# So now we're going to "punish" the French **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 22, 2003, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454 "2003-04-22T23:50:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454/161 "2003-04-29T05:16:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > \*\*It is funny how Iraqi statements are considered ridiculous as far as they concern the US but authentic and accurate as far as they concern France. Did you want to apply for the job of ‘Information minister’? \*\* Try reading the various articles based on the many revelations coming out of Iraqi files. It would be informative. For one thing, there is a big difference between the Propaganda Minister’s statements versus what is contained within the secret files of the Iraqi Mukhabarat, the old foreign ministry, or other government buildings. But, damn the facts, full speed ahead. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454/162 "2003-04-30T15:44:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > \*\*The two points for the US to interact with France, and as such to try and sideline France, are foreign and security policy and trade. All of which are issues in which the French act through the EU, and the US will have to act through the EU to deal with the French. > > Not to mention that the attempts to sideline France so far have harmed the US more than France by demonstrating ignorance and pettiness as prime characteristics of US policy making. \*\* Still haven’t heard a reply from you OliverH, which seems surprising. Now, here’s some more about the plan by France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg to set up their own security policy: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2984509.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2984509.stm) [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2984509.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2984509.stm) > [@](#): > > The leaders of France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg announced plans for joint military planning and their intention to set up a rapid reaction force. So, you were saying that France had to act through the EU for security? Or that attempts to sideline nations would be viewed as petty? ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454/163 "2003-05-01T10:11:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gary Kumquat \* > \*\*Still haven’t heard a reply from you OliverH, which seems surprising. > \*\* Huh? I am not sure what you mean. Maybe you are simply misinterpreting what was said. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Now, here’s some more about the plan by France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg to set up their own security policy: > > [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2984509.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2984509.stm) > > \*\* Sorry, but that is a gross misrepresentation what is happening. It has nothing to do at all with setting up their own security policy. It is a continuation of plans that have been discussed both between governments and in the current convention to create a EU charter. It is a continuation of actions several of the governments involved have been engaged in for over a decade. > [@](#): > > \*\* > So, you were saying that France had to act through the EU for security? Or that attempts to sideline nations would be viewed as petty? \*\* No one is sidelining anyone in your cite. To claim so is either a statement of ignorance or a deliberate lie. a)Several of the countries involved already HAVE joint forces, especially France and Germany. b)Anyone is free to join. The claim that other nations were ‘not invited to the meeting’ is bogus. It was repeatedly stated that anyone was welcome. c)The main point here is to go beyond the joining just of actual forces (which, as mentioned, already exists), but also of staff, to streamline deployment procedures and make a case-by-case decision on chains of command, logistics etc. unnecessary. Which is precisely what is making joint European military deployment sluggish. d)The skepticism cited is pretty meaningless. The UK is objecting to any measure leading to more integration as a rule. The claim that a joint headquarter would undermine NATO is obviously bogus, given that the EU is already now engaged in a military operation independently of NATO, namely the peacekeeping in Macedonia, and that such operations need to be coordinated efficiently. As for the other so-called skeptics, note that no specific scepticism is being cited, and that the Netherlands only has a commissionary government at this point in time. e)The fact that the UK as the largest military power in the EU will not be included at this point in time is one that has no influence whatsoever on the credibility. That doesn’t mean the least that others cannot field a credible force. Quite the contrary, joint efforts can lead to specialization and allow members to focus on their strengths. f)I didn’t say that France has to act through the EU on security, I said to interact with France on the Security field, the US will have to go through the EU. Inside out is not the same as outside in. France, for example, when deploying troops to overseas territories, as a matter of fact has to enter agreements with other nations to enter ports on the way to refuel, and it always has had defense agreements with a number of african nations. That has nothing to do with transatlantic security policy. Nevertheless, your cite in no way interferes with anything I said, since the joint forces are seen as a EU army. g)I was referring to the efforts by the US that have already happened as we speak as having been perceived as petty, because they were incompetent testimonies of ignorance and of pettiness. Not that any attempts would be perceived as petty. But hey, I am sure you can find a reason why favoring a country that has stopped all arms exports to the US and denied transit rights over one that has merely fulfilled its obligations under the UN charter is NOT petty, huh? ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454/164 "2003-05-01T10:14:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gary Kumquat \* > \*\*OliverH, as further proof of the EU’s fragmented nature, have a look at this story: > > [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2981933.