The French have seemed to piss off quite a few Americans, so much that in Washington they are calling french fries, "freedom fries."

Should we change what DFK stands for??  Deep Frontal Kissing?  Deliciously Fornicating Kiss?  Dearly Fermenting Kisses?

All I really hope for is that we retain good relations with the country of Greece.

Hobby On!

GG

Hmm! Let me see. Maybe we also should ban Turkish baths (and also Thanksgiving Turkey?), Chinese takeout, German beer and cars (sorry, no Mercedes or BMW's allowed), and no Russian caviar or escorts.

My recollection of early U.S. history is that without the French intervention during the Revolutionary War, it's likely that many of our Founding Fathers would have been swinging from gallows, rather than writing the Constitution.

-- Modified on 3/11/2003 4:57:41 PM

Griffin in Greenville South Carolina, followed by a very very close second with Terri Dean in Tampa FL. Two ladies who redefine the term "tongue tied" ( : MfSD.

well said Nicole. I'm 100% French so I appreciate your respect for our common heritage. However I would love sharing some DFK with you whatever the exact translation of the term. LOL!

I'll take you up on that offer!  I just hope you haven't taken up the cultural ideas of not shaving your arm pits or taking baths infrequently....

I think we should continue having turkey for Thanksgiving, but then have Reindeer for Christmas dinner and Rabbit for Easter dinner.


Hey come on!  How else are you going to explain to the children why there are no gifts at Christmas and not candy at Easter?

The French are laughing at us. I spent some time recently with a wonderful young lady from France & we discussed this whole 'thing'. Nothing French about French Fries or French Kissing!!! Just Americans looking like a bunch of yahoo asses to the rest of the civilized world.

"ally".  Disagreeing with US is one thing, sending De Villepin to Africa to actively counter US effort is simply beyond the pale.  You don't see Germany, Russia or China doing that.  In addition, the report of French companies resupplying Iraqi Mirage fighter jets with spare parts since January in violation of UN arms embargo is just not acts of allies.

Although it might seem to be a far fetch idea, if one looked at the way the French Government behave on the World stage in the last 4 decades with the cynical courting of Islamists and dictators like Mugabe, one cannot totally discount the theory forwarded by AEI's Michael Ledeen: http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen031003.asp .

In recent years since the unification of monetary policy in EU with the establishment of euro, the focus of France, Germany and Brussel(Belgium, EU) is to counter the influence of US regardless of cost and means.  Allowing Libya to head UN human right committee is just the kind of appeasement and bribery policy EU persued.

For all the sophistication and proclaimed righteous of Western Europeans, it was the French policy to deny arms to Bosnians to defend themselves. It was the Belgium UN peach keepers who stepped aside for the atrocity in Srebrenica and genocides in Rwanda.

Airbus, EU policy against US farm products, the opposition of the merger of GE and Honeywell are all a grand scheme to dampen the influence of USA.

Jealousy and envy are blinding indeed.

-- Modified on 3/11/2003 7:15:00 PM

-- Modified on 3/11/2003 7:19:32 PM

Yes the French did help us during the revolutionary war, but it was not completely as altruistic as one would believe. They were in a conflict with England, and supporting the US was a wonderful way to say Fuck You to Britian. Believe it, that not any where near the amount of French Blood was spilt on American soil during our fight for independence as there was US blood spilt in Normandy to liberate France during WWII. Did I also mention the Marshall Plan? What has been our thank you?  Did you know that they would not even allow Steven Spielburg to film the opening sequence to Saving Private Ryan on their soil?  FUCK THEM!!(excuse me.. I have strong feelings here...)

The British if they had been focused and determined could have crushed the rebellion if they had wanted to. Highly recommend reading Founding Brothers..  

However in all fairness to the French they did give us a wonderful piece of sculpture and sold land to Jefferson and a bargain price (Louisina Purchase).



-- Modified on 3/11/2003 8:21:44 PM

Your revelation of the truth may be hard for many to see, but it is accurate...  Rightly or wrongly whether you agree with what the US is doing about Iraq, France's behavior has been dispicable...  But they are going to pay dearly when this is over...  I imagine that when Iraq is liberated, and many of the weapons of mass destruction are found to have been manufactured with French parts as well as the liberated people remember which countries tried to stop their liberation, France may not be in such a great position to lead Europe..

Whether the French were altruistic or not is irrelevant. The amount of blood the French spilt is irrelevant. Whether the Brits were putting enough effort is irrelevant.

The fact is that the French intervened at a critical time in our nation's history. For this, we owe them a debt of gratitude.

One other point I'd like to make. Last time I looked, France is still a democracy.... a representative democracy. The overwhelming bulk of the French people don't support George W.'s impending war on Iraq. It seems to me that Chirac and the French government are simply expressing the will of their people, and they would be foolish to overlook it. That's the inconvenient thing about sovereign democracies -- sometimes they will disagree with you.

