So, if I understand correctly, since you don’t cite any other reason, you put the UK significantly above France only on the basis of its friendliness with its former colonies and, I assume, the USA? Or maybe on the fact that Brits speak english, or something…IOW, your ranking is dependant on what foreign policies are followed, and whether you like them or not, or on what language is spoken?
I won’t comment on China and Russia (though I’m fully convinced China will overpower everybody else in a not so long away future) because they’re in very peculiar situations and difficult to assess.
To say the truth, I’m fully convinced you put your list in this order so you’ll be able to put France in the middle of a list of randomly assorted powers of secondary importance, and you like this better. Not on the basis of any objective reason.
I say randomly because honestly, it seems you picked them from a hat or something. Canada, for instance, as I already mentionned, has a low population, and as a result a low GNP, not much in the way of international influence, and they barely spend a dollar on their military. New-Zealand??? I’ve nothing against kiwis, but putting it in a list of “meaningful world powers” is nonsentical. And so is equating New-Zealand and France in term of global clout. I’ll give a pass to Australia because it’s actually a regional power, and acts as such in its sphere, regardless of its global influence. So, it seems to me the main reason they’re in this list is that these countries are english-speaking, or maybe that you like them better, or maybe you’re more familiar with them, or maybe because they’re friendlier to the USA. I couldn’t tell why exactly, but it’s certainly not because you’ve carefully considered your ranking. I clearly see a pro… how do you call that?.. “Anglophone Union” bias at work here.
I also note you didn’t mention a number of regional powers, either. Say, Brazil, or Iran, who certainly could claim a spot in your list if New-Zealand is in. Not even Israel, to my surprise. Or any African power (South-Africa, Nigeria, Egypt or even Lybia), who, though not on an equal footing with many develloped nations if considered in an abstract way, can’t be ignored because their strong regional influence make them “international players” that just can’t be dismissed out of hand when you consider regional issues.
To sum up clearly, I’m unable to take your post seriously.
And what makes you think that the WP wouldn’t have done that? If you think so, I assume that countries that were even more remote, like Spain and the UK were even safer. Why on earth were they worried in any way during the cold war, if France had no reason to?
No more risk than previously, indeed. France should somehow only follow policies that put it at a greater risk? Could you explain me why?
It’s was a way of making sure that France didn’t have to rely on the goodwill of foreign countries (namely, the USA) for its protection, and as a result to have the means to conduct an independant foreign policy (and ultimately, if push came to stove, an independant military action) which has always been a major goal for De Gaulle. And once again, why wouldn’t your reasonning apply too to the UK, who had even less reasons to be afraid of its unexistant neighbors? Why do they thought they neeeded nukes, according to you? Were they afraid or the Irish, like France of the Swiss?
Hmmm… I think I know what the difference is. The UK belong to the “Anglophone Union”, hence needs nukes. France makes a lot of cheese, so it doesn’t need them. Or something.
Genrally speaking, since you seem to believe that you’re somehow at a risk only when your direct neighbors are unfriendly (based on what you said about France and your comments about China and India), I’m not sure why the USA has nukes, either. Did it fear the evil Canadians, or rather the Mexicans?
Actually, and very unfortunately for you given the topic of this thread, it was mostly France that collaborated with the Israeli nuclear programm. You might want to look it up again. France used to be in very friendly terms with Israel.
The UK was kicking France’s tail for a few hundred years, before France decided to jump on board a winning team and ally with them. The UK is well aware of its fading glory, and seems to be happy with its continued role as consigliere to the US (they’re the wise and experienced, but physically feable, Vito, to the US’s Michael, to put it Godfather terms). If having the UK be up above the line while France is below (I know how envious France can be), we can jump the line up. In that case, it’ll have to skip Russia, as well (unless they can somehow reverse their precipitous slide).
China may well be in a tie for number 1, if not hold the number 1 slot on its own, in 100 years or so. They’ll need to develop a blue water navy, and maybe liberalize their political system, but it’s doable. France certainly sees China as a rising star- that’s why they’re whispering sweet nothings in China’s ear: “Go ahead. Roll over Taiwan. We don’t mind. In fact, it kinda turns us on.” I don’t know if they really want that, or if they just say that because it’s the opposite of what the US says.