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2981933.stm) > > And yet you claim the France and the EU are such intertwined entities that the US could not possibly deal with one but not the other? As this story shows, the member states form private deals all the time. \*\* Wrong, it shows no such thing. And it suggests you don’t know a lot about either the EU, the way its administrated, or the armies of European countries. You also obviously don’t grasp the difference between inside issues and the way someone from the outside has to address a member. The stories has no mention of any private deal whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454/165 "2003-05-01T10:17:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Beagle \* > \*\*Try reading the various articles based on the many revelations coming out of Iraqi files. It would be informative. > > For one thing, there is a big difference between the Propaganda Minister’s statements versus what is contained within the secret files of the Iraqi Mukhabarat, the old foreign ministry, or other government buildings. > > But, damn the facts, full speed ahead. \*\* ROTFL. Yeah, the Mukhabarat is known for its integrity. It has obviously never forged evidence of any kind. Next you’re going to tell us that the State Department never lies, right? Damn the facts which showed otherwise. It is funny to see people like you grasp at anything that confirms their opinion, no matter how disreputable the source is, and dismiss anything that shows otherwise purely on the basis of it doing so. Maybe once you know how to do credible research, someone will do more than laugh at you. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454/166 "2003-05-01T10:22:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gary Kumquat \* > \*\*Ah but elfje, when France, Belgium and Germany do it it’s politics. It’s only when the US do it that it becomes temper tantrums, hypocrisy, bullying, etc… \*\* Except, of course, that you have shown nothing that was in violation of any treaty, nothing that coerced anyone in any way, and nothing that would not be in line with decade-old practice. You have failed to show any equivalence whatsoever, the only thing you have shown is ignorance about both the current level of discussion in the Convent for a European Charter, the already existing integration of armed forces in Europe, and the text of treaties involved. You obviously have no idea what it is that is being seen as temper tantrums, hypocrisy and bullying. But hey, feel free to demonstrate ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454/167 "2003-05-01T10:28:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > \*\*No one is sidelining anyone in your cite. To claim so is either a statement of ignorance or a deliberate lie. \*\* Oh really? From the link I gave you: “But other European countries, like the UK, Italy and the Netherlands, who weren’t invited to this meeting” So when the US announces it’s intention not to deal directly with the French it is (in your own words) sidelining, but when other nations don’t deal directly with the UK or Italy it isn’t? No double standards there at all, honest. > [@](#): > > \*\*a)Several of the countries involved already HAVE joint forces, especially France and Germany. \*\* So please explain your previous claim that the US could only deal with the EU on security matters, rather than with individual nations. You are contradicting yourself, badly. > [@](#): > > **b)Anyone is free to join. The claim that other nations were ‘not invited to the meeting’ is bogus. It was repeatedly stated that anyone was welcome.** That claim is one made in the cites I’ve given. Please provide your own cite showing the UK was invited to that conference. Now most of the rest of your points are actually relevant only to the merits of an EU military council, so of no relevance to this discussion of whether the US is bullying. I would suggest if you want to debate those we start another thread. I do like this blatant lie though > [@](#): > > **f)I didn’t say that France has to act through the EU on security, I said to interact with France on the Security field, the US will have to go through the EU.** To interact with France the US has to go through the EU, despite the fact that France is dealing as an individual nation in the cited example I’ve given? There’s a rather obvious flaw in your claim there. If France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg can start their own security deals, why not the US, UK, Italy, Spain, etc? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454/168 "2003-05-01T18:13:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gary Kumquat \* > nonsense. Again, the US just deals directly with other member states. > > The idea that somehow the US will not be able to deal with the member states it wants to is blatantly wrong. I believe you are wrong in certain areas like trade. Individual countries have given the EU the authority on trade and are not individually free to raise tariffs etc. So, if the EU decides to raise tariffs on some American products the USA connot go to individual counries to have it reversed there. There are a lot of areas where the EU has taken over. For exmple, Spain has an important fishing fleet in Moroccan waters and this is really a bilateral issue between Morocco and Spain and yet Morocco negotiates with the EU and the EU representatives are not even Spanish. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2003, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454/169 "2003-05-05T14:35:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gary Kumquat \* > \*\* > So when the US announces it’s intention not to deal directly with the French it is (in your own words) sidelining, but when other nations don’t deal directly with the UK or Italy it isn’t? No double standards there at all, honest. \*\* I love it when people quote newsreports on issues they have no idea about and take them as fact. They very much deal directly with the UK and Italy. They just met them in fact at a EU meeting and discussed, among other things, the joint army. The claim that they were not invited is bogus, and I already told you so. Your repeating this hogwash tells us something about your credibility. > [@](#): > > \*\* > So please explain your previous claim that the US could only deal with the EU on security matters, rather than with individual nations. You are contradicting yourself, badly. \*\* No, I am not. Your wishful thinking doesn’t make it so. > [@](#): > > \*\* > That claim is one made in the cites I’ve given. Please provide your own cite showing the UK was invited to that conference. > \*\* In case you didn’t realize that, but none of the countries in question uses English as its main language, as such, their media does not usually publish in English. I would suggest you come up with a source that is not deliberately trying to widen the gap. