Perhaps if Woodrow Wilson had followed through on his 14 points promise and given the Arab states independence rather than handing them over to the British and French as “dominions” (oh yes, the Rosbifs and Frogs were gulity too, but maybe Wilson could have put up a bit of a fight when they marched into the ruins of the Ottoman empire). Perhaps if the Americans hadn’t supplied dictators like Saddam Hussien with arms during the Cold War. You take a little from Column A, a little from Column B…
Either you did not read maziiadar’s post, or you do not understand what a “Tu Quoque” argument is. maziiadar has been defending French actions, not just saying “America did it too”, and you do yourself no favours by dismissing him out of hand like that.
Because we all know that America’s chief concern in the last 60 years has been the promtion of peace, human rights, and democracy. Oh yes (not that the French have either, but standing up to America does occasionally yield results. See also: Iraq).
I don’t see why combatting anti-French bias has to be restricted to the left- merely the sensible (of course, the two states of mind may be congruent- but I wouldn’t know :D). As far as I can see, the point that the OP makes is still valid- knee-jerk anti-French bias just because they refused to support the war resolution is quite ridiculous (especially since their valid concerns about intelligence and post-war restructuing both turned out to be correct). Furthermore, to point and laugh at France because it made mistakes in the past is silly, not least because America has as many (and more recent) blemishes on its record. You seem to imply that just because the right took up the (foolish) cause of Francophobia, the posters who have onjected to that are the ravening hordes of the Liberals, motivated by nothing more than sectarian bias.
Oh, and why no love for Germany? They also did plenty of stupid things in the past, and also opposed the UN resolution, but I don’t see hamburgers being renamed Washingtoners. 
At least in your listing you confirm the worst stereotypes that I have heard of Americans actually exist.
But of course one should say in advance, yes, France has made messes like any country has. It would be terribly stupid to point fingers at others for those messes, when they are actually the fault of France. But one is forced to confess the causation may lack.
Of course, this is France’s fault, not at all because of the century of American interventions, most recent occupations, etc.
Nothing would be the fault of the good and wise Americans.
If after they have come to teach the black men of Haiti civilisation and things go wrong because of a racist regime, then it must have been the fault of France’s original colonisation centuries before (or okay, the Napoleonic interventions).
[blockquote]French West Africa (includes Ivory Coast),
[/quote]
Ivory Coast was doing well until only a few years ago, when its own government set off a civil war.
But I understand in your analysis France is eternally at fault, if 50 years later for reasons that have no connection with France (such as southern discrimination against northerners), any place that France has been has problem, it is France’s fault and proves France fits your image.
It is very rational, this thinking, very rational.
Of course, by this same standard, all problems in Central America where the US intervenes are all the fault of Americans.
You are keeping the same standards, no? This is not empty chauvinism and irrational bashing, no?
Congo / Zaire was a Belgian colony, but yes problems. I am sure, like Nigeria or Zimbabwe or Liberia or Seirra Leone if the British or Americans had been there, that they would be very perfectly governed, with little corruption, no problems, no civil wars, no violence at all.
Obviously, France is an incompetent country for its former colonies in Africa have violence, and instability, unlike the well-governed former colonies of England, like Zimbabwe, Sierre Leone, etc.
I am sure you will keep a very fair and balanced score, unaffected by national prejudice or chauvinism and that your clear thinking on France and its former colonies is very balanced and is not in any way off balanced by bias.
Be kind: from all the way over on the other side of the Atlantic, who can tell the difference between all those little European countries, anyway?
Oh, I’d also like to say that your English is very good for someone to whom, presumably, it is not a first language.
Really? Maybe you do not understand what a “tu quoque” arguement is (or the other ad hominems that his/her posts are rife with). It appears to me that in this thread concerning the French, maziiadar seems to be saying (over and over) “you’re just an ignorant American- besides, everyone else did/does it, too- especially the Americans.” At least he finally says:
I’m not laying the blame for anything completely on the French, but French incompetence has made many bad situations worse.
The other Congo (i.e., the one that was “Congo” before Zaire was renamed “Congo.”
Got that straight?
Who is it that can’t tell the difference between all those silly little African countries? I guess from all the way on the other side of the Mediterranean Sea, they all look alike. 
Again with the tu quoque. If this were a thread titled “Was trashing England a good idea?”, or “Was trashing the US a good idea?”, your comments might have a place. This thread is about France.
Exactly what results did French ankle-nipping yield in Iraq?
Which is it: Is France an insignificant pipsqueak, coasting by on past acheivements (when they were almost always playing second fiddle to the British), yapping like a little toy poodle trying to get attention? Is it a middling power pursuing its own priorities (which, since around the 50s, has been mainly to nip at the heels of the US) to the detriment of its own long-term strategic interests? Is it some combination of the two?
They weren’t gifted a permanent seat on the UNSC (along with a veto), like France was. The Germans know that people are just starting to listen to them again (since the generation of their last adventures have mostly retired from power and are dying off).
Hold hard. This thread is about (certain political elements of) the US trashing France. Therefore tu quoque WRT the US is in fact highly pertinent, since without it, any elements of hypocrisy in the trashing would necessarily be overlooked. Which, I’m sure, you wouldn’t want.
I think your descriptions of France’s situation are unnecessarily hostile. Perhaps it, like many other European countries whose influence on world affairs has dwindled, it is simply carving out its little place in the world. That place seems, at times, to be opposed to the United States, yes, but I don’t see how that is definitely against France’s long-term interests. Why should it be so closely tied to the Americans?