OK. OK. France is number 6, and falling. They’re less important on the world stage than India. In 20 years or so, they’ll be number 7 or 8, as the rehabilitated WWII losers Germany and Japan start to inch their way back into the world scene (a full normal lifetime of 80 years after the unfortunate incidents of the mid-XX century)
Canada’s got a top 12 GNP, with room to grow (unlike France). They aren’t facing the sort of demographic crisis that most of Western Europe is (not making enough babies to grow into workers that will pay for their extravagant welfare systems), and treat their immigrants in such a way that they don’t turn over cars and set fire to everything in sight, periodically. They’re also a G8 member, and, while not a nuclear power, they can be one faster than you can say “Eh? How’s aboot another Labatt’s?” (Which, by the criteria of the Francophiles in this thread, should put them in the top 5). Unfortunately, some of them speak French.
Please notice that I said “Australia/ New Zealand (thrown together, ANZAC-style),” not New Zealand or Australia alone. If you look back in history, you’ll see that these two disparate nations tend to team up, when the fertilizer hits the air circulation device, and send their boys out as a team, as the Australian/ New Zealand Army Corps, or ANZAC (in exchange for being first in the acronym, Australia allows New Zealand to use two letters, making up 40% of the acronym). It’s amazing, but these two wildly dissimilar cultures can see past their differences for the common good.
Maybe all of the above, or maybe because the UK has a better sense of their place in world affairs, and doesn’t try to pawn itself off as some sort of “third way” (well, second way, now, since the passing of the USSR/WP). Having realistic goals, instead of living in some sort of fantasy world, definitely has some value.
I missed them. They definitely qualify (if on potential, alone). They make the top dozen.
While they have the potential to cause worldwide trouble (mostly by owning one side of the Straits of Hormuz), they couldn’t project power anywhere (not even with their vaunted suicide corps they claim to be setting up).
Israel is the biggest little bad-ass around, don’t get me wrong; but their influence on world affairs is mainly as a potential strategic trouble spot. They’ve got a damn good record of kicking ass and taking names, especially for a country smaller in size and population than greater LA, but not top dozen material.
What, do you think being a powerful nation is selected through an affirmative action program? Just about all of Africa is basket case material.
Potential, but needs to get its house in order (still recovering from that whole Apartheid/ being-a-world-pariah thing). Next?
Nigeria? NIGERIA? They’ve got oil (what oil they can get to the coast through pipelines with more holes than an Everest-sized block of Swiss cheese), and other mineral wealth, but not much else. Let’s see, they’ve also got: Internal conflict bordering on civil war? (check), an AIDS epidemic- not too bad for sub-Saharan Africa- only about 1 in 19 adults infected? (check) A per capita GDP that barely makes it into 4 digits in Dollars, and in the high 3 digits in Euros? (check) I’d say that’s a nation that’s really going places. :rolleyes:
They’ve had their ass kicked by Israel so many times, they finally quit trying. They’re 0-1 going against Israel alone (1970 War of Attrition), 0-3 going against Israll, when teaming up with the rest of the Arab world (1948 War of Independence, 1967 Six Day War, 1973 Yom Kippur War), and were headed for 0-1 against Israel (with France and the UK), when the USSR threatened to step in (1956 Suez Crisis)- I’ll be generous and call that one a draw. It doesn’t appear Egypt could fight their way out of a paper bag- which I guess would be a plus, in French eyes .
Libya, that tiger of North Africa. They’re possibly the best off of former Italian colonies (great company- Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia). They’re good at causing problems, but to call them even a regional power is grading on a curve (they get points added since the rest of their region is at least as pitiful). Things might improve, now that they’ve got with the program, renounced their WMD programs, and haven’t blown up any discotecques or airliners, lately. They’ve got some oil, and actually get to sell it on the world market, now, so it isn’t just a decoration.
If, by “abstract,” you are using the artistic definition, i.e., “not reflecting the real world,” I’ll agree with you, there.
Even though Austria and Switzerland were neutral, and not part of NATO, I’m pretty sure a WP invasion through there would have drawn a NATO response far before Soviet tanks tried to get through the few passes through the Alps. The UK (which has nukes mainly because they help invent the damned things) and Spain were happy to stay part of NATO.
