France: Unilateral Nukes

[trumptman]

That evil purveyor of rightist policies, the BBC, spun the words of the great Chirac to represent something other than total pacification today.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4627862.stm)

Second source (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1137605875863&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

"In numerous countries, radical ideas are spreading, advocating a confrontation of civilisations," he said, adding that "odious attacks" could escalate to "other yet more serious forms involving states".

Was he wearing a cowboy hat when he said that?:D

Nick

[midwinter]

Originally posted by trumptman
That evil purveyor of rightist policies, the BBC, spun the words of the great Chirac to represent something other than total pacification today.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4627862.stm)

Second source (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1137605875863&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)



Was he wearing a cowboy hat when he said that?:D

Nick

Lemme get this straight: the French tell America to fuck off despite incredible pressue from the Bush administration...and they're supposed to be cowards?

I have never, for the life of me, understood why Americans hate the French.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by midwinter
Lemme get this straight: the French tell America to fuck off despite incredible pressue from the Bush administration...and they're supposed to be cowards?

I have never, for the life of me, understood why Americans hate the French.

Who said anything about being a coward? Since when do you identify pacifism with being a coward?

Nick

[groverat]

Originally posted by midwinter
I have never, for the life of me, understood why Americans hate the French.

I have the answer:
American culture is largely insular and ignorant of other cultures.

[sammi jo]

I have never, for the life of me, understood why Americans hate the French.

For sure. The French bankrolled the US War of Independence. Without them, we might still be ruled over by a king?

It's OK, I won't go there.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by groverat
I have the answer:
American culture is largely insular and ignorant of other cultures.

My understanding is that it has something to do with postwar (WW2) French policies (they wanted to set themselves up as a significant power and we didn't want that), and so we launched a PR campaign to sow seeds of anti-French sentiment. That's what I hear, anyway.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by trumptman
Who said anything about being a coward? Since when do you identify pacifism with being a coward?

Nick

Who said anything about pacifism? You suggested that the typical French response to anything was "total pacification," which is most certainly not pacifism—it's appeasement.

What else did you mean, Nick, if not to imply that the French would normally go hide in a corner or do whatever the terrorists want them to do if they were to be attacked?

[addabox]

Originally posted by midwinter
My understanding is that it has something to do with postwar (WW2) French policies (they wanted to set themselves up as a significant power and we didn't want that), and so we launched a PR campaign to sow seeds of anti-French sentiment. That's what I hear, anyway.

Sometimes it's interesting to pause and reflect on how much of our understanding of "the world", or, to put it another way, "common sense", is the result of very specific, very agenda driven, very well funded public relations campaigns.

I don't think it has occurred to most Americans that when they read about CIA orchestrated "psy ops" in foreign lands that somebody in the last 60 years or so might have seen the utility of doing some of the same stuff domestically.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by midwinter
I have never, for the life of me, understood why Americans hate the French.

Because they hate us, and look down their noses at us.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by e1618978
Because they hate us, and look down their noses at us.

That's why you hate the French, I assume.

I want to know why so many Americans—huge numbers of whom have never been to France or even met a French person—hate the French.

[dmz]

Both Voltaire and Rousseau aren't enough for you?

[e1618978]

Originally posted by midwinter
That's why you hate the French, I assume.

I want to know why so many Americans—huge numbers of whom have never been to France or even met a French person—hate the French.

Go talk to a french post-doc sometime at a university - they spend the whole time over here complaining about how we suck.

Of course, I said some choice words about smoking and dog shit when I was over there, so I guess that I am no better.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by e1618978
Go talk to a french post-doc sometime at a university - they spend the whole time over here complaining about how we suck.

Of course, I said some choice words about smoking and dog shit when I was over there, so I guess that I am no better.

I think the key might be the Post Doc, not the Frenchiness.