I personally do not agree that the points I brought up are irrelevant nor would the families of GI's buried in Normandy feel that it is irrelevant. In fact I believe that France's participation in our revolution did not have the make or break impact that you attribute to it.. While certainly important it was not a deciding factor in our realization of independence from Britian.

Now onto the other point. Yes democracies have the right to disagree with us.  You don't hear anyone yelling at the Chinese or Russians... It is not that the French are disagreeing but they are deliberately and actively sabotaging our efforts in an area that we consider of national security interests..

In my opinion they owe us a debt of gratitude. Hell they should not even be on the security council.. And it is with certainty that they would be speaking German today if it were not for us. So while I certainly think they are within their right to disagree, I think the proper thing for them to do is disagree and shut up... This is an emotional issue, and you and I can go back on this one all night... but I have a BBJ waiting for me upstairs so I need to check out... take care...

Also recall that the French helped to fund the Confederacy during the War Between The States.  If you were pro-union, you wouldn't have been to happy with Le Pew.

-Hoot (or should I saw Hawk?)

...and where was the "rest of the civilized world" so recently when Clinton had to go in and clean-up Europe's backyard, i.e., the erstwhile Yugoslavia?  Runny cheese is fine but it doesn't load so well in an M-16.  The Euromorons should have been able to deal with this "regional" issue themselves.

A little less laughing and better sense of responsibility, i.e., a decline in parochialism, is in order here.

-Hoot.

-- Modified on 3/11/2003 8:59:12 PM

Hey, we can agree on one thing, at least. Never keep a good BJ waiting! Have fun.

In spite of all the super-patriotic nonsense from some of the above members, France is to be credited for opposing the  useless, unpopular war about to be started by Bush and his little band of chicken hawks, almost all of whom have never experienced war first hand.  Vive la France!!!

Trust Nicole to be the soul of discretion and diplomacy....Talleyrand would be proud.

separate individuals from those in charge of government.

These days we don't talk about politics as we had diverge views.  We only talked about movies and other stuff.

I think the "civilized" comment by doctor2002 really set me off.

Anyway, no matter what our individual views is, the current events are out of our hands.  The good thing is that Election is next year, that would be the forum where our views really count.

Even though, I don't like the current policy of the French government, that doesn't mean that I won't go to see "Irreversible" this week: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/07/movies/07IRRE.html .

I am glad there are wonderful ladies like you that bring joy and happiness to the world.  Best wishes.

GC

-- Modified on 3/11/2003 11:04:48 PM

I too am not a big fan of post-WWII French dealings with the US.  However, be careful not to overdo anti-French sentiment.

As Americans, we lack a vital piece of the perspective puzzle that many in the world do not.  Living Russians, living French people, living Czechs and Pols all know firsthand the agony of occupation and the true cost of tyranny.  We do not.  I grant that our sacrifices to liberate France were immense.  I grant that their role in our revolution may not be altrusitic.  But the Civil War notwithstanding, the true horrors of world war, the true limits of the evil capacity of humanity have never been exercised on our soil.

Once attacked on 9/11, we changed our tune completely.  Until then, we saw terrorism as a fringe nation's problem, something that happened in Tel Aviv or a Berlin disco.  But now it is the defining American issue of this decade...  Our beliefs, conduct, and expectations of the world changed dramatically in one day, and those that thought they knew us before, now don't know us at all.  We lost 3,000 people on our homeland, and look how much we've changed...

But the Russians lost millions around Stalingrad alone.  Millions.  Hundreds of thousands of those were civilians.  The French were occupied for years before we invaded, and their casualties, military and civilian, are countless.  Many French people that are alive today were around back then.  They simply have a perspective on war that eliminates much of our right to declare moral superiority.

We didn't invade France because we liked french fries or because we felt we owed them for our revolution...  We invaded France because we knew it was better to fight the battle there than here.  Our motivations were not much more altruistic than the French's were in the Revolutionary War, so how can we take some entitlement from this?

I am one of only a few guys on this board that has picked up a rifle and walked willingly into harm's way to fight against tyranny and oppression--some of those fights you know about, some you don't, but they were all costly to me and many others.  That experience has left me with a real appreciation for how different the psyche of every European must be.  They lived an experience that we only portray in movies, and deserve some latitude in dealing with current issues.  The French have had to wrestle with their demons for 50 years...  We've only had to wrestle with ours for a year and a half.  That is the blink of an eye in their perspective, which means that by our standards they will be slow to adjust to our new religion.

But then again, I could be wrong.  :^)

-- Modified on 3/11/2003 11:29:06 PM

the balance of power and ushered a generation of peace in Europe until the Crimean and Franco-Prussian War.  According to google, Talleyrand is the French counterpart who attended the Congress of Vienna and did the almost impossible task of trying to regain dignity to France.

Talleyrand: http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/talleyrand.html
Treaty of Vienna (1815): http://www.essaybank.co.uk/free_coursework/359.html

The comparison to Talleyrand is infinitely appropriate given your heritage and reluctant position you're trying to straddle on this issue.

2sense is much learned man indeed.

