Is France Bashing Unwarranted? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-06-2003, 04:54 PM   #16
BAW
The Flower
 
BAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The OC....!!!!
Posts: 11,094
Local Time: 03:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


1. Stereotyping/name calling. "Cheese eating surrender monkeys" detracts from the issues.

besides, db3 might be offended



no monkey bashing

Quote:
I think it is fair for people to ask, "Hey France, what the "?
I totally agree with this. We do need to ask France what's really going on.


I just disagree with making it about the citizens of France and their products.
__________________

__________________
BAW is offline  
Old 05-06-2003, 04:57 PM   #17
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 05:37 AM
Quote:
"Hey France, what the "?
Yes, let's ask this. Let's invesigate these allegations, but let's not bash the nation as a whole. I would wish we were better than this.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 05-06-2003, 06:26 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
France is not an ally in my humble opinion. I am not opposed to any form of boycott. If you believe it is worth boycotting over something go for it. Sometimes, people need to be woken up, and the wallet is the way to do it. The French governement has made their decisions and with every decision in life there are consequences.

Peace
Dread,

Was not France one of the first countries to call after the WTC attacks?

Were not the French supportive of the attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan?


I think that to black ball the French over Iraq is wrong.

It is possible to have a disagreement one or more issues and cooperate on the ones we agree on.


France can be an ally on many issues.


All the dirt and blood you believe are on the hands of the French government is probably only a fraction of the dirt on the US Governmentís hands. I still am happy to be an American and support my government went I believe their policies are correct and work for change when I disagree.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 05-06-2003, 06:45 PM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep

Dread,

Was not France one of the first countries to call after the WTC attacks?

Were not the French supportive of the attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan?


I think that to black ball the French over Iraq is wrong.

It is possible to have a disagreement one or more issues and cooperate on the ones we agree on.


France can be an ally on many issues.


All the dirt and blood you believe are on the hands of the French government is probably only a fraction of the dirt on the US Governmentís hands. I still am happy to be an American and support my government went I believe their policies are correct and work for change when I disagree.

Well said, deep. I agree 100% with this.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 05-06-2003, 07:59 PM   #20
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 12:37 PM
The Statue Of Liberty should remind every US citizen how long there was a friendship between France and the USA
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 05-06-2003, 08:38 PM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:37 AM
I respect your opinion. I disagree with it, and that is fine. France in the past has been an ally. I think, behind the scenes, as I am reading more an more, they are not an ally, nor have they been acting as one. It is an opinion. Yes the Statue of Liberty is a nice memorial of the past, but it is not a symbol of the future. Alliances come and go, enemies become friends and the world moves forward. The more I read about the French governements behind the scenes crap over the Iraq situation, the more disgusted I am. Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-06-2003, 11:07 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,272
Local Time: 05:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
IMO when criticising a country's political actions, it's usually appropriate to limit that criticism to the government of that country and avoid extending it to stereotyping all citizens of that country.

In my opinion the use of phrases like "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" is stereotyping of an entire nation based on criticisms of their government. I'm sure Americans on this board would find it offensive if anti-war activists were to start stereotyping all Americans based on their government's decisions regarding Iraq and I'm sure most Americans would be appalled if people decided to boycott American owned businesses in protest at the war.
Oh, yeah, definitely.

Think about this, too-we tend to take it as an attack on the entire country of America when someone from another country is bashing America's GOVERNMENT-they don't hate the entire population of America itself, they just disagree with our government's actions...but we still think it's an attack on every single American.

Why can't the same be said for the French?

And also, nbcrusader, what about the people of French descent that live here, or people who moved here from France? Their homes were vandalized and they got rude comments from people in their area and things like that.

I'd consider that a personal attack on the ordinary French people, wouldn't you?

If France's government did aid Saddam, then that's not right and we should deal with the GOVERNMENT itself.

But that is no excuse to treat the civilians of France like dirt. It's not their fault.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 05-07-2003, 12:14 PM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel


Oh, yeah, definitely.

Think about this, too-we tend to take it as an attack on the entire country of America when someone from another country is bashing America's GOVERNMENT-they don't hate the entire population of America itself, they just disagree with our government's actions...but we still think it's an attack on every single American.

Why can't the same be said for the French?

And also, nbcrusader, what about the people of French descent that live here, or people who moved here from France? Their homes were vandalized and they got rude comments from people in their area and things like that.

I'd consider that a personal attack on the ordinary French people, wouldn't you?

If France's government did aid Saddam, then that's not right and we should deal with the GOVERNMENT itself.

But that is no excuse to treat the civilians of France like dirt. It's not their fault.

Angela
I agree, Angela. The guess here is that French business big shots had under-the-table deals with Saddam's government. Maybe even Chirac himself did. This is *not* cool and I don't condone it. These big shots don't represent the French people, however. Their activities aren't in the best interest of the French citizens and in fact the French are getting screwed. The French have been screwed by their governments before. It's not fair to bash people who are mainly getting screwed by their government. Dread, you're right that alliances come and go. Governments come and go. Personally I think it is too soon to write off our alliance with France. In two or three years everything will be fine. Don't shut down the French embassy or whatever for heaven's sakes. I don't even think the Bush Administration wants to do this, as irked as they are at Chirac right now. They haven't recalled our ambassador to France and I don't think they'll do anything that drastic.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 05-07-2003, 12:33 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 11:37 AM
For the record I am pissed off at France's treatment of Turkey. The Turks also had some policy disagreements with the U.S. but they were a heck of alot more civil and mature about the disagreements. Colin Powell went to Turkey during the war and they were able to work out some agreements. Again, however, this is the French government and not the French people. I'm not blaming this on the French people. It's the government.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 05-07-2003, 12:33 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:37 AM
Oh, Good Lord!

