Was trashing France a good idea?

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=Happy Clam]
France is a significant power in the world (not perhaps in the first rank, but still one of the G8 nations
[/quote]
So are Italy and Canada. Both fine countries, but no one is going to ask “How high?” when either says “Jump!”

[QUOTE=Happy Clam]
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?
[/quote]
Is historical tendency towards inaction in the face of threats, and appeasement relevent?

[QUOTE=Happy Clam]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Misspelling Britney Spears’s name is making a historically inaccurate point?

In the interest of fairness, maybe I should have, when listing off some of France’s contributions to problems the US has faced, included a detailed list of every other factor. By the time I finished writting that, Iran would have the bomb. Since I’m not pursuing a PhD in France-bashing, I’ll spare the world that dissertation.

62

Neither of them have a seat on the Security Council. Neither have an independent nuclear capability. Neither have anything like as much influence in the third world as France does (both directly through aid/links with former French colonies, and indirectly through, for example, French organisations like Medecins Sans Frontieres). Neither of them are anything like as major a player in the EU as France is. There are lots of reasons to stay on France’s good side.

Could you point to an occasion since the 1930’s when the French have favoured appeasement over a more logical military-based strategy? If anything, I’d argue that France has been too aggressive since then- intervention in the Suez Canal Crisis, seeking to defeat the independence movement in Algeria, etc. Besides, even if France does exhibit a more conciliatory attitude, I’d say that’s a reasonable counterweight to America’s tenedency towards jingoistic intervention and bellicose military policy.

No, claiming that French colonial oppression in 1805 is the reason for Haiti’s current problems rather than American oppression in 1915, that’s a historically inaccurate point.

63

[QUOTE=ScoobyTX]
So are Italy and Canada. Both fine countries, but no one is going to ask “How high?” when either says “Jump!”
[/QUOTE]
Straw man. No-one has made the argument that anyone should say “How high?” when France says “Jump!”

In fact, the argument here is really about whether France should say “How high?” when the US says “Jump.” Many Americans who have been slamming France for the past few years seem to believe that it should, in fact, do pretty much whatever the United States want it to do in world affairs.

64

[QUOTE=Happy Clam]
Neither of them have a seat on the Security Council.
[/quote]
And neither should France, IMO.
[QUOTE=Happy Clam]
Neither have an independent nuclear capability.
[/quote]
Canada could make a bomb in almost no time flat. They just don’t feel the need to prove they have something in their sack.
[QUOTE=Happy Clam]
Neither have anything like as much influence in the third world as France does (both directly through aid/links with former French colonies, and indirectly through, for example, French organisations like Medecins Sans Frontieres).
[/quote]
Which proves that France can buy friends, just like the rest of the developed world.
[QUOTE=Happy Clam]
Neither of them are anything like as major a player in the EU as France is.
[/quote]
While I’m sure Canada would be the consensus favorite for “best country in the whole EU,” I think there might be some eligibility issues.
[QUOTE=Happy Clam]
There are lots of reasons to stay on France’s good side.
[/quote]
Good wines, delicious stinky cheese, Laetitia Casta, probably some other things as well…

[QUOTE=Happy Clam]
Could you point to an occasion since the 1930’s when the French have favoured appeasement over a more logical military-based strategy?
[/quote]
Well, you’ve got to admit, that one was a doozy. I’m sure I could come up with some examples, but I’m equally sure that they’d be answered with a “yeah, but that doesn’t count” from you.
[QUOTE=Happy Clam]
If anything, I’d argue that France has been too aggressive since then- intervention in the Suez Canal Crisis,
[/quote]
de Gaulle being asked (OK, forced, via US, Canadian & Australian pressure on the UK, France’s ally in the Suez Crisis) to stop from trying to start WWIII really pissed him off, leading him to pull out of NATO*, which was a pretty shrewd move- they got all the benefit of NATO, while acting like they’re standing up to the US**. That’s also when they decided they’d develop their own bomb- setting the precedent of every second and third rate power to try to get their own bomb.
[QUOTE=Happy Clam]
seeking to defeat the independence movement in Algeria, etc.
[/quote]
Yes, a high point of French military history.
[QUOTE=Happy Clam]
Besides, even if France does exhibit a more conciliatory attitude, I’d say that’s a reasonable counterweight to America’s tenedency towards jingoistic intervention and bellicose military policy.
[/quote]
It wouldn’t be nearly as annoying if France didn’t seek to act “as a counterweight” to the US in almost every situation. Seems they could be pretty jingoistic and bellicose when the US preferred to avoid drawing the Soviets into the Suez crisis.