Spectator,

It will help if you read a bit of history, and not too rely on MSNBC to develop perspectives.  We have supported plenty of dictors, and installed them, do you need examples?

I bet without looking it up, you dont' have a foggiest idea to name the citizenship of 9/11 terrorists.  All, come from countries that are our allies, not the French, Saudis, Kuwaitis, Jordan, Egypt ...

We rescued the French, and rest of the Europe, not out of kindness, rather to stop Hitler and fight Communism.  It would have been a bit difficult to defeat communism without German and French support.

And about AEI ... if you have a $10m trust fund, I don't blame you to listen to them. If not, then I really have nothing to say!


-- Modified on 3/12/2003 1:11:40 AM

-- Modified on 3/12/2003 1:20:47 AM

-- Modified on 3/12/2003 3:16:10 AM

-- Modified on 3/12/2003 3:59:56 AM

As I see it, the need of US to support dictators in the past 5 decades - the reinstallation of the Peacock throne in Iran, the support of Pinochet in Chile, etc., were tactics in a global war (cold war) against the Soviet Empire.  US made plenty of mistakes along the way but the Soviet client states like Syria, Cuba and Vietnam were much worse off.

In case you don't know, most of US oil imports are from Western Hemisphere countries such as Venezuela and Mexico.  The French and German are the ones that mainly relied on Middle Eastern Oil.  I didn't hear France and Germany advocate democracies in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.  Do they care to criticize the dictators in Cuba and the emerging one in Venezuela?  Of course not.  The far left don't criticize their own.  They just romanticize them.  Isn't the 9/11 terrorists assembled their plan in Germany?  I thought Mohammed Atta spent most of his time in Hamburg, Germany.  You think France and Germany are not friends of Kuwaitis and Saudis?  They are mostly profiteers signing contracts with Libya, Iraq, etc.  Most of the top companies in France are largely state owned or controlled.

Really, I thought only the British in WWII have the foresight to guard against the design of Soviet Union.  If US were not so naive in dealing with USSR, there won't be a Yalta and the partition of Central Europe.  It would be easy to only give limited material support to USSR and let them slug it out with Nazi Germany while US fought the Japanese.  That way both of them would be exhausted.

If not for the principle of advocating freedom around the world (at least to Western Europe), US could act like Mexico, Brazil and Argentina, relied on the protection of the Atlantic Ocean to deter the reach of warring countries in Europe.  Isn't that the sentiment prevailed in US in WWI until the German sank the Lousitania?

The Brooking Institutes and the Nation are funding by millionaires too.  That doesn't discount their agreements.  If that is your rationale, why would anyone listen to professors or graduates of Harvard or Yale?  Doesn't Harvard have the largest endowment of any universities in the world?

the failure to stand up against the rise of Nazi Germany.  Those leaders abdicated their responsibilities to their people.  As a result of that, tens of millions of lives were lost in WWII.  Churchill was branded a warmonger.  If only France and Britain had objected to the march to the Rhineland by Germany in 1936 with the use of force, Hitler would fail and there would be no WWII.

I respect your contribution to this country but I respectfully disagree with your arguments.

Even though millions of lives were lost in WWII, unlike the west which developed various peace movements, Soviet Unions under Stalin chose to enslave tens of millions of East Europeans.  The excuses used by USSR to control Warsaw pact countries to guard against potential invasions from the West simply didn’t hold up.  Marxist ideology calls for constant revolution by workers of the world.  They were changed by Stalin and Mao to mean that a few elites in the top would control millions of people’s everyday life.  There would be no peace without the containment policy led by US.

Britain could easily acquiesce to Nazi Germany’s control of most of the European continent.  Actually, US and Britain could fight the war against Germany without the liberation of France – witness the strategic bombings of Dresden by the armada of long range bombers stationed in England.  France itself didn’t suffer too much damage in WWII compared to the rest of Europe like Poland.  A big proportion of the lives lost in France during the war were French Jews.  Many Parisians lived the high life during German occupation.  The trauma suffered by French was mainly their pride.  That is why they bounced back quickly after the introduction of the Marshall Plan.  If US’s motivation was non-benevolent, this country could treat France, Germany and Japan as Hawaii or Puerto Rico after the Spanish American war or countries in the Warsaw pact.

Throughout history, there are lots of myths created by losers of war.  Because of the nature of history, many academics that are ambitious choose to break the existence mode and create revisions of past events to elevate themselves from their peers.  Overtimes that obscured the truth; most people got confused by their arguments.

Really, in the history of the world, what empires or countries did what US did after WWII and the Cold War?  Without the active urging of George H W Bush, there would be no unification of Germany (French was adamant against it at the time.  How soon did the East Germans forget? )  We poured trillions of dollars to defend people in faraway countries.  We open our markets to imports to shore up weak economies (compare that with EU's protectionist economic policy, immigration and naturalization laws and the lack of assimilation of Turks in Germany).  We shredded bloods to defend other people’s freedom.  If France and Germany wanted a disarmed Iraq, they won’t sell them weapon parts and technologies for the manufacture of WMD.  They won’t weaken the sanctions in the last 11 years that in a way create the need to go to war against Iraq again.

