Really now the French shouldn’t worry about what someone else is saying about them. They do a wonderful job alienating others all on their own.
The Germans are just as bad as the French but they seem to know enough when to lay low. This might have some relation as to knowing when to come in out of the rain.
Welcome to the boards, YaYaViVi. I regret to inform you that your post would appear to be just another uninformed and rather invalid dig at the French and Germans. At least read the whole discussion before putting your metaphorical mouth into drive. We don’t need empty, unsupported assertions – as you can see we have enough of those already. This is Great Debates: it’s not the place for the assertion of uninformed opinions, and we try to provide substance for the claims we make.
Particularly for claims as simplistic as yours, more elaborate versions of which have already been discussed for months. Read the thread and read the materials linked. If you still object, come back and post your objections with relevant support. Otherwise you have no case and you will end up pissing people off needlessly by making unsupported claims.
And the French would be belting out a tune not unkown in your country, Horst Wessel. Or perhaps Deutchland Uber Alles.
Regardless, it is a bit silly to reach back 60 or 200 years as a basis for modern international relations. What the French did 200 years ago doesn’t excuse their actions today.
As for:
Out of context? Telling a country that they should have kept their mouths shut can be taken out of context? Utter bullshit. Chirac was pissed that the E.European nations weren’t kowtowing to Paris, and his stupid outburst proves that.
Oh, would they? How so? Oh, you wanted to say you were ignorant about the fact that the events that led to the war being lost had largely already happened before a single shot was fired by a GI?
What you fail to grasp is that there is no need for an excuse. The French met their obligations under international treaties. It is the US who violated them.
Yeah, we all know you consider the US the only country in the world which can rightfully expect others to support them, even in violation of their own treaty obligations or constitutions. The only thing your stupid outburst proves is that you are so full of nationalism of the worst kind that your making such rants is supreme proof of your being a hypocrite beyond compare.
Oh, I am well aware of the appeasment strategies that were used to stop Nazi Germany. Boy, did they work great or what? It’s a little sad and a little amusing that French are so hell-bent on using the same appeasment strategies today. Even lab-rats eventually learn.
**
And yet you fail to address the point. Obfuscation is fun, but has no place here.
Chirac, in a fit of impotent rage, spewed some vitriol about those pesky E.European nations keeping their mouths shut, etc. Your outburst, mein Herr, doesn’t actually address that point. To make matters worse, you take it upon yourself to defend Chirac’s statements.
Brutus, please stop this nonsense. I’m going to ask you to support the following statement:
Feel free to use links to on-line articles and extensive quoting as you construct your argument. Then we’ll continue this discussion.
Oliver, I urge you to remain calm and objective.
It’s a little amusing that you make every effort to demonstrate you know less about WWII than a French kindergarten kid. Maybe you should consult a timeline. Thanks for proving my point so well. By the time the US actively intervened, the effort on the eastern front was already treadmilling in the mud.
As for appeasement, I don’t think you actually know when appeasement happened, and by whom. Otherwise you wouldn’t try to point at a nation which did nothing to prevent or end the war on its own as a shining example. What influence the US had on the war in the European theatre was, if at all, in shortening the war, but not in influencing its outcome.
You are the only one who produced an outburst lacking any substance. Your personal lack of knowledge on all matters Europe won’t be conceiled by your spewing vitriol.
I saw “Matrix - Reloaded” during the last weekend. Besides the fact that the story is horrible compared to the first film (off topic), the french are the villains. A coincidence I guess since the film was shot before the problems began, but funny never the less.
I saw the film in original version. The french audience was quite amused about the display of “their culture”, or let’s say, how american directors view french culture. It’s like a french movie were all americans are cowboys. The scene with the insults in french was a big hit in Lyon.
Let’s wait and see if this will continue and Hollywood will replace the german and arab villains but french ones now 
I am mystified. Are you denying that Chirac said such things?
From CNN, we get gems like this:
What is to debate here? Does anyone here really believe that Chirac did not intend to insult E.European countries? And that said insult was as a result of the E.Europeans support for America?
Chirac was (and is) acting like a stereotypical pompous French asshat. I am baffled to think that there are those who think otherwise. Maybe this was all a conspiracy on the part of the VWRC, and Chirac never said those things?
**
I see. And we all know Chirac made these comments in English, right?
Maybe it is just that you are acting like a stereotypical pompous American asshat who believes that a certain conduct is only condemnable when depicted by others, but tolerable even in the extreme from the American side?
What Chirac said is not more and not less that the GOVERNMENTS (you fall for the frequent confusion of nationalists who can’t tell the difference between a government and a country) did not act in a fashion befitting someone who wants to be a member of the EU.
Excellent. You imply that he made these comments in French (presumably), and were terribly translated?
Cite.
Cf. e.g. http://www.btinternet.com/~robert.hinkley/misc/chirac.html
for the actual french text and a more accurate translation, including a further caveat and cf. my more detailed post above.