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Now most of the rest of your points are actually relevant only to the merits of an EU military council, so of no relevance to this discussion of whether the US is bullying. I would suggest if you want to debate those we start another thread. > \*\* I would suggest you stick with what you brought up and don’t try to backpedal when critical parts of your argumentation are being refuted. The article you cited is plain wrong, from top to bottom, as evidenced by the fact that Javier Solana, Spaniard, Ex-NATO secretary general, and EU commissioner on joint security policy, does not consider the joint army as in any way interfering with NATO. That does, of course, not keep people like you from spewing propaganda claimining just that. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I do like this blatant lie though > \*\* I like it that you have to resort to insults, demonstrating you have no actual evidence to refute my statements. > [@](#): > > \*\* > To interact with France the US has to go through the EU, despite the fact that France is dealing as an individual nation in the cited example I’ve given? There’s a rather obvious flaw in your claim there. If France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg can start their own security deals, why not the US, UK, Italy, Spain, etc? \*\* I never said they couldn’t, aside from the US. But you still fail to grasp that it’s France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, the UK, Italy and Spain starting. There’s a difference from the inside out to from the outside in. It might be beyond you to comprehend that, since I already explained it last time, but that doesn’t render your private little fantasy world real. Again, for the slow-witted: When the UK starts a deal, it has considerable freedom with whom to talk as long as common interests are not touched. Likewise France, Italy, or anyone else. When the Russians, the Chinese, the US, or anyone else wants to talk, their first stop is the EU. In the one case, one partner is willingly forfeiting the greater bargaining power the EU brings. In the other case, it’s an outsider coming in. Fact is:You cited an article without verifying its veracity, just because it happened to confirm your opinion. Unfortunately it was plain hogwash. Fact is: You totally fail to understand how the EU works. Fact is: You have obviously NO idea just what is perceived as bullying, otherwise you would not have tried to construct an example on this case. It is just about the least suitable. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2003, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454/170 "2003-05-05T15:14:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > **I love it when people quote newsreports on issues they have no idea about and take them as fact. They very much deal directly with the UK and Italy. They just met them in fact at a EU meeting and discussed, among other things, the joint army. The claim that they were not invited is bogus, and I already told you so. Your repeating this hogwash tells us something about your credibility.** Yawn, yes you said before you disagree, so I’m sure you will have no trouble finding a cite showing that my cites are wrong. Go on, go find something. Until then, it’s your credibility v the BBC’s. Guess where my money is. Hell, don’t like the BBC. Go check out the times (can’t link directly, do a search on their website) > [@](#): > > other EU members, notably Britain, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands, which were not invited to the meeting You’ll excuse me for finding these two sources more credible than your unsubstantiated opinion. > [@](#): > > **In case you didn’t realize that, but none of the countries in question uses English as its main language, as such, their media does not usually publish in English. I would suggest you come up with a source that is not deliberately trying to widen the gap.** Eh? The BBC is trying to do what? Are you on meds or something? Please advise if the quote from The Times is acceptable to you. Failing that, I’m dying to know what you view as impartial sources. > [@](#): > > **I would suggest you stick with what you brought up and don’t try to backpedal when critical parts of your argumentation are being refuted. The article you cited is plain wrong, from top to bottom, as evidenced by the fact that Javier Solana, Spaniard, Ex-NATO secretary general, and EU commissioner on joint security policy, does not consider the joint army as in any way interfering with NATO. That does, of course, not keep people like you from spewing propaganda claimining just that.** “people like you”? “propaganda”? Out of interest, just what sort of people am I, and what propaganda? Now be a good chap and explain what your quote there actually has to do with the article being wrong. Go on, please do. I give you an article showing 4 EU nations sidelining others, and you give a defence on how it relates to NATO? Fond as I am of non-sequiturs, truly this is fucking impressive. Is this or is it not a clear example of sidelining other nations. Why is it acceptable for France, Belgium et al to do this to Britain and Italy, but not for the US to do it to France? Please fucking answer. > [@](#): > > **When the UK starts a deal, it has considerable freedom with whom to talk as long as common interests are not touched. Likewise France, Italy, or anyone else. When the Russians, the Chinese, the US, or anyone else wants to talk, their first stop is the EU. In the one case, one partner is willingly forfeiting the greater bargaining power the EU brings. In the other case, it’s an outsider coming in.** Proof please. Cite. Anything at all actually, rather than just your standard tactic of claim without substance. > [@](#): > > \*\*Fact is:You cited an article without verifying its veracity, just because it happened to confirm your opinion. Unfortunately it was plain hogwash. Fact is: You totally fail to understand how the EU works. Fact is: You have obviously NO idea just what is perceived as bullying, otherwise you would not have tried to construct an example on this case. It is just about the least suitable. \*\* No. Fact is I’ve provided cites, you’ve provided nothing. Go and find a reputable source showing that these articles are fabricated or untrue. Go provide a source showing that your claims on how the EU work are true. Go provide anything other than just opinion and fuckwit logic. And to be honest, the phrase “people like you” really is just reprehensible beyond words. Go fuck yourself, you conceited shite. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-going-to-punish-the-french/170454.md?page=8)