France didn’t actually even pull all the way out of the North Atlantic Treaty- they were still protected by the US nuclear shield, even if they didn’t allow their precious land to be despoiled by a bunch of ugly American airmen and soldiers. The whole affair was just de Gaulle’s way of standing up in the battlements, yelling down to those silly Anglophones “I fart in your general direction”.
The UK stuck around in NATO as a full-fledged partner, even holding the top political position 3 out of 13 times (with the US never being represented as Secretary General, but they have always held the top military position- Supreme Allied Commander Europe). They weren’t going to be the first battlefield- Germany was, if anyone was.
Like I said, the UK helped invent the things- as did Canada (they’ve probably got the plans sitting around, somewhere). We (the allies) thought we might need them while getting Germany out of France. Even before we set off the first three, the USSR was working on making their own, so it’s not like the US could get rid of them.
That’s supposed to be a point in France’s favor? A few hours ago, you tried to slur the US with accusations of “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.” Now that France is shown to be the one handing out nukes like candy, it’s a point in their favor? And people accuse Americans of being hypocrites? That’s a load of merde.
You make a lot of my dropping of the possibility of an “Anglophone Union.” It’s nothing that exists now, in any form (well, outside than the Commonwealth). You might want to get used to the idea. I know France sees the “special relationship” between the US & UK as something to be jealous over, but an expanded Commonwealth (with the US, and perhaps South Africa, Israel and Ireland) as a NAFTA/EEC economic union transitioning to a political Confederation, makes a lot of sense, and might be inevitable in the next century or two.
I’ve lived in both countries. It’s true that there are cultural differences between New Zealand and Australia, some quite significant, some very minor. However I think “wildly dissimilar” is a big exaggeration.
Well, that was a mess. Which side do you back in the Spanish Civil War? Hitler’s side (this is many years pre-WWII, BTW) or Stalin’s side? Stay out of it and let them knock each other out.
Since Francis Frank smartly stayed out of WWII, he got to keep his little playground. Realpolitik can be a bitch, sometimes.
Franco did have a way with words, occassionally. “We shall not pass, you say? My guys already passed you!”
Go back to study European history (rather than British history) and you might notice that the UK hasn’t been nearly as much important as you think it was. The UK proeminence dates back to the 19th century, with the industrial revolution, and even then, the difference with other european powers wasn’t very important.
IOW, the reason you “wawe the UK flag” is that you think they “know their place” as a lapdog at the feet of the glorious USA. I’m sure they should feel honored by the esteem you have for them.
I don’t even understand what you’re saying here. As I already wrote, there’s no significant difference from any point of view between the UK and France. Until now, the only argument I heard are “they speak english” and “they’re friendly with the USA”.
And you believe it will take them 100 years to develop a blue water navy? You don’t notice at which rate China is developing economically? Scientifically? You don’t notice they’re investing all over the world, in particular in natural ressources to fuel their economy? You don’t notice they’re winning contracts and bringing their know-how right and left all over the place, including long away from their traditionnal sphere of influence, like in Africa or Latin America, at the expense of first-world nations’ companies?
Barring collapse, China will be the top dog in way less than 100 years.
Yes. France is the only nation in the world that’s “wispering sweet things in China’s ear”. Everybody knows that no sensible (english-speaking) nation would ever do that. No way.
Currently it is. India is only a regional power, don’t even try to intervene in world affairs outside its region, and is only beginning to think about becoming more than that, for instance by claiming a seat at the UN security council or by becomng a leader in the WTO. Of course, it will suceed eventually. And I’m pretty certain it won’t satisfy itself with becoming “more important than France”. We’re talkng about super power status, here, like with China.
In 20 years or so, France relative influence will have declined on a global scale . Japanese, German, British, and American relative importance will have declined too. The importance of the whole first world is declining, as other countries build their infrastructure, become richer, more educated, more advanced technologically. Speaking english won’t prevent that.
Okay, and meanwhile Canada has half of France population, and its military expenses are something like 20% of France’s. I thought we were talking about the current situation, but whatever is convenient to support your stance, you use. The bright future of Canada, the glorious past of the UK, etc…
Yes. I got that the main problem a country can have is not speaking the right language. And doubly so when this language is french.
Great. So, we’ve a NZ/Australia team as a regional power instead of Australia alone. Still only a regional power, though. But they don’t speak french. It should help.
Yes, I already got this too. The UK is great because they know their place.