I’ll let Oliver establish where the original text is and in which language it is, but let’s just look at the CNN article as it appears, and analyze some of Chirac’s comments in context. (This is not anything you won’t already find on these boards)
A fact that is quite evident, since the case for war in Iraq was so weak. The East European nations played a similar strategy that Italy, Spain, and Portugal played: trying to win American favour and influence with their support on an issue the US wanted very, very much and was prepared to pressure over. A strategy that was thoroughly undemocratic, relying as it did on 1) a very weak case for war and 2) ignoring the direct and unequivocal wishes of their populations (and in many cases of even senior members of their governments). The nations that ignored the expressions of their populations and who sided with the US are in line for a reward.
In fact, Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Adam Rotfeld is quoted in the article as saying “Poland has the right to decide what is good for it. France should respect that”. What is good for Poland, not what is good for the entity they are trying to get into. American favour is good for Poland. Perhaps even preferential treatment over rebuilding contracts in Iraq.
I can see why the Eastern European stance would make Chirac and plenty of others angry. Now, Chirac has a history of getting all worked up, there’s no denying that:
I’ll grant that one is an unpleasant shot consisting more of anger than anything else, but Poland and Company really did have an excellent opportunity to keep quiet if you look at it from the European standpoint. Like Spain, the original and first ass-licker in this debacle, and like the countries who followed suit or were forced to follow suit, Poland’s joining the American bandwagon was hardly based on the “compelling” case made by the US and UK for war in Iraq, given the shoddy quality of the same (which, I’ll add, has been debated several times on these boards, so please refer to existing threads in GD if you wish to contest that item). The East Europeans almost certainly realized the weakness of the case for war as well as anyone, but decided to side against those European nations that were pushing for continued diplomacy (a case, as already mentioned, based on the fact that the dire and immediate danger of WMDs appeared significantly fictitious, and that a military solution would be inadvisable at that stage).
The East Europeans split the EU down the middle before even joining it. They bolstered the American and British position (duplicitous as it was), weakened the European Union, and effectively helped drown out the appeals of nations that wished to resolve the situation at the UN as required by the charter.
An understanding that the East Europeans did not in the least exhibit, choosing rather to chase overseas influence and interests rather than lend effort to a European foreign policy based on the facts.
Which is why
Again, this comes across as lecturing and pompous, but it’s true to a fairly high degree. Does the EU need more member states that will turn and chase American influence rather than work towards a real EU foreign policy? I don’t know if Romania and Bulgaria will have EU membership rejected because of this, in fact I think that the decision will be primarily an economic and expansionist one. However I am fairly certain this item will be brought up again in EU forums as regards Romania and Bulgaria and in fact the other East European countries applying for EU membership.
And so forth. With a bit of background much of what Chirac says makes sense. His tone is off, but his words aren’t.
Gee, what an insightful comment – one might be tempted to say it originates from a stereotypical ignorant American, though I provide that phrase merely for perspective. Hopefully you are now somewhat less baffled as to what Chirac was actually saying. Personally I think he is too effluvient and expressive, but he’s taking a stand that can be defended and justified by appealing to principles his nation is a signatory of, and he deserves respect for that.
Pompous? Perhaps. An asshat? Hardly, unless that word means something more specific than a general insult. Do I like him? No, and I don’t have to. However I am sick and tired of seeing certain positions (including the French and German positions) vilified on such poor grounds.
Note the more diplomatic but essentially identical perspective offered in the CNN article by Romano Prodi, who is an Italian (one of the “ass-licker” nations, remember):
My emphasis. Chirac has every right to be angry, and he’s not the only one. If the article cited contains his precise words he could have expressed himself a bit better, no doubt, but his position can hardly be dismissed by calling him arrogant, pompous, or asshat.
Not entirely, because as Chirac points out in the full statement, their joining the EU will be keyed to the passage of EU treaties which will be subject to a referendum in several member nations. As such, the way the public thinks in those countries will be key to whether Bulgaria and Romania can join. If only one referendum fails, the whole thing will have to be renegotiated and their joining be postponed…possibly ad infinitum, since any new treaty will have to be presented to the public in those countries again.
Given the position of the European public towards the war, the decision to sign this letter was likely to generate public aversion against their joining, and as such jeopardized their joining the EU.
They might not like the fact that their statement jeopardized their joining, but it is nevertheless a fact, and if they want the right to make any statement they wish, without consulting others, they have to live with the consequences.
Chirac by far was not the only one. Numerous EU diplomats were cited that he had pretty much said what they thought, but did not voice because they were -precisely- diplomats.
Well, the cite that OliverH provided doesn’t help his position at all, as the key insults are present in both the CNN version and in the website provided.
**
I don’t get it. Chirac does what is good for France (or so he thinks), and you defend him, conveniently ignoring the close business ties between France and old Iraq. But Poland? Oh, they must be in it for the money. No other reason!
**
From ‘the European standpoint’? What the hell is that? France is more ‘European’ than Poland or Britain? What an excruciatingly pompous attitude.
And you wonder why so many are more then a bit nervous at the prospect of handing their gov’t over to the Franco-German EU?
**
And EU foreign policy means only that which is approved of by Chirac? Bullocks.
Your comments are very telling, and ever so predictable. Typical ‘EU uber Alles’ stuff. But don’t be suprised when European countries look to Washington rather than Paris for support, and don’t be suprised when they give support to Washington rather than Paris.
