What's up with the French now???
 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104229,00.html

French Join In on Anti-France Bandwagon

Thursday, November 27, 2003
By Greg Palkot

PARIS — France's opposition to military action in Iraq sparked a backlash around the globe, but criticism of the country is now coming from an unlikely source — the French themselves.



In the last few months, there have been a slew of books published in the country slamming French policy with titles that translate to: "The Arrogant French," "The French in Disarray," and "France in Free-Fall."

"France has a great obstructive power, destructive power and this is very dangerous for France itself," said Andre Glucksmann, author of "West Versus West."

Readers are snapping up books that question whether or not the policies of French president Jacques Chirac are hurting their homeland.

"A great many French officials hoped that we would fail in Iraq," said Richard Perle, former chairman of the Defense Policy Board .

"With the help from the United Nations and the European Union, Chirac wants to revive France's glory days, an effort that some wonder if he's overreaching."

France's policies on war aren't the country's only controversial decisions these days. Protests by workers are frequent and a worrying wave of anti-Semitism is spreading.

"There are a number of challenges," said Laurent Cohen-Tanugi, author of "An Alliance at Risk: The United States and Europe Since September 11." "The question is whether the government is going to wake up to those challenges.

Kinda' interesting - hope something constructive comes out of it!

It's called a free and open debate, and evolving public opinion.

Kind of like when US public opinion turned against the war in Vietnam and, I suspect, is slowly turning against the war in Iraq.

:)

The public are a fickle lot...

Mr Mephisto

It is only going to get harder for France in the coming years. Their desire to get back to the glory days of world (or at least Continental) influence by partnering with Germany is building resentment in other EC countries. The German/French plan targets GB in a big way while Italy, Spain, and the other EC countries don't want to be governed by the French/German policies.

I'm really kinda' surprised that you all have chosen to leave this one alone - Where are all of those that were defending France a few months ago? Where are those that lambasted us for wanting to boycott French products? Where are those of you who laughed at us when we took French wines and liquers off the shelf and dumped them? Are France's fairweather supporters somehow at a loss for words now that criiticism of their action is even coming out of France? I purposely posted the above with very little comment just to see what the ultra-liberal and anti-US views of those who post on this board have to say. Apparently nothing.

France and the rest of the usless UN are now realizing that they are, in fact, defunct. A colleague of mine went to France recently, and was told by many people how they wished they had supported the US and how they hated Chirac. Whether or not they had these BEFORE we kicked some ass is unknown, so they could have just been playing it up. Like the article said, France has out-lived it's "glory days", so it should just get the hell over it! Oh, if any of you other Conservatives would like the "Military History of France", let me know and I'll email it to you. It's too long to post here... GO BUSH!! (btw, I got to see him when he was in town on Tuesday... it was AWESOME!)

OK. Here I am. I defended France (once I realized the war was a crock of shit) and I respect their opinion.

You see, the funny thing is, turns out they were right.

Opps...

***STANDS UP WAVING HAND***

Freedom Fries? That just made your politicians look laughable.


I guess I would be one of those. And laugh I did. And still do.

I travel to the US quite a bit and trust me when I say that it's as easy as ever to get Frence wine etc. I think you'll find the rampant "anti-French" opinion in the US has probably subsided quite a bit. The same way as rampant "anti-US" opinion in France has subsided.

I wouldn't describe myself as ultra-liberal. Neither would I describe myself as anti-US. Indeed, I often argue in [b]favour[.b] of the US with many of my European and Australian friends. But I am unashamedly anti-Bush.

I can't really understand the basis of your rant above.

A few books have been published in France offering an alternative opinion to the silly anti-Americanism that swept the country earlier this year.

Guess what mate? Have you heard of the US bestsellers "Stupid White Men", "Dude, Where's my country?", "Lies and the lying liars who tell them" etc. Actually I could go and on.