And France is a piss-poor country because it has policies different from US policies. I got that too.
You noticed that I called it a “regional power”, did you? How many countries can you list that fit your bill of being able to project power worlwide, exactly?
Yes. It’s a shitty little country, or somesuch… I already heard that somewhere.
Of course not. They speak Hebrew and have independant policies of their own.
You obviously don’t know the first thing about internal policies in Africa. I assume you’re deluded into thinking that nothing ever happen without the involvment of some develloped english-speaking nation. You don’t seem to know that South-Africa is very influent, that Nigeria has very interventionnist policies in foreign countries, that Lybia is a very long way from limiting its involvment to the north of the continent. For some mysterious reasons, diplomats from fist world countries seem to pay more attention to these basket case materials than you do. But what do they know?
By abstract, I mean that if some important (english-speaking) nation was to fight a full-scale war against Nigeria, for instance, it would in all likehood win. But in “the real world” as you put it yourself, the UK isn’t going to invade Nigeria. The real world is what actually happens : Nigerian troops are generally on the ground long before EnglishUnionists ones. And not only African nations, but also the English Speaking Union pays a lot of attention to what South-Africa or Egyptia says and does. That’s the very novel concept of “regional power”.
Yes, including a french response. What do you think french troops were doing in Germany, exactly? Are you somehow assuming it was a certainty that the WP would lose such a battle, hence that France was perfectly safe in such a scenario? That seemed to be a important pont in your argument.
It still doesn’t explain why they needed them and France didn’t.
And France wasn’t happy. Your point is? That France shouldn’t have a policy of its own? Yes, that’s clearly your point in all of your post.
Nope. France stayed in the alliance. She didn’t want to be part of the integrated command in order to keep a complete control of its military. That’s clearly a weird concept. Unheard of.
And France should have relied on the good will of the USA why, exactly? What if, for instance, the USA had become isolationist? Has decided to evacuate western Europe after a defeat of NATO in Germany? Has stated that it wouldn’t use its nukes in order to avoid a total nuclear exchange between the USSR and the USA, because the loss of western Europe (including France) wasn’t worth the anihilation of the USA?
Also, once again, why this reasonning (protected by the US nuclear umbrella, so no need for nukes) didn’t apply to the UK?
Actually, why doesn’t it work the other way around? Why don’t the USA rely on French and British nuclear deterrence and give up nuclear weapons? Is there any obvious reason for this that wouldn’t apply equally to France and the UK?
Yes. The only concern of France’s foreign policies for decades has been to “fart in the general direction” of the “English Speaking Union”.
Though I fail to understand why you’re taking as a personal insult a decision to build nukes or to withdraw from an integrated command.
The USA always kept the top military position??? How weird! Just a random happenstance, maybe? You still don’t get what I meant by “ultimately keeping the full control of France’s military action”
Thanks for agreeing with me. So, since you admit that the UK wasn’t more at risk than France, and since the fact that France couldn’t be attacked directly was your argument for stating that France didn’t need nukes, could you explain to me again why the UK did need them?
Even assuming that the Uk strongly helped invent the things, it still doesn’t explain why they needed them.
Your point was that, since France was surrounded by friendly nations, it didn’t need nukes. Since the USA is also surrounded by friendly nations, it doesn’t need them, either, following this reasonning. But now, somehow you’re stating that the fact the Soviet Union had nukes was a good reason for the USA to have them too.
How comes it’s a good reason for the USA and not a good reason for France. You think that russian nukes could reach the USA but not France? If anything, France was significantly more at risk than the USA sinceit might have had to defend herself against a conventionnal invasion too (I doubt the Russians would have invaded the USA through Siberia and Alaska), or rather to be able to deter the Soviet Union from launching such an invasion at the first place.
So I still waiting for a reason explaining why a potential target of the USSR ( The USA) needed nukes and another one (France) didn’t.
Nope. It was a point in favor of my argument that you don’t know what you’re talking about and still make authoritative statements.
I most certainly didn’t write that. You were responding to another poster.
Ok… We’ll debate about it when it will exist.
Yes. Every country on earth is jealous of the UK because it’s best friend with the USA. Whatever.
Also, the UK has Stilton, and it’s quite difficult to find some in Paris, did you know that?