The sheer ungratefulness by the South Koreans, German and the French are just sickening.  Now the South Koreans are realizing their US bashing had gone too far and start to demand US arm forces to stay in the DMZ.  I think it is too late.  The need for troops stationed in post war Iraq would draw on troops stationed in Germany and Korea.  Let China deal with a nuclear Japan and let the strong South Koreans defend their own country for a change.

Nice guys finish last.  It is time for US to play hardball.

I also want to beat this horse one more time.  I don't recollect the French having suffered many casualties in WWII.  They surrendered so damn quickly that there really wasn't time for them to suffer many casualties. Their collaboration with the Germans during occupation is another disgraceful chapter in French History..Anti-French sentiment? I don't think there is enough of it!!
Oh by the way when the Libyans blew up a PAN AM jet over Lockerbee Scottland killing many US civilians.. guess which country would not allow us to use their airspace to retaliate??
FUCK THEM.. and their perfume, truffles, and wine.

I find it very interesting that those European countries who have recently been liberated from the yoke of oppressive communism, side with the US. It appears to me that these countries understand oppression better then any of the so called European allies, and they are behind the US 100%?  I think that says something.

Personally, after this is done, I think we should withdraw from the UN (save the money), pull our troops out of Germany, and send France and Germany the bill for the rebuilding of their countries and economies as well as the protection they have enjoyed all these years on our dime..

Time to form new alliances with countries that have more recent memories of oppression, and recognize that freedom and security is not something you say but often have to protect and earn.

-- Modified on 3/12/2003 5:24:17 AM

Nicole - Spectator's above response to your query is a very good explanation.

I liked your approach of taking a step back and attempting to cool down these somewhat heated arguments - the essence of diplomacy.

Even if the U.S. attacks and defeats Iraq, we will be needing diplomacy and international cooperation more than ever to deal with the "post-Saddam Hussein" Iraq, and also the on-going problems with North Korea and the newly-discovered, advanced nuclear program of Iran.

Wonder if you will still feel that way after you learn that the US soldiers who get killed over there with weapons sold by the French in violation of a UN embargo to Iraq. Or that much of the technology to develop weapons of mass destruction have made in France logos on it..

I personally do not agree with Bush's domestic policies. Yes he does have alot of hawks in his administration. Colin Powell is not one of them. He has earned the respect of this nation and knows the horrors of war all to well. He is a highly principled man who I have no doubt whatsoever would resign if he thought that this war was morally wrong... The fact that a person of such stature who was resistent to the hawks for so long and now is advocating war, should give you pause to re-think your comments above..

The French army was still devistated from WWI.  They lost around 100,000 soldiers defending France before the Germans overran them.  This was the majority of their army.  The also lost many memebers of the French resistance, plus the Nazi's purging "undesierables".

Plus the Free French soldiers that fought alongside the allies and liberated Paris, suffering some casualties.

More importantly, the French remember what it was like to have a colonial empire, and suffered terrorist attacks that make Israel look tame.  If we'd bother to listen, perhaps we could learn from that before terrorists make 9/11 look like a calm day.

The Former communist nations are on our side because:
1. They're used to bending over for a more powerful nation.
2. They have a long history of ignoring their people.
3. They're desperate for money.

Wonder if your opinion will change when you learn that the US soldiers who get killed over there with chemical weapons sold by the US in violation of the UN ban on chemical weapons.

And as for Powell, he lost all of his credibility with me when he presented new "evidence" to the UN, and most of it turned out to be false.

I do not see what the amount of blood spilled by France has to do with this. And we are very grateful for the US to have come to our help in times of need. You should see the rememberance each year for DDay. But let's not forget a few things. You said we helped during your revolution out of interest. Now isn't it exactly what the US did during WWII? The US went into the war long after Germany had invaded us, but only after Pearl Harbor. That is you intervened when you felt attacked. You helped only by interest.

Without Pearl Harbor the US would have stayed back and looked the other way.

As far as we did not have many casualties and we surrendered to Germany so fast and then we had the collaboration. That's an ugly and inexact thing to say. Check the link to see how many casualties we had. No nation in Europe could resist Germany at that time. Only England could because they were on the other side of the Channel. And please do not forget the french Resistance who continued the guerilla for years under the constant threat of capture, torture worse than death and such. Maybe it was not Hollywood spectacular but it was very real and required a lot of courage from people that knew that if they were caught would be tortured, their families with them, and then would be shot. Period. No Geneva convention for them.

I do not intend to go any further. You're entitled to your opinion and you're defending your country, which I respect and appreciate a lot. Since I joined this Board I have enjoyed your posts a lot and value your opinion, and will continue to do so. But I cannot accept to see such wrongful and insulting things written. And to think that because of what the US did during WWII entitles you to do whatever you want ever after is simply ridiculous.

No, the British funded the Confederacy, because they were still upset about the Revolution and the war of 1812.

The French gave money to the Union.