Does this mean there's a groundswell of public opinion in the US against Bush? Are we seeing the beginning of a grass-roots revolution?!!

No.

We see public debate.

Mr Mephisto

DEFUNCT??!

ROFL

Yes, thank you for your insightful geo-political analysis. France is defunct. The UN is defunct.


I went to the US recently and I heard a lot of anti-war talk. That must mean the American public hate Bush and the war, right? Because if your friend... you know... reports that a few people he spoke to... you know... well... then what I heard must mean you Americans HATE Bush.... Right?

France bashing is pretty passe by now, don't you think?

Sorry, can't use a French word! Maybe I should say "boring", "out of date", "so last year..." :)



Mr Mephisto

Most of those reports about Anti-American sentiments come out of Paris anyways. It is probably the most liberal stronghold in France, much like L.A. is to the United States. For the most part, the people in the country and those that still remember that they owe their ability to speak French and not German to the Americans, while may not be all gung-ho for the US and Bush, but they understand us and support us to a degree. Like I've said before, I have no problem with the French people, I have the problem with the French government.

Damn! You musta' went to San Francisco or somewhere else out on the the left coast!

"Kind of like when US public opinion turned against the war in Vietnam and, I suspect, is slowly turning against the war in Iraq."


Exactly the americans have gotten themselves in the shit once again, they can't find saddam, they can't find osama, do the know where dick cheney is? maybe the americans now know what the israeli's feel like with suicide bombers behind every corner, the people who will ultimately suffer are the soldiers who are only doing thier jobs, and the civillians. i am Canadian and i also don't think that we should have troops in afghanistan all you americans must remember that place where this whole war on terror started. why can america not finish a problem that they start like afghanistan. much like Vietnam public and world opinion will turn as the resistance attacks escalate and more people die Iraq and Afghanistan will go back to the warlords and dictators who once ruled them and the american occupiers will be home looking for thier next target. (North Korea)

LOL

Bingo. San Francisco. San Jose to be exact.

:-)

Mr Mephisto

Story from Faux News? There is nothing up with the French except that if Rupert Murdoch can convince people that the French have a problem maybe they will forget that current events have not been kind to conservative <strike>journalists</strike> novelists lately, and that Iraq is looking less like Vietnam and more like Northern Ireland circa 1968 with each passing day.

I refuse to get into flamewars here, though; that's what Fark is for. So carry on with your bad self and I will not likely post on this thread again. (Unless something is crying out for flippancy.)

Fox news stories don't carry much weight especially with this line "France's opposition to military action in Iraq sparked a backlash around the globe". Maybe a backlash in the US, but around the globe, I doubt it.
I'm sure there are just as many neo-cons in France as in the US and that they'll publish books just like uber-liberals.

Re: What's up with the French now???
 

the ability to tolerate dissent - notably absent in many countries - is a sign of a strong democracy.

Just because France, an independant state that chooses to exercise it's political rights through and within her democratic will, doesn't mean it is inferior in whole to the U.S or any other country because of the decisions it makes because of itself.

Maybe France as well as other countries simply do not jump like the U.S does when they are told to jump. And the U.S just doesn't jump. They ask "How high." Especially in the Middle East. After the U.S gets sucked into Iran because of 'iron clad' proof of WMD, Vietnam just might look like a footnote. And all for who? I'll let you guess.

I won't defend France's irresponsible stance on the veto, but this criticism of France FROM France is no surprise. It happens here all the time, why shouldn't it happen there? Every administration has their critics. Its just not surprising at all.

Did fox news miss that almost every country in the world with few exeptions was behind France on this?

I didn't see this story as a big deal when I first read it. France is bound to have a FEW sane people after all.

I think the point is that there are indeed quite a few among the French who realize that their nation has become somewhat irrelevant in the geo-political arena. The whole debate about Iraq neatly summarized it for them. You don't have to "love" or "hate" the French, nor do you need to support or oppose US policy towards Iraq to recognize this.