Hardly, since the wording is quite different.
It is your comments that are telling. Obviously, you are unaware that a common position had been agreed on by the foreign ministers of the EU member countries. A position which was abandoned and backstabbed by the member countries who signed the letter of the eight.
Your ignorance of EU decision making procedures is telling, and only serves to underscore the fact that you rant for ranting’s sake.
You have failed to show any exclusive French arrogance. You have failed to grasp that the position of the Eight was a minority position, not just within the EU, but in Europe as a whole. You have failed to grasp that Chirac stated facts, in an undiplomatic tone, but nevertheless facts.
And I seriously doubt that Washington is willing or able to support those countries. You have further failed to grasp the economic realities of Europe and the world.
Well, Brutus, it’s good to see you’re once again setting yourself excruciatingly low standards in a debate. And there I was thinking I might actually get a discussion out of you.
It does seem you are ranting uninformedly. Indeed, I read the French version of Le Monde article that OliverH provided, and (although my French is not great) my impression is the comments were somewhat softer and more cautious than the translation in the CNN article. I didn’t read the English translation of the French piece, I simply wanted a baseline for the translation we’ve been discussing. Regardless of the translation, your recent post fails gloriously to invalidate my previous look at Chirac’s words. In fact, I’m not sure if your post says anything meaningful at all.
Selective literacy is the only charitable reason I can imagine that would lead you to such a conclusion. France may very well have ulterior interests in Iraq. That’s not impossible by any means. However, the French stance is perfectly in line with a few other minor details, referred in my previous post (I believe) as principles. Not just moral principles (which can be pretty vague), but also the principles of not initiating wars of aggression, not violating another nation’s sovereignty, respecting the parameters set out by the UNSC, referring conflicts to the UNSC, using military aggression only as a last resort, etc., etc.
Add to that the fact that France is a permanent member of the Security Council and Poland is not, that France has a much more international foreign policy, that it is substantially diplomatically involved in the Middle East, that it is a member and architect of the European Union, and the thought comes to me that France has rather more reason to speak about this subject than you give credit for.
You see, even if France is in it only for the Iraqi money (which is speculative) its position is still justified by all sorts of international treaties and accords, and by the lacking evidence in support of the case for war. Poland’s position is certainly not similarly justified – and they’ve more than hinted that they were in it for what’s good for Poland. Not what’s good for Europe. Nor the Middle East. Hence negative comments about Poland’s behaviour are justified. Whether they’re made in the excessive style of Chirac or the more diplomatic tone of Prodi, that’s a different question.
The European standpoint as I used it did not mean the European Union standpoint. It means the European (i.e. the region) point of view. You may live in blissful ignorance of what actually happens in Europe, and therefore you may have the highly simplistic point of view you are so fond of distributing, however try for a moment to read objectively and see the situation through the European perspective. I’ve detailed it, here and elsewhere. Others have too, much more so than I.
Heh. Please, go ahead and display even more ignorance of the situation.
Thank you. Any more where that came from? It’s really hard to take that sort of thing seriously. Please see OliverH’s comments.
Oh, by the way: Who is ‘many’? With the exception of Malta, the referendums in the candidate countries so far had a pretty solid majority, with landslide support for joining the EU. Slovakia just had 92.5% of those who voted support joining the EU.
Methinks that you should research your opinion a bit better. You have shown a thorough lack of even the most minimal background knowledge on the EU, and even on the EU in this very limited context.
Ranting about Chirac’s statements without knowing about the resolution of the EU foreign ministers from Jan 27th and the other meetings of the GAERC is really a gross testimony of ignorance.
**
Well, leave it to those Poles to have a domestic foreign policy.
**
So France has more of a right to speak about international matters than Poland? Rubbish. France’s foreign policy in the 20th century is a wonderful example of how not to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century.
**
Oh God. Not a ‘Europe’ Collounsbury.
Suggesting that ‘Europe’ has a singular point of view is stupid beyond belief. The fact that Britain, Poland, Italy, Spain, noble Croatia, and ~8-9 other countries voiced/provided support the action in Iraq shoots down that crock. IIRC, more countries in ‘Europe’ voiced support for the action than voiced opposition to it.
But they are not ‘Europe’, eh? Unless the Franco-German dominated ‘EU’ approves their opinion, it is not proper and ‘European’. It shows poor breeding.:rolleyes:
You are not well informed. Actually, the people in these countries were against the war. I don’t remember ANY country in europe whose people (i.e. the majority) did support the war. E.g. in spain 87% of the population was against the war.
Yes that is 87%
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2289772.stm
But their ass-licking leaders know better, they know that they will be compensated by the US government…
Calling OliverH a "‘Europe’ Collounsbury"is not appropriate given your own nationalist record (I don’t know Collounsbury but I guess that is what you meant).
Anyway, for you, arguments are only valid if they are in line with your own opinion. E.g. the fact that the french helped the US against the British is irrevelant because “too long ago”. That fact that the US helped the French against the Germans means that the French need to support US foreign politics from now on, even when the US violates international law. What kind of logic is that?