-- Modified on 3/12/2003 7:50:42 AM

Actually, the British and French didn't have a chance of stopping Hitler in the 30s.  Hitler had a large, modern millitary.  The French and British didn't.  The French and British started frantically rebuilding their militaries in 1938, but still got their butts kicked for a year.  So if they tried to fight Hitler in the 30s, they would have lost that much sooner.

Our thanks for the Marshall plan has been the trillions of dollars we have made in trade over the years with the democratic nations of Europe.

Thank you!  Absolutely correct.  Obviously a product of either a private education, lots of reading, or our public school system prior to about 1970.

Again I agree (sound like a parrot).  Obviously a historian, and you made a passing comment about the British and the French having the ability in the 30's to stop Hitler before he got as far as he did.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't France's military capabilities far exceed those of Germany's in the mid-30's, when Hitler was first starting with his annexation's?  Seems to me France has a history of making wrong decision's.  What was the movie?  The guy say's "while the French were teaching their children to play with doll's, the German's were teaching theirs to play war, which is why France is always running away from war"?  Paraphrased and not exactly the line, but that was the idea. France is a great and beautiful country, most of the French (not the Parisian's) are friendly and love American culture, but they make lousey allies.

Actually, I do agree mostly with your thoughts, in the most recent posting.  What at times disturbs me, seems to be the media and "talking heads" forgetting that we have "tactical" differences with the French, not "strategic" ones.  The value systems in Nazi Germany, and Communist Russia where against ours in every way.  The same does not apply to France or today's Germany.

I take back and appologize for what I said about your understanding of history. Obviously, you are well read and educated ...

The inspectors haven't hidden anything.  What the hawks are up in arms about is that Blix didn't _say_ when he was reporting to the UN that they found a drone which may or may not violate the UN resolution.  However, the drone was covered in his written report.  

The hawks claim that the drone is supposed to spray chemical or biological weapons, but there's no evidence that it can even carry such equipment (it's not terribly lightweight).

I have trouble believing the hawks on this, simply because they keep getting proven wrong.  First the aluminum tubes that actually can't be used to refine uranium, then the "intelligence report" that was a 10-year-old masters thesis (complete with typos cut-n-pasted), now the letter that was supposed to show Iraq was buying uranium has been shown to be a forgery.

So far the only evidence I know of that hasn't been refuted is "becasuse we say so".

All that I've read regarding WWII & the prelude to it indicates that Hitler almost certainly could have been stopped if British & French intervention had come earlier.  In particular a read of "The Rise & Fall of the Third Reich" & "The Collapse of the Third Republic", both by William Shirer seem to best bear this out.  

It was the opinion of much of the world, rightly or wrongly, that throughout the 1930's France had the strongest army in the world. Yet they did nothing in 1936 when Hitler, over the objections & fears of the entire Germany military, occupied the Rhineland.  Even when the Nazis invaded Poland on Sept 1, 1939..the German military leaders again had grave doubts, despite being much stronger than in 1936, they did not yet have the awesome strength of 1941 when they invaded Russia.

Factually, the Germans had only 6 rifle divisions, without the usual artillery or armor support & no air power, left in the west to confront the entire French army.  The French declared war, advanced 6 miles into Germany & stopped..the infamous "stizkreg" as it came to be called later.

Even in the Battle of France in 1940, the combined forces of France, Britain, & Belgium outnumbered the Germans..approximately 125 total divisions to 121, with artillery-tank-air support approximately equal.  The fall of France in 6 short weeks had more to do with the poor strategy & tactics employed than it did with German superiority...whose  Panzers at the time were very lightly armored & had only a 40mm gun compared to the French tanks with 75mm.

Whether or not the ultimate outcome could have been different, anyone can debate.  Personally I think the political climate at the time in France hampered the military greatly, & the passiveness, particularly in 1936, led directly to their quick defeat.

you're kidding. "Airbus is a scheme to dampen the influence of the USA" !!!!!! No it's called competition.

I am sorry that you feel I am pushing it. Maybe I am. But the collaboration with the Nazi's is ugly and unfortunately true. DO you know how many French Jews were turned over to the Germans by their French Neighbors?Do you honestly believe that the thousands of French Jews who were deported to concentration camps would have occurred without collaboration and assistence? Don't tell me they didn't I have the dead relatives and survivor accounts to attest that they did!!!

Danish were also occupied by Germany yet the fate of Jews living in that country were very different. Unfortuantely the Anti-semitism
that existed in France in the 30s and 40s is  very prevelant today in France...

And as far as our own interests, yes we entered WWII after being attacked... Being attacked by Japan.. If we were truly motivated by self interest, we could have kept the theatre of the war operations dedicated to the Pacific.  As far as sitting back and doing nothing, I am ashamed of my country's acquience to the butchery that when on in Europe while we did nothing and also very keenly aware of how it ignored the extermination of millions of people..

But I feel that a look at France's behavior during the war and especially with the anti-Americanism that DeGaulle propogated after the war and is re-inforced by French actions today justifies the opinion I hold.