The single greatest concentration of power within the governance of the UN security council is the veto. Through the veto, one single nation can effectively dictate what the rest of the member nations can do. The veto - as with any form of power or influence - must be respected and used in good faith. France, however, abused its veto power when it unequivocally stated that it would block any and all efforts by the UN to enforce its own resolutions (some seventeen of them, if my memory serves correctly).

Within the EU, France is resented by most of the Eastern European nations, as well as the smaller Western European nations that have been disenfrachised by France and Germany's attempts to marginalize them. France and Germany are often described as bullies by these smaller nations, but collectively, they have more influence than France has alone. Many do indeed believe that France abused its veto power in the UN to obstruct any action for apparently self-serving interests. So, within both Europe and the larger international arena, Chirac's attempts to broaden France's influence have backfired. Instead of earning the respect of their piers, they tried to assume it. They are guilty of precisely that which they accuse the Americans of having done - acting unilaterally. Their policies have indeed been arrogant, and it has cost them much credibility and influence. There should be no surprise that many among the French are critical of the policies and attitudes that have caused them this harm.

Awesome post apechild.

why is everyone so shocked about a free country like france not going to war along with the US. Canada didn't and i think that is great why should all these free countries be bullied by the US it happened with Afghanistan and the Americans hoped it would work in Iraq. No Sadaam, No Osama = No Support for Iraqi Occupation.

First off Afganistan is completely different then Iraq. Secondly most people don't mind that the French didn't go to war with us, thats great, besides like Stormin' Norman said going to war without the French is like going hunting without your accordian.

What most people including myself are not pleased with is how they were such goons about it.

how is Afghanistan different from Iraq? is it not all part of the war against terrorism? or is that still what bush is calling it maybe he should change the name to the war against whoever seems bad today.

The US did NOT bully anyone into going into Afghanistan. In fact, we would be better off doing this alone. Let's look at the past, shall we? At the end of WWII, we took care of the rebuilding in Japan ourselves. At the end of 5 years, Japan had a democracy, a Congress, a Constitution, etc. The country that no one EVER believed could be a democracy is now a strong ally who begs us to buy their good products at a cheap price. On the other hand, in Germany, where the Allies (that's the US, Great Britian, France, and the Soviet Union for all you non-history majors) worked together, it was a mess! It took 6 years for them to just get a Constitution!! And it took another 45 years to clean up the Communist mess there too! The US has always been better off without the UN (there's a REASON why we were never part of the League of Nations pre-WWII) and I say kudos to our government for thumbing their noses at them! We are always taught to not care what other people think of us, this is just that on a larger scale, lol. Anyways, for all you liberals out there, keep bringing it on, and I'll keep knocking ya down!

[typically american comment when people don't agree with you insult them. Afghanistan can't be that justified because bush seems to think if he doesn't mention it no one will talk about it.

supersteph how many years late was america when they joined ww2 and they were the saviors of the allies. don't make me laugh. if america is better off without the un then why do they have 2 wars going on (Iraq is separate from Afghanistan) and they can't seem to find these people they said they would catch and bring to justice. if that's all you got for knocking people down you better keep reading because it's kinda lame.

Just out of curiosity, do you think the UN would have been more successful in finding "these people"?

If you don't think Afganistan was justified you need a serious reality check, what action is justified after such a horrific attack? Oh wait the European response would be to try and "understand those poor misunderstood Muslims" after all it must be America's fault that 3000 innocents were murdered. Perhaps appeasement? Europe is pretty good at being a bunch of gutless cowards and doing nothing...

Oh dear...

Here we go again. Hurling insults at each other, instead of trying to understand the other side, respectfully debate the issues.

I don't know why I care... (but for some reason I do).

You both all do a disservice to your position and the value of your argument by invective, insult and pointless or unrelated verbal attacks.