OK, I’ll grant that tu quoque could be a valid element of an arguement in favor of France, if it was only part of a whole.
I won’t grant that “At least in your listing you confirm the worst stereotypes that I have heard of Americans actually exist” is any more than ad hominem, and from a position of ignorance. I haven’t proposed invading France, tying down all the French, force-feeding them McDonald’s hamburgers and Coca-Cola while blasting Brittany Spears “music” at them, and making them convert to some fundamentalist evangelical Christian sect before painting them all in blackface and hanging them from the most convenient tree. That would be more in line with the “worst stereotypes” of Americans. 
I’d say definitely yes, but they don’t by any means have a monopoly on the habit. It is the habit of politicians and political parties in general to find scapegoats and make excuses.
One of the interesting things about incompetence is that it will make any situation worse, no matter who or where it originates from. If you’re going to start ragging on countries because they have been incompetent about something and have made some situation or other worse, you’re going to be pretty busy for a long time.
Perhaps it’s a large, wealthy, sophisticated, democratic country with a large class of politicians and commentators, who have wide range of ideas on the best way to establish a peaceful and prosperous world order, but which in general tend to be somewhat different from the consensus emerging within the beltway and on talk radio?
Anyhow, I think France has a valuable role to play in giving the US establishment practice for tomorrow’s world when the entire planet will be inextricably entwined with the US economy and a dozens of countries have at least a handful of nukes. At which point diplomacy will be at a premium, as will allies.
Hostile? Sorry, I was aiming more at “dismissive.” You know how ignorant Americans tend to fly off the handle and over-react. :smack:
Sounds like you’re channeling Anne Coulter there, buddy. (“Britney”, BTW).
As far as I can see, on a world stage France behaves much like the US, but with none of the power. I can see why you find it irritating.
Sarcasm isn’t necessary. I’ll accept that you disagree with my word choice, but the rest of my post still stands. Why would French dislike of the United States be bad for France in the long term?
I didn’t mean that French opposing the war had done anything towards stopping it (unfortunately); I meant that France being willing to stand up to America (to the point, perhaps, of being a little knee-jerk anti-American) was a positive feature when it exposed policies like the Iraq war.
When did you stop beating your wife?
France is a significant power in the world (not perhaps in the first rank, but still one of the G8 nations, as well as possessing a number of other important attributes- like nuclear weapons) and, like all powers, it works chiefly to advance its own interests (although in doing so it sometimes benefits other; see the point earlier in the thread about France combatting islamic terrorism). It has made mistakes, like all other nations, but I don’t see why that has any relevance to Frances’ diplomatic relations with the US.
What exactly is it that you are arguing? “France did bad stuff”. Fine. OK. We agree. However, are you then arguing that “Because France did bad stuff”, America should feel free to take the piss out of France and deride them as a second-rate nation? If so, it is directly relevant that America did bad stuff too. I would argue that, in terms of diplomacy, the past actions of a nation are irrelevant unless they directly indicate likely future trends. Since France has a history of colonial mismanagement, we should therefore discourage France from attempting to colonise other countries. However, since France currently seems to be opposed to that tenedency (see: Iraq), France’s record is no more significant to this discussion than the fact that France is roughly pentagonal in shape. So, once again: was it a good idea to seriously damage diplomatic relations with a major foreign power, not to mention stoke the fires of xenophobia in America, because they wouldn’t agree to legitimise the invasion of Iraq?
And maybe you wouldn’t be derided as an ignorant American if you didn’t exhibit the characteristics (of ignorance, not Americanism)- ie. stopped making historically inaccurate points.
Opposed. Opposed. Preview is my friend.
Which would explain why France is often referred to as “l’Hexagone”.
But seriously, great post, Happy Clam.
Oh, great. I go to criticise someone for making inaccurate slurs on France’s national character, and what do I do- insult its geographical geometry! Please forgive me, worthy Frenchmen (and Frenchwomen)! I meant no disrespect to your beautiful, six-sided nation! Woe is me! Woe is me!
The problem is your statments have been filled with superficial statements and hypocritical double standards - the same half-facts you are using to dismiss and diminish the French can be used to dismiss the United States.
You use Haiti to bash FRance, but it is the US that is most responsible in the past century for Haiti - including long occupations. The same kind of chauvist superficialism you use on France can be used on the US. So France has made errors, deserves no respect and is a “banana republic” because of Haiti, etc., yet you ignore American acts (the bad history itself in Haiti, in Central America) that should lead us to dismiss America as an incompetent country. I find this as sad as France bashing.
It makes, then, your argument, a false one based only on chauvinist feeling and hypocritical double standard. It is, to me, quite saddening to see someone making these kind of arguments like this.
For the question, I think the American right was ignorant and short sighted to make these kinds of chauvinist arguments - and I know that many foreigners like myself who are not inclined to being against the US have found the public behaviour in these past years stinking of over-bearing arrogance and very different from the kind of American image that made the US liked.
And of course when you look at polls across the world, you see verfication of this.
It is possible to wisely pursue national interest, but I find it hard to say that one has the sense the US is doing this now.
I am reminded of the arrogance of Napoleon, who made enemies out of friends from his arrogance (ignore if Napoleon was right or wrong, the lesscon is on arrogance and making enemies when one does not need to).