Sorry to offend..and I have strong feelings here. Not to say that I don't admire French culture despite what I posted, the French have made enormous contributions to Western Civilization in the areas of medicine, literature, arts,classical music (Ravel and Debussy are two of my favorite composers), but I have strong feelings about how the French have behaved politically. Okay I have said my peace.. made a few friends, I will cease from this discourse.. Apologize to anyone out there that I have not offended...

...was invented in Albany, NY. Tavern owner Joseph French is credited with inventing the famous breakfast in 1724. Supposedly, Mr. French didn't know the proper usage of the possessive apostrophe and, instead of 'French's toast' he put 'French toast' on his menu.

To most of the news sources I have seen, and Blix has admitted to witholding evidenct. That's a fact.

-- Modified on 3/12/2003 3:47:17 PM

as a way to provide a counter weight to the dominance of US aircraft manufacturing industry.  It was pushed ahead mainly by the government of France and supported by the largesse of those governments for over 20 years.  I believe it is the only company in the world that were financially supported by four governments.  (In the late 80s and early 90s, Airbus was reorganized and slowly acted as a normal company)

The influence of USA derives from its economic, military, and cultural powers.  Airbus was clearly a scheme drawn up by European countries to counter the economic and military aspect of US influence.  (Boeing and McDonald Douglas, though have many contracts with the Pentagon, are private companies ever since their establishment)

Without Airbus to retain and expand the manufacture base of building aircraft in France, the French Mirage won't be semi-competitive to US fighters in the world market in the 70s and early 80s.  The French Air Force would then have to reconsider their decision to use only Mirage.  The sales of fighter jets are also greatly intertwined with politics and geopolitical influence.  It is/was very important for France to create Airbus.

I am just stating the facts here.  It is competition and whole lot more.

Anyway, happy hobbying.

You have to understand something. Ever heard of first World War? Do you know how many casualties France had? You can find the figures on the web but I give it to you:
4.3 million. Yes. 4,300,000. And that’s not counting the civilians. We had about 1,700,000 soldiers dead. And the wounded. No surgery at that time, the only way to save you was to cut. Leg, arm, jaw. People blind because of the gases. Out of the population of France at that time of about 25,000,000. This means that maybe 25% of our total population was either dead or wounded. Mainly men. Do you imagine what the equivalent would mean for the US?

15 years later we were still traumatized. So people did not want to go to war again against Germany 15 years later. It was a mistake as history showed. But at that time many of the people maimed for life were still around. They were called the “broken faces”. Nobody wanted to see such a killing and maiming ever again.

If my memory serves me right there were about 50,000 US soldiers killed during the Vietnam war. That’s about 34 times less than we had during WW1. And yet how long did the US remain traumatized by this experience?

I’m no trying to say we were right. We were not. I’m just trying to explain why we did that. It’s too easy to judge 60 years later from far away, especially when you forget half the facts.

Ok

of course it was a good thing for the countries to build Airbus, to create jobs. That's what any country - including the US - tries to do. It's not especially to attack the US.

When Concorde was built, the US did not have an equivalent plane. So in order to prevent it from being sold and used, they prevented it from flying into the US because it was "too noisy". We did not consider that as an aggression and an attempt to damamge our interests. Just unfair competition.

the US builds car so we should not otherwise that would be an aggression and an attempt to damage US interests.

US produces wine so we should not because ...

So pray tell what do we have left to do that the US would not consider an aggression or an attempt to reduce its influence?

I understand your standpoint. And I agree with you. Collaboration was disgusting and ugly. And I have never tried to deny it. It is common knowledge. No frnechman tries to deny it. And you may not know it but it has left a profound feeling of guilt in the french population. Did you see the trial for Maurice Papon, one of the main "Collabos" as we call them, a few years ago. He sent many jews to death. Yes, eventhough he was 65 or so we still did not want to let it go. He was convicted and sentenced to jail.

So please do not think that we do not feel strongly and regret what some of our countrymen did. It is forever a shame for us, and we can't do anything about it.

Now you talk about De Gaulle behaviour after the war. I'm not one of his friends, I can tell you. But I believe he behave like this partly because of the attitude of the US towards him during the war. He was considered as a nothing, excluded from everything, the war plans etc. by the US. Of course it did not make him a friend of the US. Of course he did not have many soldiers, but still, he should not have been left on the sidelines.

I see that you have strong feelings about that. But I am French so you must understand that I also have strong feelings about that. I disagree with you but respect what you say.

If I remember right, after 9/11 President Chirac was the first foreign dignitary to visit the US and more specially NY. Personnaly I was so shocked by these events that I stayed glued to my tv set and cnn for 3 days. So please do not think that we hate the US. We simply have a different position.

Look at the map, look at our history. We are close to arab countries geographically. We have a large arab population. We used to have colonies in arab countries. So of course we have a different perception of the political situation. We believe Saddam is a really nasty guy, we just do not think war is the best way. That's the same in the rest of the world. Even in Canada and the UK or Australia most of the population is against the war.

