Faulty premise.
clairobscur, you raise interesting points. I’ll try to get back to you later tonight. In light of what you say I may revise at least some of my ire with France. 
Legolamb, you raise several interesting points as well. Unfortunately, I disagree with virtually all of them. I’ll try get back to you, too.
Futile Gesture, same with you.
You guys have loaded me down with too much to respond to now. I’ll have to return when I have a couple of hours (at least) to spare.
Regards.
Look, American tourism in France is still way the hell down, and that won’t change any time soon… but otherwise, I’ve never seen any genuine attempts by Americans to boycott France! Americans still buy Bic pens, still buy Michelin tires, still fly on airlines that purchase from Airbus, and so on and so on and so on.
I’ve heard lots of jokes about “freedom fries” but I have yet to see an actual restaurant changing the names of “French Fries” or “French Toast.”
In short, the degree to which Americans hated the French was somewhat exaggerated to begin with, and besides, with our typical short attention spans, Americans can’t stay mad at ANYBODY for too long.
(Some) Americans are simply mad at France for proving them to be the overreactionary trigger-happy nutjobs they are.
“We’re gonna invade Iraq!”
“You shouldn’t do that.”
“They’ve got WMDs!”
“There’s no proof so far; let’s give Blix more time to look.”
“We can’t wait! Are you in or out, ya pussies?!”
“Count us out.”
“Cheese-eating surrender-monkeys! ARRRH! Die, Saddam!”
BANGCRASHBOOM*ZAPPO
“Ha! Iraq is ours now! How do you like them apples, Frenchie?”
“So where are the WMDs?”
“…uh…”
“And who’s going to clean up this mess?”
“…er…”
“And why are the locals pissed off at you now?”
“…uhm…”
“…sigh. We told you so.”
You’re fine up to then. Then the conversation goes alongs the lines of:
“But we are making millions buying Saddams Oil, not to mention the big bucks we are making in arms sales. Besides- most of the third world hates you, and that’swhere our biggest market is. And we don’t want those crazy Terrorists bombing the Eiffel tower. Not to mention- if we go in there with you, we’d pee our pants at the sight of an actual enemy. So for reasons of greed and cowardice- we’re checking out.”
Come on guys. This is World Politics- and hardly anyone ever does anything because “it’s the right thing to do”. And, then we’re talking about the leader in cowardly sell-out- the French. The bravest thing the French have done in the last six decades is shave the heads of prostitutes who (gasp!) slept with german soldiers. Terrible. Of course- the French MEN were busily collaberating like madmen, but it made them feel all brave, patriotic and noble to beat up and harrass those poor hookers. :dubious: :rolleyes: Then- what they did to Petain was a travesty. Shitheads.
Oh don’t get me wrong either- our Administration didn’t go in there for noble reasons either. They wanted (and got) several things- revenge for the Gulf war and George Bush I, big bucks into Haliburton’s pockets (and “what goes around comes around” of course! 
), to show the rest of the world that we WERE the big cheese and we could whup anyones ass (this could be a GOOD thing when you’re dealing with dudes like the Chinese & Koreans)- and mostly - to keep GWB’s popularity up as a “war president” as America wants a real tuff guy hero. Oh, and BTW- there’s some oil there, and we might be able to re-coup some of our losses. :dubious:
The bonus was the fact that Saddam was found out to be even more of an evil bastard than anyone (outside of Iraq) suspected- with atrocities on his own people that made Hitler and his cronies look up from Hell and take notice. :eek: SH was evil, and he deserved to be taken down, and the Iraqi people are far better off now that they were. However- that doesn’t really seem to be a justifiable reason to invade a sovereign nation. Nice to know, sure. We came out of there “on the right side” as Saddams 'side" was so completely evil. We are the good guys- in comparison. :rolleyes:
The French and the Americans (and just about everyone else)make their political decisions based primarily upon self- interest. We’re no different there. The only significant difference is they have had the guts beaten out of them by the Germans, and we still have ours. They are greedy self interested cowards. You can’t call us “cowards”, but…
“there” being Iraq. :smack:
I generally agree. I think many, if not most, Americans think the whole anti-French campaign launched by the right was silly. However, there is a significant block of conservative politicians and pundits who do hold a lot of suspicion and animosity towards France and other countries in “Old Europe” (as seen, for example, in this recent xenophobic screed by a Fox talking head). This is because many on the right view Europe, with its fondness for socialism, irreligiousity, and amorality, as a potential cultural, economic, and eventual military rival (and perhaps a long-term future threat) to American power.
In fact, such feelings on the right existed before either the Iraqi War or 9/11. Thus, oddly enough, Chirac’s opposition proved fortuitous to these people because it gave them an excuse to promote their “Old Europe is Evil (Especially France)” policy. Just think where they would be if France went along with the whole tragic farce.
That’s the only part I’m going to comment in your lame rant.
Since you say “you can’t call us cowards”, after making references to WWII and the gulf war, I assume you personnally fought in one or the other? If not, then, how exactly does the actions of other people allow you to be included in the “us” who aren’t cowards?
