…a nation which is an ally, not a “friend”, of the US. An ally can pursue its own interests, which are helpfully in parallel, not diametrically opposed to, the US’s diplomatic interests. Like in 1941, when it became in America’s interests, as an ally, to join in on the side of the UK in WWII. Sorta like how France became an ally to the US in the War of Independence. 
I would echo Sevastopol here and remind all concerned that the current round of anti-French sentiment started when they demanded that Hans Blix be allowed to continue looking for the reason for the war, and they were ultimately proven absolutely correct.
Huh?
Friend? How about buddies, penpals or secret lovers?
Sacre Bleu! Nations doesn’t have friends or ‘friends’. They have shifting alliances based on mutual interest. The way the US neocons moan and whine on and on about the Frogs, like the ravings of a scorned lover, is just so pathetic. France follow her national interests. You yours.
Iraq its.
Thudydides, Melian Dialogue: Well, then, we Athenians will use no fine words; we will not go out of our way to prove at length that we have a right to rule, because we overthrew the Persians; or that we attack you now because we are suffering any injury at your hands. We should not convince you if we did; nor must you expect to convince us by arguing that, although a colony of the Lacedaemonians, you have taken no part in their expeditions, or that you have never done us any wrong. But you and we should say what we really think, and aim only at what is possible, for we both alike know that in the discussion of human affairs the question of justice only enters where there is equal power to enforce it, and that the powerful exact what they can, and the weak grant what they must.
As always, the Greeks, 2500 years ago, already said it better than anyone.
Despite all the people who seem to think that Bush is the Devil incarnate, and that world politics didn’t matter until they decided to weigh their opinions on presidential elections, the reality is the current Iraq war is simply the latest flare up, not the core of the matter. Most of the Americans who dislike France have disliked them for a long time. Other flare ups have been when France refused to give air clearance for the bombing raid of Quadafi, and on back to a belief that France set up the U.S. to take the shitstorm in Vietnam. Personally I think that the biggest factor in most of their minds is that when we(the good guys) were busy scaring off the communists(the bad guys) France went a little bit to socialist for many of their tastes. And if you go into a neighborhood bar you will most likely be able to find some guy willing to give a three hour, 100 point diatribe on why they don’t trust France. And I’d assume you could find the counterpart in a French bar on why they don’t like America, both cases starting long before Bush was ever in office.
…and so planes are flown into buildings.
Indeed. It would be folly in the extreme to rely on some romantic notion of ‘friends’ when dealing with fanatic terrorists. The terrorists were the Americans allies during the Afghan war because they had common interests not because they were friends. Now that their interests are no longer the same, such violence should not come as a surprise.
People are people and nations are nations. If one expects to find the rules governing among people to apply between nations, one merely sets oneself up for defeat … and planes flying into buildings.
Friendship between nations seems a nice concept… but only a concept. Its all in the interests. I’m only sure that France is not an enemy of the US. That would be silly. I disagree with those that say americans have been pissed with France a long time… americans simply don’t care or know about the outside enough for that.
If any nation should be a friend of the US it should be Israel for example… and they clearly, to me, only use the USA. Israelis are pragmatic… and they are getting the better part of the deal naturally. Things like shooting US ships and spying on them don’t make for real friends.
I don’t think NZ can be counted as politicaly subservient, small and of no importance yes, but NZ’s nuclear free policy and our unnwillingness to bend that for the American navy saw us booted from ANZUS.
We didn’t join the “coalition of the willing” either, though we did send a small amount of army engineers when the war “finished”.
In reality the NZ-US relationship probably didn’t change much but the NZ govt showed it wouldn’t lie down and wait for a tummy scratch. We are small, so small the US would hardly miss us and at the end of the day it has probably only cost NZ trade deals and not affected the US a teeny weeny bit. We are still considered a “friend”… but we wern’t subservient.
…ummm, :: points to calm kiwi’s post ::
What she said. We are most definately friends with the United States, but we don’t “dance.”
Neither do I, my dear Kiwi friend!
When I wrote “politically subservient” I meant “a nation whose political interests the US government can safely ignore.” Such as Australia, and, yes, even New Zealand. :eek: Whereas it would be somewhat politically costly to US diplomatic relations to ignore Britain.
Technically, I don’t believe France has ever pulled out of NATO. They withdrew from the unified command structure back in the '60’s, meaning they no longer wanted their military forces under a single allied leadership, but France never withdrew from that whole “an attack against one or more of them shall be considered an attack against them all” thing.
French troops fought in the alliance alongside the U.S. in the first Persian Gulf War (of course so did Syria, not normally counted among the allies of the United States), and they’ve sent forces to Afghanistan. France, along with all the other NATO countries, declared that the September 11 attacks were an attack on the whole North Atlantic Alliance, not just on the United States. So far at least France and the United States are still fundamentally allies–although whether or not that will continue to be true in the future I don’t know.
Well, yes. But the country whose well-being they were concerned would take a hit if it were to get involved was France, not the United States.
I guess all those American lives and money spent in rescuing and rebuilding France in the past century is just history now.
Yes, it is. And it should be. Why on earth should we continue to lord it over France that 50 years ago we helped them out from under the German army? Again, international relations is and has always been about interests, from the time of Thucydides to the time of Bush the Lesser.
Regarding thosef interests, one of the most crucial things that a student of international relations must understand about France is that France has a historically well-founded interest in staying out of war. Unlike the United States, which enjoys oceans to the east and west, and two long, undefended borders with allied nations, and which is a relatively young country and has seen only a few truly major, sovereignty-threatening wars, France has been conquered, re-conquered, and conquered again over the course of the last several thousand years. From the Ancient Romans, to the Celts, to the Germanic tribes, to the English, to the Habsburgs, to the post-schism Holy Roman Empire, to its own revolutionaries, to the Nazis — France’s history is written in blood on a timeline of perpetual unrest and slaughter. World War One killed 10% of the entire population. From that perspective, what better ally could the United States have to periodically counsel us against going to war?
You’re right. I misspoke. They withdrew from the unfied command, and NATO headquarters was moved from Paris to Brussels, but they remained part of the Atlantic Council…
:rolleyes:
And you wonder why people go against you even when there isn’t a good reason for it.
By that logic, don’t we still owe France big-time for helping to bail us out during that War of Independence of ours?