Because otherwise it will never stop. Why not attack North Korea next. This guy Kim is also a dangerous basket case. He supports terrorism, he has atomic weapons.

We can't declare the war to everybody.

automobiles.  The Italian Americans are the ones that create the wine industry in California.  The automobiles were created by bicycle manufacturers in Detroit.

French wine makers don't need the government to urge them to produce great wines.  French car manufacturers were not organized and pushed by the government to develope their cars.

The trans-atlantic route (London to NYC and Paris to NYC) was the main route for Concorde throughout the decades.  At least in this case, Concorde was not prevented to fly into US.

I am not sure you are well versed by the "Not In My Back Yard" (NIMBY) politics in US.  In Southern California, the TriCity airport (Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena) was not allowed to remodel and expand for over a decade because the vocal opposition of the residents near the airport about noise problem.  The federal government in US cannot do much about that.  These happened all over the world.

Concorde was too expensive to operate for the US airline industry.  Just look at all the money lost in US airlines after the deregulation in late 70s.  If I remember correctly, even Japan dropped the use of Concorde after a trial period because of noise and the high cost.

Even the strong economic power of Japan in the 70s and 80s didn't think about creating an aircraft manufacturer.  It was simply too expensive a way to create jobs.

Of course Airbus was not created to "attack the US".  It was created to dampen the influence of US.

France was a great country and is still a big cultural power.  It is the elites in the government and academia that crave for the glories of the bygone era and tries to do everything to counter US so that once again it would be a multi-polar world.  That is the stated policy of Chirac's government supported by the majority of members of parliament across the political spectrum.  

If that is not a policy to dampen the influence of US, I don't know what is.

BTW, I don't think I use the phrase "damage US interest" in my previous message.  Damage is a much stronger word than dampen.

They have good intentions.  Nowhere do I discount the sufferings by France in WWI.  All I said was that the trauma paralyzed the people in charge so much that they wished away their responsibilities as leaders.  They were followers.  

Hitler's plan and intention was spelled out in Mein Kempf.  People just choose to ignore it so that they could sleep well at night.  Anyone dare to speak the truth and sound the warning like Churchill was branded a warmonger.  One can't confront bad people with good wishes and concessions.

I thought Europe had learned the lessons of ethnic cleansing, genocides and appeasement.  I was greatly disappointed that in the 90s, Europe was paralyzed again in Bosnia and Kosovo; eventually US had to involve after waiting for months and years for Europe to lead.  Now in the new century, appeasement was in vogue again.

It was the same thing in US after Vietnam.  That was why the Democratic party was in a disarry in the 80s.

Fortunately, the Republicans and conservative Democrats was not paralyzed by the loss in Vietnam and chose to confront the Soviet deployment of Intermediate Range missiles with their own.  There was huge outcries in Europe at the time.  The leaders in Europe chose to lead in the national interest of their countries and the alliance.

Well, enough about all these point/counterpoint.  We just have to agree to disagree.

Best wishes.

it'll drive the prices down & I can drink more!

With W.'s obsession with Iraq, there is something of Fred Sanford (Redd Fox) when he was threatening to fight: Fred would punch his hands to the sky, rather ineffectually.

The only weapons of mass destruction that really threaten the U.S. are loose nukes. It's pretty clear that Iraq has none of these, but plenty of oil. Which may be enough of a reason for W. to attack Saddam Hussein with impunity.

On the other hand, George W. has virtually no strategy to deal with an infinitely greater threat, North Korea who does indeed have nuclear weapons, and is gearing up plutonium production to manufacture ~1-2 per month. These can be bartered on the free market to anyone, including Al Qaida.

To ignore North Korea, while we pursue Saddam Hussein to the exclusion of everything else, strikes me as both naive and against our strategic interests.

I understand your premise, & don't completely disgree with it.  And it's my assumption that the "we" you refer to in your post is France.  

The US then, unlike today, had long had what's often referred to as an "isolationist" policy, a delibertate attempt to avoid becoming embroiled in foreign conflicts..particularly European ones, given the long history of them.  The delayed entry by the US in WWII had little to do with the casualties we sustained in 1917-18..dead & wounded totaled 364,800 which pales by comparison to what other nations suffered.

Because you've referenced population & casualty statistics, I would point out a couple that my research shows different than yours..not as a correction per se, but to emphasize the point you've touched upon with them.  The French population then was 40,000,000..total French casualties, dead & wounded, were 6,160,800.  Devastating numbers not matter which way their crunched, & the fact that so much of the bloodiest fighting took place on French soil shouldn't be minimized.  However Russian casualties were 9,150,000..German 7,142,600..Austro-Hungarian 7,020,000 (the highest percentage of all, whether interms of population or of total forces mobilized).  

Certainly the reluctance of France (& Britain) to assert themselves earlier against the Nazis should be at least understandable.  Hindsight has certainly proven that was the wrong path to take as the inevitable wasn't avoided & the result even more devastating than it might have been.  Perhaps the US should have stepped in earlier as well, it's certainly a debatable issue.  And had they not been ruled by a madman, perhaps Germany would've learned from 1914-18 the folly of making aggresive war against allied forces with 10 times the manpower resources & greater production capacity.  Lessons NOT learned from history abound.  France is not alone in that regard.