[QUOTE=Happy Clam]
No, claiming that French colonial oppression in 1805 is the reason for Haiti’s current problems rather than American oppression in 1915, that’s a historically inaccurate point.
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t say squat about “Haiti’s current problems.” It’s not like France left Haiti as a functional society- they’ve a basket case for basically their entire independent existance.

  • de Gaulle was also jealous over the “special relationship” between the US and the UK. Maybe if France acted like it was on the same team, they’d have a better relationship with the US.

** France, being surrounded by NATO countries (with the exception of Switzerland), didn’t have to worry about being all alone against the Warsaw Pact. The only way that would happen is if the WP attacked via an overextended amphibious assault, or through Switzerland (although CH is neutral, I’m pretty sure an unprovoked Soviet/WP invasion there would have drawn a NATO response).

65

[QUOTE=mhendo]
Straw man. No-one has made the argument that anyone should say “How high?” when France says “Jump!”
[/QUOTE]
Some are making the arguement that anyone should pay attention to anything the French have to say. That was just my way of say “Membership in the G8 is not adequate proof of stature as a meaningful world power.”

66

[QUOTE=ScoobyTX]
Some are making the arguement that anyone should pay attention to anything the French have to say.
[/QUOTE]
Well, i guess that some people just feel that paying attention to what other nations have to say—even if you choose, in the end, to disagree with them or to adopt a different policy—is a reasonable way to conduct foreign policy.

Sorry that you, and many in the current Administration, seem to feel differently. The world might be a less dangerous place were that not the case.

67

[quote]
Yes, a high point of French military history.[/quote]
Speaking of “proud chapters,” no doubt all those flying choppers out of your own embassy roof left Vietnamese with an unforgettable sense of “American Bravery.”

Amrican supremist fucknut.

<em>No pasaran!</em>

68

[QUOTE=RedFury]

Plase fix quoting.

Thanks a bunch
~Javier

69

[QUOTE=ScoobyTX]
Some are making the arguement that anyone should pay attention to anything the French have to say. That was just my way of say “Membership in the G8 is not adequate proof of stature as a meaningful world power.”
[/QUOTE]

Could you give a list of “meaningful world powers” , and explain why they are so?

Amongst the G8, for instance : the UK is essentially on par at all level with france, so if France is to be excluded, the UK should equally be. Canada has a low population, GNP, military, etc… hence no much clout. Italy is on par with France economically but not militarily, and has few diplomatic influence. Germany has a larger economy than all the previous countries, but has shown few interest in messing up with any international issue until very recently (and even now, only to a very limited extent). Japan even more so. Russia is militarily in shambles, and has a GNP on par with the Netherlands.

Basically, if you exclude France from the “meaningful world powers”, then the only “meaningful world power” is the USA.

70

[QUOTE=ScoobyTX]
Some are making the arguement that anyone should pay attention to anything the French have to say.
[/QUOTE]
So, no one should listen to them even if they are right, or otherwise have something important to say ?

French : Invading Iraq is stupid !
Bush : LALALALA Can’t hear you !

French : We’ve discovered a cure for cancer !
Bush : LALALALA Can’t hear you !

French : Mr President ! There’s someone behind you with a club !
Bush : LALALALA Can’t hear * ! BONK ! *

71

[QUOTE=clairobscur]
Could you give a list of “meaningful world powers” , and explain why they are so?

[/quote]

I will bet against this.

In fact, Italy is in big economic trouble (yes France has trouble to), with its deficits and so forth. Spain is healthier than Italy.

But I predict there is no standard being used, only a strange chauvinist hatred that blames, for example, France for Haiti while forgetting his own country’s invasions and occupations (or funding of Viet Nam…).

More inaccurate and biased statements will follow, and ignoring any of the corrections made to prior statements.