Mr Mephisto

Yeah well, thats like your opinion man....

we finally agree on something. you have your opinion, i have mine and nothing that is said on this forum is going to change our minds. sept. 11 was a tragedy that should of never happened there were security lapses all over the place. i honestly don't think that afghanistan is a justified war or is it another occupation. what justification is there in killing innocent civilians and the taliban and al-quaeda are still thriving in afghanistan. as for iraq that is one train wreck that i wouldn't want my hand's anywhere near when public opinion finally boils over.

i never said that th UN would be able to find these people but all i've heard bush say is were closing in on the terrorists and were hot on thier tail but this has been going on for 3 or 4 months now so i have taken these comments to mean that no one really knows where they are but if they told the public the crap would hit the fan.

and one last thing what about major combat being over in Iraq? sounds like a lie to me. i wonder if Mr. Bush is regretting this.

personally, i hope the french keep right on beeing irritating to other western contries, particularly the US, if only so i can contenue to make fun of their military history and accent (just kidding, for all you haters of silly americans like me).

type 'french military victories' into google and hit 'i'm feeling lucky'...

to be fair to bush (and i dont like the guy much, btw), the fact that he declared major combat over and yet deaths contenue is not as stupid as it sounds. what bush meant was that the army regulars of Iraq had finished fighting as a united fighting force. he did not mean that nobody in Iraq would ever shoot at an american soldier ever again.

Do you have some sort of inside scoop, which allows you to know "what bush meant"?

you may have a point, i may be assuming bush isnt retarded when he really is.

I don't deny that one can certainly interpret the events like you did. Given the results of his actions, however, I don't think that interpretation too likely.

After Bush declared our victory, the media began to wind down its coverage. Shortly thereafter, the 24/7 coverage ceased and we now only receive sporadic accounts of what is occurring over there. I don't think we can attribute this to short attention spans because, during the two weeks where we essentially steamrolled our way to Baghdad, a large segment of the population was glued to the television.

In respect to the size of the country, the incidents between our forces and their enemies, and the amount of reporters we have (had?) over there, we really know absolutely jack shit about what is occurring.

Meanwhile, the country we know was a terrorist hotbed slips out of our consciousness and into stateless oblivion. At the same time, we decide to order 40% of our forces into a state of inactivity so the soldiers can recuperate.

SparHawk,
According to the link in your signature, some 446 US servicemen have lost their lives in Iraq since the war began.

Now kindly allow me put things in perspective for you.

An average of 15 soldiers died every day during the Vietnam war.

An average of 30 soldiers died every day during the Korean war.

An average of 214 soldiers died every day during World War II.

410 US soldiers were killed when U.S. gunners in Sicily mistakenly downed 23 American transport planes in 1943.

243 US soldiers were killed when terrorists bombed the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983.

There were 474 people murdered in Los Angeles in 2002, and there have never been "major combat operations" there.

This military campaign in Iraq has been the most successful ever waged by any military. Please, don't act too disappointed.

We stopped flying a billion sordis, bombing the fuck out of them and running people over with tanks.

Sounds like major combat's over to me.

More perspective for Sparhawk:

Link to source

Here's some perspective right back at ya:

1972, Burundi
100,000-200,000 dead

1975-79, Cambodia
Approx 1-3 million killed

1965-6, 1972, 1999 East Timor
Approx. 500,000 killed in Indonesia, 500,000 arrested; 200-300,000 killed in East Timor

1994, Rwanda
Approx 500,000-1 million killed, 1.5-2 million refugees

1983 to present, Sudan
Approx 2 million killed, 4-5 million refugees

Present, Democratic Republic of the Congo
3.5 million+ dead over the last 4 and a half years, 30,000 deaths PER MONTH
500,000 to 600,000 internally displaced persons, with another 100,000 refugees

Info from The Campaign to End Genocide

Number of U.S. troops sent to the above countries: 0

None of those countries ever posed any threat to the US. That's a huge distinction.