that they will not support the use of force against Iraq "under any circumstances," all but guaranteeing that force will have to be used.

Israel/Palestine: France continues to support and legitimize Arafat, though Arafat is obviously acting as a spoiler vs. Abu Mazen, trying to take the "Roadmap" off-track because he can't stand the thought of not being the one to broker the creation of a Palestinian state.

Can you connect these dots? They imply a highly predictive equation, the graph of which is as follows: On the X-axis is the passage of time. On the Y-axis is a situationally-appropriate method by which France will screw us over. You can describe almost any future geopolitical situation and predict with 95% accuracy where France will line up and how it will behave if you simply imagine the worst possible posture vis-a-vis humanity and/or the United States.

"And whilst we're reciting pithy quotes, how about this one: 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'"

What does that mean, Ben? Does that authorize you to sit on your ass and watch while murder, rape and assorted crimes against humanity take place, because you (or the potential actor whom you would be supporting in forcibly stopping this) has allied himself with unsavory characters in the past?

You don't eat a lot of omelettes, do you?

Jonathan,

Your math is perfect.

http://www.democracymeansyou.com/serious/frenchbashing.htm - This is an essay that better articulates my argument.

Why are you incapable of doing research yourself? I already know your response to this "that's not proof, that's just another WRONG opinion". If you really need me to lead you by the hand like a child, just say the word and I'll provide so much proof you'll be bedridden for a week.

dowingba, no amount of weariness from WWI excuses the relish displayed by many French in gleefully helping out in the herding of Jews into cattle cars for transport to the camps.

The Dutch were far more helpless than the French, and you didn't see them lining up to hand over their native Jews.

And I used to be a semi-fluent French speaker, have read French novels and mathematics in the original, and love French cooking and art.

But their political philosophy is morally bankrupt at it's core, and they utterly lack the Anglo-Saxon tendency towards brutal social self-critique (they aren't alone in that last one: most of the rest of the world shares it.)

Perhaps if the French hadn't been so stubborn at Versailles, the mess of WWII could have been avoided, no?

Why aren't you all mad at Germans then?

Why are you incapable of doing research yourself?

It's your responsibility to support YOUR statements. Suggesting that if people don't beleive you they should go research the accuracy of what you say is just silly.

if you aren't willing to do the work yourself, why should anyone take you seriously?

And exactly what does a boycotting of French products do?

Currently it seems to be killing the French economy, and it is not even a formal boycott, just a bunch of independent people who are not choosing French products, or French vacation destinations.

HATING the French is a waste of energy. Disliking them, on the other hand, is a way of life. Live it. :)

Ben:
>Oh priceless.
>you claim Dean to be bigoted...
>Er, when?

In your earlier post (June 20, 2003 04:36 AM) you wrote:
"But on a more serious note, it seems somewhat bigoted to complain about French motivation for obstructionism"

If you meant to refer to Paul or Chris, perhaps you could be more specific next time? :)

You can "highlight" all you want, but it comes down to saying that "everyone does it," by which you imply there is nothing objectionable to France's actions. You may want to try actually supporting your claim next time.

The mention of Louis XIV was in support of my statement that France's policy is less anti-American than it is pro-France, and that this has been an element of French foreign policy for 400 years. They want to be in charge of the continent of Europe. Now that the Soviet Union is gone, they can afford to indulge themselves.

Yes, your attempted claim of morality. Do you think you are the first person to posit the vacuous concept that opposing any war "in which people die" per se makes your position moral? By definition, war results in deaths. Ergo, you oppose all war, and by your own statements this means that you feel that opposing all war provides you with a "sense of morality."

What I was trying to illustrate for you was that at least some wars are just. You may have heard of Thomas Aquinas, or the Thomistic concept of Just War?

By simple logic, I falsified your claim.

Your hypothesis was that opposing a war "in which people die" (i.e., all war) is evidence that you have a sense of morality.

Recall that one tests a hypothesis by determining its falsifiability. That is, if someone can provide an example that proves the converse of the hypothesis, this means we must reject the hypothesis. A simple example: say the hypothesis is "all Republicans hate homosexuals." All you have to do to falsify this hypothesis is provide proof of a Republican that doesn't hate homosexuals.

To return to your case; all I have to do is provide proof of even one situation where opposing war is less moral than supporting war. Or conversely, supporting war is more moral than opposing war.

In the case of the Joad Resolution (um, you have heard of the Joad Resolution, haven't you?), the determination of the young men of Britain to "never fight for King or Country" contributed to the pacifist atmosphere before the Second World War. This atmosphere, in essense, prevented France or Great Britain from controlling Germany by force. Force that was, by the way, justified by both the Treaty of Versailles and the Treaty of Locarno. France and Great Britain would have been able to subdue the Nazis in 1934 or 1936 with little trouble. The only negative result would have been revisionist historians obsessing over the "unilateralist" or "imperialist" actions of the Allies.