[Outsider]

Originally posted by groverat
I have the answer:
American culture is largely insular and ignorant of other cultures. ding ding ding

[e1618978]

Originally posted by midwinter
I think the key might be the Post Doc, not the Frenchiness.

I have a predisposition to dislike the French based on where I grew up, so maybe I just notice the negativity more than the positivity. But if you have never heard a French person talking down at America (and English Canada), then you must have not met many French people.

I know a lot of French people due to my time in Ottawa, and I can only think of one of them I disliked once I got to know them - but as an abstract people, can't stand them. In Canada, they are the squeeky wheel that slurps down everybody elses resources.

The real French look down on the Quebecers, and the Quebecers look down on the Anglophones - looking down your nose is fundimental to French culture. Good food though.

Vive la Quebec Libre!

[Northgate]

Most French people I've met (and I admit it's only a handful) have been extremely nice, cordial, hospitable, amicable and productive. Mainly they've just been trying to earn a buck, make the rent, buy some decent weed, go to the movies and don't really give a shit what their or our government says or does.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by midwinter
Who said anything about pacifism? You suggested that the typical French response to anything was "total pacification," which is most certainly not pacifism—it's appeasement.

What else did you mean, Nick, if not to imply that the French would normally go hide in a corner or do whatever the terrorists want them to do if they were to be attacked?

If I meant appeasement I would have said it.

What else did I mean? How about what I actually typed?!?! The French are not claiming they would hide in a corner when attacked. They would go hide in a corner when SOMEONE ELSE is attacked, but that is different.

I was taken by the irony. There was no support for the United States to take unilateral action, yet the French are declaring that if they were attacked, not only would they taken unilateral action, they would consider doing so with nukes.

Nick

[midwinter]

Originally posted by trumptman
If I meant appeasement I would have said it.

What else did I mean? How about what I actually typed?!?! The French are not claiming they would hide in a corner when attacked. They would go hide in a corner when SOMEONE ELSE is attacked, but that is different.

I was taken by the irony. There was no support for the United States to take unilateral action, yet the French are declaring that if they were attacked, not only would they taken unilateral action, they would consider doing so with nukes.

Nick

OK. Fine.

But what you actually typed didn't make any sense. If that were the case, when you said

the BBC, spun the words of the great Chirac to represent something other than total pacification today

you would have meant that the French intended to do something other than go in with force and pacify any resistance at the point of a gun? That's what one meaning of "pacification" is (and it's the most common one I'm aware of). But Then the Chirac comments about using nukes and your comment about him wearing a cowboy hat don't make sense.

Interestingly, there is another meaning of pacification: appeasement (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pacification).

Look, I know you get tired of people misinterpreting you and all that, but you seemed to be making a little crack about the French being wusses. Is that not what you meant? Maybe you meant to write pacifism, since that's what you seem to have thought you said?

Can you help a brother out, here, Nick? What is your point? Are the French cowardly appeasement gophers? Or are they bad asses?

[Powerdoc]

He He, He .....

This thread is going totally of topic.
If you consider the opinion of French towards US and the contrary I would consider that it's just mirroring.
US and France are both democratic occidental countries and we should never forget this. The threat to our life do not come from the other side of the Atlantic.

That's said the declaration of Chirac about nukes has to due with the emergence of new threats and the disparition of the older ones.
Russia and the east block is no more a threat for Europe and USA, but many nations have nukes, and some of them may employ them via terrorists.
Jacques Chirac message is clear : if someone is backstabbing, it would consider like a massive frontal attack and may be subject to all form of retaliation, nukes included.

France also lose a lot of power in the last times in Europe, and speaking of nukes is a good way to point it out, that France is with Great britain the only one in europe to have them. Nukes is a great tool of persuasion, and thus whom have nuke is a big player.

It's also internal politic. In france, the president is the leader of the army. Chirac lose a lot of influence in internal politic, by speaking of defense, he try to turn spotlighs on him, and remind to french people, that's the president is above all others french politicans or ministers.