Of course in France there are people who are the same way towards the Anglo Saxons. They are idiots of course.

72

[QUOTE=clairobscur]
Could you give a list of “meaningful world powers” , and explain why they are so?

Amongst the G8, for instance : the UK is essentially on par at all level with france, so if France is to be excluded, the UK should equally be.
[/QUOTE]
You forget the prime criterion here.

A “meanigful world power” in the minds of some folks is one that supports US policies.

73

France has a complex nuclear strategy, based in part on their desire not to be beholden to the US over national defence- something that has enabled them to take a much-needed role in the West to balance American dominance (compare to Britian, whose dependence on the US to maintain its nuclear deterrent has directly led to the current slavish role being adopted by the British government).

Your opinions have no validity in this argument. The question is whether France is a useful ally to the US and/or an important figure on the international stage. The answer to both is demonstrably yes, and making snide comments about it does little but reinforce my view of you as a kneejerk francophobic.

So, in other words, you don’t have any examples.

I wasn’t saying that Algeria represented a shining example of French wisdom, I was pointing out that it disproved your characterisation of France as appeasers.

Actually, I’d say that America violating the Non-Proliferation treaty by giving nuclear weapons to Israel was more likely the reason why every third-world state nowadays is scrambling for nukes.

Once again, you don’t appear to have any actual points to make, prefering to make a few anti-French comments about wine, cheese and 50-year-old historical mistakes and depart. So I ask you: What did America gain from antagonising France, a country which, whether you like it or not and regardless of its past history is a major international player whose friendship America could well do with in its present circumstances (especially over, say, imposing sanctions of Iran)? What motivated the Bush administration in its criticisms of France other than spite at being denied a cheery “Oui!” to their request: “Hey, could we please invade Iraq on dubious intelligence evidence and in violation of international law?*” If there is some conceivable advantage America can gain from its current “fuck you” attitude to France, I’d like to know. And if not, why are you arguing other than to make a bunch of cheap shots against what you imagine to be the French character?

*Fictionalised dialogue, obviously. They’d never have said “please”.

74

[QUOTE=clairobscur]
Could you give a list of “meaningful world powers” , and explain why they are so?

Amongst the G8, for instance : the UK is essentially on par at all level with france, so if France is to be excluded, the UK should equally be. Canada has a low population, GNP, military, etc… hence no much clout. Italy is on par with France economically but not militarily, and has few diplomatic influence. Germany has a larger economy than all the previous countries, but has shown few interest in messing up with any international issue until very recently (and even now, only to a very limited extent). Japan even more so. Russia is militarily in shambles, and has a GNP on par with the Netherlands.

Basically, if you exclude France from the “meaningful world powers”, then the only “meaningful world power” is the USA.
[/QUOTE]
My top list would go something like:[list][li]Number 1 with a bullet- USA- biggest economy, strongest military, 2.5 years to go before a hopefully better administration comes along[]Big Gap[]Number 2 and still coming on strong- China- 1.3 billion Chinese can’t be wrong, strongly growing economy, strong military (when they have the home team advantage) that may someday be able to project force outside their territory, one to keep a close eye on[]Number 3 and fading for coming on 20 years now- Russia- coasting on strength of a gazillion nukes, might have some hope of stabilizing before they fall out of the top 5[]Number 4 and falling with some grace- UK- now that the sun sets every day on the British Empire, they don’t seem quite as tough, but I still see them in 50-100 years as number 2 partner and chairman emeritus of an Anglophone Union (since the French have made it clear over the history of the EEC/EU that the Brits aren’t very welcome)[/li]--------- <— the line between “meaningful world power” and “also-rans”
[li]Number 5 with an asterix- India- Big regional power that might make it into the big time, if they can work things out with their former colony-mates (Pakistan)[/li][*]Number 6 through 11 (in no particular order)- Japan, France, Germany, Australia/ New Zealand (thrown together, ANZAC-style), Korea (either South Korea alone, or a 50-100 year hence unified Korea, once the reunification pains are past), Canada

75

Make that:

[ul][li]Number 1 with a bullet- USA- biggest economy, strongest military, 2.5 years to go before a hopefully better administration comes along[/li]
Big Gap