In other words, pacifists were an essential element that created World War Two.

Another example of Just War would be the American Revolution. Yet another would be the Napoleonic Wars, or the resistance of the Poles against the Nazis or (later) the Communists.

Not wanting to fight a particular war may be moral. This depends on the situation. Not wanting to fight any war is immoral. I hope this clears up your confusion.

Apparently you are a devotee of the "chicken hawk" theory of warfare. Do you claim that anyone in favor of war must be an eleven-bush?

If my country called me, I would be glad to answer. Alas, they tend not to recruit 43-year-olds with bad eyesight, or I would have an Army or Air Force scholarship right now.

To conclude, you provide weak excuses ("everyone does it") for French intransigence, employ verbal abuse against those who disagree with you (bigot, close-minded, narrow (politically), ranting, irrational, prejudiced, petty, buffon, bully-boy, racist, blinkered), and display an amazing lack of comprehension of basic historical references.

Oh, no one has "constantly" referred to WW2. I made one reference as of your post of June 20, 2003 03:50 PM. This reply (in clarification of my earlier post) is the second. I fail to see how this can be defined as constant.

And while I managed to provide a quote relevant to the topic at hand, your citation merely begs the question, which is at least consistent. If any particular topic was literally limited to "those without sin", only saints would be able to say anything.

You know, it amazes me how all the gratuitous french-bashers who go on and on about how the French always stab us in the back seem to forget who warned the FBI that Zacarias Mousaoui was al-Qaeda? French Intelligence maybe? And what about the FBI/Security types who blew off the warning getting promotions after 9/11? Do you hold the US government officials and politicians to the same high standards you demand of the French? And what about the Saudis, who have promoted the core ideology (Wahhabism) for al-Qaeda throughout the world.

You guys need to take a deep breath and start thinking about who's a genuine threat to national (and international) security, and who's a sometimes problematic ally.

Hi Poilu:

You and Ben seem to rely a lot on the "there is worse scum than France, so France must not be scum" hypothesis. Or "there are forces of incompetence in our own country, so France must not be scum" hypothesis.

If I incorrectly said that France stabs us in the back literally every single time they have the opportunity, then forgive me for the inaccuracy. I would certainly expect them to help us out from time to time, if only by accident. This is consistent with the facade of friendship.

"Do you hold the US government officials and politicians to the same high standards you demand of the French?"

Actually, yes. If France's geopolitical atrocities could be attributed to incompetence instead of malice, that would go a long way towards buying them the benefit of the doubt. But the record is painfully clear.

"And what about the Saudis, who have promoted the core ideology (Wahhabism) for al-Qaeda throughout the world."

How perfectly irrelevant! Has anyone on this site ever held Saudi Arabia up as a paragon of ally-hood? While you're making noncomparisons, why not point out that Saddam Hussein was, objectively speaking, a less murderous person than Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin OR Genghis Khan?

If you want to actually SUPPORT your case, I would recommend that you attempt to favorably compare France's steadfast loyalty to the US vs. that of Britain (they did burn the White House in 1812, after all) Canada, Australia, Turkey or post-Communist Poland. You may also want to try linking France's historical and lingering anti-Semitism to a heretofore-unexplained childhood trauma beyond their control.

Hi back Jonathon,
You know, I don't recall saying France was perfect, but since that's an issue, I will say they have made many bad choices over the past (digging in their heels in Indochina & Algeria for a couple) and not so long ago (looking the other way on Hutu atrocities). And, yes, they have some serious domestic problems to deal with, such as ignoring rising anti-Semitism on the part of North African youth, as well as many on the left. These are very real shortcomings, and they need to face up to them. As allies, and I believe that in spite of Chirac's pig-headedness on Iraq, we still are allies as there is more that we have in common than divides us, we need to step back, take a deep breath, and try the other shoe argument.

Can France ever say we stabbed them in the back? Well, we (the US) did maintain quite cordial relations with the Vichy government up until at least December 10, 1941, but definitely split at the time of the landings in North Africa. Granted De Gaulle's Free French could not have been seen as a serious partner at that point, but he might have perceived it as a slight, don't you think? Then there was the British (with whom the French commonly lump us) sinking of the French fleet at Mers-el-Kebir. I can understand the Brits' concern about the vessels not falling into German hands, but the French did claim they would scuttle them rather than allow that. And they did keep that promise when they scuttled their fleet in Toulon in 1942, when the Germans occupied Vichy territory. Moving beyond WW2, the French probably didn't take too kindly to the lack of US support of their counterinsurgency ops in Indochina up until it suddenly made sense with the start of the Korean War.