[groverat]

I was taken by the irony. There was no support for the United States to take unilateral action, yet the French are declaring that if they were attacked, not only would they taken unilateral action, they would consider doing so with nukes.

There is absolutely nothing ironic about it.
There is absolutely nothing logically inconsistent about it.

France has never said it would never defend itself against attack.
France has never argued that the United States should never defend itself against attack.

[PBG4 Dude]

The French have those cool neutron bombs that *poof* people out of existence while leaving everything else standing. Much better then most nuclear weapons. :)

[trumptman]

Originally posted by midwinter
OK. Fine.

But what you actually typed didn't make any sense. If that were the case, when you said



you would have meant that the French intended to do something other than go in with force and pacify any resistance at the point of a gun? That's what one meaning of "pacification" is (and it's the most common one I'm aware of). But Then the Chirac comments about using nukes and your comment about him wearing a cowboy hat don't make sense.

Interestingly, there is another meaning of pacification: appeasement (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pacification).

Look, I know you get tired of people misinterpreting you and all that, but you seemed to be making a little crack about the French being wusses. Is that not what you meant? Maybe you meant to write pacifism, since that's what you seem to have thought you said?

Can you help a brother out, here, Nick? What is your point? Are the French cowardly appeasement gophers? Or are they bad asses?

First it is clear that I was typing my comments with tongue-in-cheek. Do I normally call the BBC or anything else for that matter the "purveyor of rightist policies?" I wanted the article out there and it pretty much speaks for itself but just posting the article alone would be against the posting guidelines. So I threw a little weird, comical language around it.

So to "help a brother out" what Chirac has done is condemn unilateralism in the past while now claiming the right for it himself.

Can we focus on that now?

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by groverat
There is absolutely nothing ironic about it.
There is absolutely nothing logically inconsistent about it.

France has never said it would never defend itself against attack.
France has never argued that the United States should never defend itself against attack.

Your selective memory (http://www.elysee.fr/elysee/anglais/speeches_and_documents/2002-2001/interview_of_president_jacques_chirac_by_the_new_y ork_times-elysee_palace-sunday_september_8_2002.14617.html) seems to be failing you.

Second, I'm utterly opposed to unilateralism in the modern world. I believe that the modern world must be coherent and consequently, if a military action is to be undertaken, it must be the responsibility of the international community, via a decision by the Security Council.

Nick

[Powerdoc]

Trumptman

There is no unilateralism in case of self defense. If someone attack you, you have the right to defend yourself. That's not unilateralism.

[groverat]

trumpt:

What is it about Chirac's statement that precludes self-defense?

Why do you make the assumption that self-defense is "unilateral"? Wouldn't the actions of military defense be the second act of war in that situation; by definition?

Step 1: X attacks Y
Step 2: Y attacks X

Step 1 could certainly be considered unilateral, but how on earth is step 2?

This would have been lame in 2003, now it's just... sad.

[hxc04]

Originally posted by groverat
I have the answer:
American culture is largely insular and ignorant of other cultures. This is very true

[rageous]

Quite honestly most countries are either ignorant of or simply don't care about other cultures. And I really don't have a huge problem with admitting that provided we don't accept it as iron clad fact with no hope for change.

I mean, didn't the French have a little bit of an internal cultural conflict of their own last year? No, I'm not implying this equates in any way to foreign invasion... but the real issue here is that in the global economy things need to be taken into consideration that have never HAD to be considered before, and every government is slow in adapting to new realities.

People of differing cultures are mixing together like never before. Before it was easy to address your own issues and remain largely indifferent to cultural issues of nations half a world away. That's not so true anymore, and I think you'll find most countries struggling with similar issues. What's making the US seem (or perhaps BE) particularly bad is its level of global influence. Seems like we have our hands in EVERYTHING...

[Powerdoc]

Chirac speech was clearly targeted at Iran, who want to build nuke, and who also developp long range missiles that could hurt the center of europe.