OK. I’m going to let my great-grandchildren argue with yours about this in a century or two. Or maybe they’ll argue about the Latin American Spanish Speaking Union, that might be inevitable too. Or course they’ll probably argue about something entirely impredictable. Like cheese production on Mars.
Many historians consider the Spanish civil war a prelude to WWII, Hitler and Mussolini used Spain as a training ground for the future war, the world governments ignored the warning.
I do know that he had the “pleasure” to see a secret poll ordered by him, just before his death, showing that once democracy was allowed in Spain his ideal government was going to lose. I like to think that was in his mind during his long coma.
News to you then: Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead!!
Despite (or, perhaps, because) the barely intelligible post surrouinding this comment, I am having trouble interpreting this as anything other than a direct insult to another poster.
This is not permitted in Great Debates. If you feel an need to insult a poster, take it to the BBQ Pit. If you are simply attempting to insult the American public or government, make sure that your post is sufficiently clear that we understand what you are saying.
No. But it is also not very polite to whine about insults being permitted if you do not have sufficient respect for the board to bother to report an offense.
You’re rebuke wasn’t directed at me, but I feel a little responsible. Should I have reported it, when I, the fucknut in question, wasn’t particularly offended?
Yes, you might have heard it from one of those vauntedFrenchdiplomats. They sure have a way with words.
Sorry, you’re right there. It was someone else that tried to pin that on the US (when the French were the proliferators).
All this “prove why France isn’t just as important as the UK… why don’t you consider Nigeria one of the most powerful/ important countries in the world… blah, blah, blah” is giving me a headache. What makes it even worse is that, in my mind’s ear, I’m hearing your posts being read in a voice which is a strange combination of John Cleese’s French Soldier from Monty Python and the Holy Grail and Maurice Chevalier, which can be a bit annoying, to say the least. You asked “Could you give a list of “meaningful world powers” , and explain why they are so?” and I did. You disagree. Big Fucking Surprise. I could say the sky is blue, and you’d probably reply “The sky’s grey here, you Francophobic Ignorant American. Now go away before I taunt you a second time.”
As long as France has the infantile need to prove it has an independent foreign policy, they are going to reflexively oppose the US at every turn, especially if they can earn a Euro doing it. While profitting from corruption in the Oil For Food program, they said to Saddam “Don’t worry about letting inspectors in to look around for WMDs. We know you signed a treaty requiring it, but, hey, we’re French; we don’t hold bad guys to their word (just look at our history). We’ll make sure the UN doesn’t authorize any force.” Now, they say to China “Want to go ahead and annex Taiwan? Why don’t you wait until we can get this EU arms embargo lifted? Then we’ll sell you some functional armaments for you to use, instead of those cheap, Chinese knock-offs of Soviet stuff. Our Exocet missiles are proven to be effective against both Royal Navy and US Navy ships!” If the US is ever in a position where France has more influence, all the US needs to do is advocate the opposite of its true position- France will oppose this false position, and advocate for the true US position (not that I ever see this happening, but if it does, we have a ready-made tactic).
My final answer to the OP- “Freedom Fries” is just silly, and boycotting French wines, Michelin tires and Motel 6 is unproductive- it mostly hurts the ordinary French citizens, who are, for the most part, great people (except for the waiters… oh, and mimes- the mimes are just freaky). Their political class, on the other hand, is a pack of untrustworthy assholes (hey, I guess the US and France are almost just alike). They are neither particularly strong, nor particularly loyal. Any “favor” they do is not generosity, it is self-interest (dating all the way back to French assistance during the Revolutionary War, which was just about the minimum possible necessary to sustain a distraction to British forces).
Compared to what measure? A US that is incapable of either spreading democracy and good government, policing it’s own borders, preventing nuclear proliferation or toppling a tinpot dictator without causing problems ten times worse than he was?
Or compared to a US that has total military supremacy and could obliterate any country it chooses, but which is incapable of making any effective use of that power?
Congratulations! You have just described pretty much every country in the history of the world. You win pie!
Whine? FWIW, I happen to sympathize with clairobscur’s, happyclam, et al’s views on this thread. My original post was meant as a matter-of-fact observation, tomndebb. Interesting that you inferred my post was “whining.”
But considering that RedFury’s insult stood over 24 hours unaddressed by a moderator, I wonder how much respect the GD board deserves in the first place.
.