While I'm sure these arguments might not be up to your high standards, it is important to consider how the other side views things. It also proves that countries can remain essentially allies in spite of not buying into what they consider wrong-headed policies. And let me ask you this--if you were President with total control over the government (which never really happens), what would your policy be? Would you withdraw from NATO? Pull out the US embassy/consulates from France? I don't think your prepared to start a war based on general dislike of a country that has imperfections, but I must confess I haven't waded through all your postings.

As far as the Saudi Kingdom, yes, you have not been holding it up a shining beacon of what the world should be. But what gets me is the volume of invective directed at France, while other dissenting governments on the Iraqi Operation (I'm sorry, I can't bring myself to say Operation Iraqi Freedom with a straight face), such as Germany and Russia seem to get a free pass from Blogsters like yourself. Please tell me I'm wrong and point me to all the *I hate Germany* and *I hate Russia* postings. But back to the Saudis, in my mind when people discuss issues of national security, they should devote more attention to the real threats, and less to the problematic allies. No country is perfect. You are right to say that we must consider the degree to which they stray from ideals, and that's why I express surprise that I don't see a greater volume of criticism of the Saudis. To me it shows an unwarranted preoccupation with France, while the Saudis seem to be operating unmolested. Maybe we should spend some more time ruminating about how tight Prince Bander is with the Bush clan?

The other thing is that it seems you treat France as a monolithic entity. Do you think it's possible to differentiate the country from its leader? I don't buy into a lot of what Chirac has to say, but I realize there are a lot of good, decent French people out there. Do you think it would be fair if people overseas thought the US was monolithically bad because they didn't agree with the policies of our president, in spite of whether you voted for him or not?

Another $0.02,
P

Hi Poilu:

You make some good points. We may not be as far apart on this as I had originally suspected.

1) The burden of proof is still on you to demonstrate how we have more in common with the French than . . . well . . . "out of common" with them. I think the gap which divides the seemingly innocuous "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" from "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite" is deceptively large. Americans tend not to believe in a sense of their own work-free entitlement and shudder to think of ourselves as a colonial power even when the objective reality would argue differently. The French have colossal faith in their own entitlement and are quite comfortable standing on the faces of the Third World to remain entitled without breaking a sweat. I think much of recent French behavior can be traced precisely to their anxiety about loss of colonial influence and a dawning realization that the yellow, brown or black man is willing to work pretty freeking hard if given a fair chance. What terrifies the French tends (on balance) to spark the competitive drive of Americans. At least the good ones.

2) I'd like to think I would not hold it against an ally if they opposed us in a situation where we were clearly wrong, so I don't consider your counterexamples of our failures to support Colonialist France to be persuasive. I think the elimination of Saddam Hussein is so clearly and objectively right that I am instantly and deeply suspicious of anyone who opposes such a goal, regardless of our ulterior motives.

3) Would I withdraw from NATO? At this juncture, probably not. But if a looser, more flexible and pragmatic coalition of the willing could be lined up along ideological lines . . . one which is dedicated to dropping tariffs, eliminating religious persecution and stomping the guts out of dictators . . . I think I'd know which meetings I'd send my best representatives to.

4) We reconstructed Germany to be pacifistic and brainwashed them for 40 years to believe that war is never the answer to anything, which is actually exactly what I'd like Germans to continue to believe, given the track record. You're right that I'm soft on Russia: I think the country has such organizational epilepsy as to make it nearly uncontrollable, and I find myself impressed enough with anyone who manages to run the place longer than two years without liberal use of mass murder. I acknowledge that this is a double-standard.

5) I think it's completely acceptable to treat a country as a monolithic entity as regards foreign policy. If democracy means anything, it is that we can hold a country accountable for its decision to elect a leader and for the decisions that leader makes. Individually, I love the French, spent a summer living in Paris, used to visit yearly and was once semi-fluent before studying German. But though I delight in individual conversations with them, I believe that their foreign policy reflects a soul-deep laziness which is charming in the form of a two-hour lunch break but hideous when you consider the tradition of colonial slavery which supports it. Two-hour lunch breaks are fine as long as you are the only one paying for it.

Have a good afternoon!

dowingba: Your WWII history is wrong! France could have done more militarily, their fleet could have joined the British instead of forcing them to destroy it. They did not have to resist the allies invasion of N. Africa.

Roosevelt worked tirelessly to prepare the US for war and provided strong support for England.

We did not put focus on defeating the Japaneese. On the contrary, our focus was Germany first, then Japan. Note that we lost more airmen in the 8th AirForce that bombed Germany than all the sailors in the Navy combined.