[li]Number 2 and still coming on strong- China- 1.3 billion Chinese can’t be wrong, strongly growing economy, strong military (when they have the home team advantage) that may someday be able to project force outside their territory, one to keep a close eye on[]Number 3 and fading for coming on 20 years now- Russia- coasting on strength of a gazillion nukes, might have some hope of stabilizing before they fall out of the top 5[]Number 4 and falling with some grace- UK- now that the sun sets every day on the British Empire, they don’t seem quite as tough, but I still see them in 50-100 years as number 2 partner and chairman emeritus of an Anglophone Union (since the French have made it clear over the history of the EEC/EU that the Brits aren’t very welcome)[/li]--------- <— the line between “meaningful world power” and “also-rans”[]Number 5 with an asterix- India- Big regional power that might make it into the big time, if they can work things out with their former colony-mates (Pakistan)[]Number 6 through 11 (in no particular order)- Japan, France, Germany, Australia/ New Zealand (thrown together, ANZAC-style), Korea (either South Korea alone, or a 50-100 year hence unified Korea, once the reunification pains are past), Canada[/ul]

76

[QUOTE=Happy Clam]
France has a complex nuclear strategy, based in part on their desire not to be beholden to the US over national defence- something that has enabled them to take a much-needed role in the West to balance American dominance (compare to Britian, whose dependence on the US to maintain its nuclear deterrent has directly led to the current slavish role being adopted by the British government).
[/QUOTE]
Seeing that France is surrounded by close allies (plus the neutral, non-aggressive Swiss), and that, in the old days (Cold War era), the only way the WP was going to invade France was through NATO countries, by going through Austria and Switzerland, or by an unimaginably overextended amphibious assault, they put themselves at zero risk by pulling most of the way out of NATO. Theire nukes are pretty much just there for show- de Gaulle’s way of joining the “big dick” club. It’s not like the other johnny-come-lately-to-the-nuke-club countries, that had genuine fears of neighbors- China (long, formerly semi-hostile border with USSR, and a rivalry over who was the rightful leader of the World Revolution), Israel (surrounded by countries that don’t or didn’t acknowledge their right to exist), India (with periodic border clashes with the only other country that has more manpower, and nukes to boot), & Pakistan (had to have them since India had to have them).

[QUOTE=Happy Clam]
Actually, I’d say that America violating the Non-Proliferation treaty by giving nuclear weapons to Israel was more likely the reason why every third-world state nowadays is scrambling for nukes.
[/QUOTE]
Cite? (I’ll save you the time… it was the Brits that had more to do with setting Israel on a fast track to the bomb, not the Americans.)

77

[QUOTE=ScoobyTX]
It’s not like the other johnny-come-lately-to-the-nuke-club countries, that had genuine fears of neighbors
[/QUOTE]
[sarcasm]Yeah, it’s not like France has ever been conquered in recent times or anything. [/sarcasm]

78

Actually, just to add fuel to the fire (or uranium to the pile) Israel got most of its nuclear technology from France, not the US or the UK. Both wanted a way of keeping out the whole US/USSR pissing contest, and after the US kept the French and British from fulfilling their agreement with Israel during the Suez crisis, the French felt they owed the Israelis. The British took the opposite conclusion, name lythat if there was going to be a giant bull elephant trampling all over the place, the only sensible place to be was perched on its back trying to steer it by the ears.
Federation of American Scientists potted history

Also, I believe the British build their own ‘physics packages’ - I would suspect the fact that they buy delivery systems from the US and swap bits of designs back and forth isn’t really a big factor in their relations.

79

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
[sarcasm]Yeah, it’s not like France has ever been conquered in recent times or anything. [/sarcasm]
[/QUOTE]
If France was scared that Germany was going to rise up, throw off the occupation of 3 other occupying powers (all nuclear powers) and go marching back down the Champs-Élysées, I would put that down as an “irrational fear.”

80

[QUOTE=ScoobyTX]
If France was scared that Germany was going to rise up, throw off the occupation of 3 other occupying powers (all nuclear powers) and go marching back down the Champs-Élysées, I would put that down as an “irrational fear.”
[/QUOTE]
No, they simply lack the irrational American “We are INVINCIBLE !!!” attitude.