While believing that Iraq must disarm & that the Iraqi people would be far better off with Saddam out of the picuture entirely, I'm not convinced that the US position is entirely correct in that we may be too ready to go to war too quickly.  At the same time I seriously doubt that Saddam will do anything without being forced to, & that a resoulute frimness is needed in dealing with him.  Thus I feel the stance currently taken by France is giving him far to much hope...he's shown already that he'll try to take a mile for every inch he's given.   attitudefeelings

you're confusing the cause and the consequence. We did develop our aviation industry to create jobs. That in turn as a consequence dampened the influence of the US. I agree. But that was a consequence, not a target.

By the way the european had an airline building industries years before Airbus. The first commercial jetliner was a Fokker, before WWI, which by the way led to the creation of KLM, first airline in history. Then after WWII while the US developed Boeing and DC planes, the Brits developed the Comet and France the Caravelle.

So building airplanes is not something new in Europe. And apparently building planes was not such a bad idea because even US airlines are buying them now.

As far as dampening the US influence as a policy, some people think that a world with a variety of cultures, beliefs and customs is best that a world following only one model, the one of the US. Diversity is the bet, IMHO. That's why France and other countries do not want to always follow the leadership of the US. Leadership cannot be imposed. If what you say or propose something that makes sense, we will follow. But if it doesn't we won't. And we do not do that just because we want to oppose you, just because we don't think you're doing the right thing. And it seems that most of the world, altough they are less vocal about it, agree with France.

and BTW sorry about the misuse of damage vs dampen, forgive my poor english, it gets the better of me sometimes.

take care

I hear you, and I need to keep it objective and not personal..
As far as N. Korea is concerned, actually, my honest opinion is that Bush is focused in the wrong area. N. Korea is a much more serious threat that this president is utterly ignoring, and is more time sensitive, because within 6 months, N. korea will have over 6 nuclear bombs, but more frighening, is the ability to process and produce plutoninum...  What do you think they are going to do with this Plutonium??  We cannot afford to let this happen.. Hopefully we can solve it diplomatically, but we must, and here is where we diverge, be prepared to use military force from preventing N. Korea from being able to product Plutonium.

9/11 changed everything here for us... It is my belief and many of you disagree, that our foreign policy needs to take a more aggressive pre-emptive approach to radical countries that are attempting to manufacture and/or acquire nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. These terriorist groups will use them.  

As far as Iraq is concerned, he must be disarmed. He has had over 12 years to do so and has not. This man has a messoniac vision of being the dominant ruler of the mid-east and he fundamentaly believes that he needs nuclear weapons to achieve this. He wants to see Isreal destroyed and he hates America.

Where I am upset with France, is that their government in my opinion is making similar mistakes to what was made with Hitler in the 30s. The Inspection process is a sham. The critical mistake that the US made was making it an inspection process rather then an accounting process. Tons of Vx and other chemical and nerve agents that were identified in the last inspections are not accounted for... Any diarmament you are seeing today is the result of Hussein's attempt to divide the UN and is in reaction to the 300,000 troups surrounding him.  Do you honestly believe that we would even be having these inspections if those troops were not there?  Chirac, has already stated that he sees no scenario whatsoever in which a war with Iraq would be justified.  With that public pronoucement, Hussein knows the he can continue to play hide and seek and not have to worry about being stopped. Ironically, I think by France's refusal to support the US, and work actively against the US position, they have all but guarenteed war.

Sometimes you have to stand up to evil and be willing to confront it. It cannot always be done peacefully. By the way are you aware that he is currently purchasing uniforms for his soldiers to wear that are identical to British and US uniforms?
Do you know why?  

I believe that France's aggressive determination to not only vote against US and GB's resolutions but to stifle it, is simply something that a so-called ally should not be doing. I think France has different policy objectives and national interests that are not aligned with our security interests. I do believe that we need to remove Hussien militarily.. Where I might differ with the administration is in timing, and that is only because I feel we have a greater threat brewing on the Korean Penisular.

But to answer your question we must use force if necessary to prevent terriorist states from obtaining these weapons. We cannot sit back and wait.

I'll get them for your in a while.  Busy "entertaining" tonight.

In the meantime, I'd be interested in seeing your source for Blix admiting he withled evidence.  Only thing I've heard of was in his written report, just not spoken.

----------------------

Here's a link to Joe Conason talking about the bad evidence I mentioned.  I'll get you the news stories they're based on later.

http://www2.observer.com/observer/pages/conason.asp

-- Modified on 3/13/2003 4:25:41 PM

While the Marshall plan was not born out of pure altruistic motives, ( the main one, was to stop communism from spreading), we had no idea at the time that it would work. It was bold and visionary, and required an enormous investment on our part, and for whatever the reason, Europe owes the US a debt of gratitude for it..  But here I go again...