You feel like the moral qualities (or lack thereof) of other people are magically bestowed upon you because you have a passport of the same color?
This is so silly.
I haven’t forgotten de Gaulle’s attempt to influence the destruction of my country, a member of the British Commonwealth, that gave up 1.7 million lives fighting the two world wars for which France was the primary beneficiary.
I haven’t forgotten France’s arrogant continuation of almost 50 above ground nuclear tests in the Pacific endangering the health of humanity world wide, after Britain, America and the USSR agreed to ban the practice
I’m continually reminded of the deep anti-semitism that permeates French society.
I don’t think there has been any french above ground nuclear tests in the Pacific. The tests in the Pacific (in Mururoa, more precisely) were subterranean. France began to test nuclear weapon in the Pacific in 1966. Before that, they were done in southern Algeria, and AFAIK, above ground.
I might be mistaken. But since you seem to be able to post precise informations (number of above ground tests after Britain, the US, etc… banned the practice), I want some evidences for your statements :
1)When did the US,Britain, USSR stopped making above ground nuclear test exactly? Before 1966 or after?
2)When did France? After 1966?
3)Have you some evidences for these above ground tests in the Pacific and for their number?
Here’s a nice list of above ground nuclear tests. The pertinent parts:
-
The UK halted above ground tests in 1958, and the US/USSR followed suit in 1962.
-
France halted above ground tests in 1974.
-
France had 46 total above ground tests, but the chart does not indicate where they were geographically.
OK. I checked, and you were partially right.
France conducted 41 above ground nuclear test in the Pacific between 1966 and 1974, when they were discontinued.
I checked for the US (I didn’t for the USSR) and it discontinued above ground tests two years before, in 1972, after 27 years of above ground tests. Not a huge difference, IMO.
Where did you find that info, clairobscur? I’m interested in seeing if I can find out why there’s a discrepancy in total French tests and the year when the US discontinued above ground tests.
You posted you last reply while I was searching datas and posting mine. Now, I’m going to search for this discrepancy between your 1962 and mine 1972 (picked on a greenpeace site) dates.
The 41/46 is likely due to 41 Pacific + 5 Algerian = 46 total tests.
The Department of Energy has a PDF detailing all US nuclear tests. The relevant part:
CANADA certainly did not give up 1.7 million lives to save France. Don’t be crtediting Canada with the sacrifices of British, Indian, Australian, etc. boys.
As for the general point, so what? Canada still keeps its aboriginal people in an apartheid legal limbo, was responsible for helping start the problems in Sudan that plague that country today, etc. etc. The United States - the other dog in the argument, you may remember - has in the last fifty years supported genocidal dictators and committed genocide itself in Laos. Let’s be quite honest; EVERY country with the means to do so has acted like a bastard, because that’s what they do. The point of the thread is that the weird U.S. PR campaign against France was, and is, total bullshit.
I don’t have the time right now to search for more infos, but though I found references to the 1963 US-USSR treaty banning above-ground tests, I also found three different references to the USA discontinuing the practice only in 1972.
Concerning France, I also found a complete list of the nuclear tests (indicating the place, the “size” in KT/MT and whether or not they were under or above ground), but couldn’t/didn’t have the time to find the same list for the US, which would provide a definitive answer about the actual date. Would someone have a link to such a list?
I linked to a PDF in my last post from the US government which listed all American nuclear tests, time (to the millisecond), date, longitute, latitude, yield, et cetera, et cetera. 1963 featured the Limited Test Ban Treaty which prohibited above-ground tests. I can’t find a reputable cite that indicates the US or USSR continued with above-ground tests beyond that.
I found these references on french sites (searching on the french web being more convenient for me). None of the three gave any details, just mentionned 1972 as the year when the USA discontinued them. One of them though seemed to link it (not very clearly) to tests made in Alaska (I forgot the name of the place)
Yes. Most probably. This discrepancy, though, didn’t seem very important to me.
Once again, you pposted while I was searching/writing my last post. I quickly checked the list between 62 and 72. The relevant part seems to be the “type” of detonation. “Surface” stop to appear roughly around 63, indeed (I didn’t take note of the exact date). After there are “shaft” and “tunnel” tests, which are obviously underground, but also some “crater” tests. What does "crater"means?
As for now (assuming that a “crater” type isn’t an above ground test), I’m going to assume that ** grienspace ** was indeed right. Maybe the 1972 date refers to some official statement by the USA to the effect that it definitely renounced to these tests?
Since I remember I found one of these references on the french greenpeace site, perhaps I’ll check later their US site, to see if they give the same information with more details.
Amchitka, one of the Aleutian Islands near Alaska. There were underground tests there in 1965, 1969, and 1971.
A ‘crater’ test is an underground test placed shallowly enough to cause a visible eruption of earth. (A ‘shaft’ test is a nuclear weapon placed at the bottom of a drilled hole, and a ‘tunnel’ test is one at the end of a horizontal tunnel drilled into a mountain.)
The only 1972 date relevant to this that I can find is the conclusion of SALT I (Strategic Arms Limitation Talks).