I've heard plenty of US bashing - I never take it personally.

France has taken actions contrary to our government.

Questioning the relationship between the countries, and even personal boycots of French products are fair game.

This is not open season on ordinary French citizens. Must ever statement be qualified to limit the impact to only those members of the French government acting in such a fashion.

I give up - let' s just return to our regularly schedule Bush Administration bashing....
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 05-07-2003, 12:40 PM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 06:37 AM
I think this is stupid, only because the idea of a "coalition" was a facade anyway. What a far cry from the real useful alliances of the past; now we only have our postmodern alternatives, necessary only to look media friendly and that's it.

So France refused to transform the UN into a rubber stamp? So be it. Resolutions against Israel are routinely vetoed by one nation: the U.S. The U.S. just happens to be better at playing the game than other nations.

As for nations supporting evil nations, please don't get me started on the U.S.' track record...

This is just stupid and childish: period.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 05-07-2003, 06:26 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,272
Local Time: 05:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Oh, Good Lord!

I've heard plenty of US bashing - I never take it personally.
Maybe you don't, but a lot of Americans do.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 05-07-2003, 08:49 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:37 AM
Melon,

"I think this is stupid, only because the idea of a "coalition" was a facade anyway. What a far cry from the real useful alliances of the past; now we only have our postmodern alternatives, necessary only to look media friendly and that's it."

The coalition had over 40 countries in it. Yes, only 3 actually sent troops and are currently in Iraq. But only four countries occupied Germany after World War II and only one occupied Japan. Do you consider those coalitions to be facades?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-07-2003, 09:20 PM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 06:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Melon,

"I think this is stupid, only because the idea of a "coalition" was a facade anyway. What a far cry from the real useful alliances of the past; now we only have our postmodern alternatives, necessary only to look media friendly and that's it."

The coalition had over 40 countries in it. Yes, only 3 actually sent troops and are currently in Iraq. But only four countries occupied Germany after World War II and only one occupied Japan. Do you consider those coalitions to be facades?
You surprise me. You know very well there was a difference between then and now, particularly since our "Allies" in World War II were involved in the war before us. After all, the fall of World War II has credited the rise of the U.S. as a superpower and Europe's "fall from power" in a sense--but that happened post-World War II. Plus, if I remember my history with Japan, our allies wanted nothing to do with Japan.

The difference between then and now is that there is no contest. The U.S. doesn't need allies. This same outcome, without any allies at all, would have been assured. And you know that perfectly well.

All this talk of coalition building was merely an attempt to placate the public, and, theoretically, I do give the U.S. credit for going that route through the U.N. An excellent tactical move. However, we all know that there was no room for debate. There was no room for negotiation, and whatever other nations in the U.N. could have discussed, it was irrelevant. War was the only route, and, as we see, even the U.S. cannot find these "weapons of mass destruction." Now, in another tactical move, the rhetoric is gradually shifting, justifying this conflict in human rights terms and regime change terms. All good and well--Saddam is certainly not the cuddliest dictator we ever once supported--but his primary selling point was the WMDs.

In other words, the U.S. wanted to transform the U.N. into a rubber stamp, perhaps, ironically, making the U.N. irrelevant no matter what it did. And now we are to punish France and other nations for not accepting Bush's bullying moves? It certainly is appropriate for a bully--after all, bullies certainly do not rationalize well--but it is not something I can support.

Like it or not, we are delving into a new era: the U.S. as the sole hyperpower. It is an interesting change of events, casting off, officially, the specter of the 20th century. I would explain this fascination further, but I need not ruin my potential thesis topics.

Despite all this, the last thing I want to hear is the same old media crap. The last thing I need is romanticized rationalizations to interpret what really happened: the U.S. came in, the U.S. demanded, the U.S. won. Period.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 05-08-2003, 02:14 AM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:37 AM
Melon,

Its true that the USA could have conducted the operation alone. The USA would have done the operation alone if it had to because it was in our national security to ensure that Saddam was disarmed of his WMD. For 12 years the UN failed to do what was only supposed to of taken a year, disarm Saddam. The problem was peaceful inspections could only work if Saddam cooperated. He never did.

The USA cannot compromise its security and the security of others because the French and Russians have a relationship with Saddam that they wish to continue. There cannot be any negotiation when it comes to a major threat to US National Security abroad. We can explain and debate the facts and the use of force, but at the end of the day, the USA is not going to sacrifice its and the regions security for naive French and Russian interest.

As far as support for Saddam in the pasts, the USA is not even in the top 10 of the biggest supports of Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war. But the support we did give was in the interest of preventing an Iranian victory that would have seen Iran swallow Iraq and perhaps the Arabian Pennisula. Few people are sorry that the small support the USA gave helped to prevent that nightmare from happening.

Because the WMD has not been found yet does not mean it does not exist. Iraq, and the UN both acknowledge that Iraq had thousands of liters of Anthrax and Shells to deliver them back when the inspectors were forced to leave in 1998. Iraq claims that between 1998 and 2002 that it destroyed this material, yet it has never shown the evidence of this destruction. 30,000 chemical/Bio capable shells is a lot of metal. It does not vanish into thin air. It is incumbent upon member states involved in Iraqi freedom to ensure that Iraq no longer has WMD, it is not incumbent upon them to prove that Iraq has WMD, that was Iraq's job.

If Iraq buried its WMD prior to the inspectors coming into the country, there would be little chance of them ever finding it especially with Iraq's security forces in the way. It also would explain why Iraq could not use its WMD in the war. It was buried and well hidden, and taking it out again would require a lot of time, time that they did not have considering the war started the day after the inspectors were safely out the country.

If Iraq buried its WMD in the middle of the desert somewhere, it could take months, years, even decades to find all of it. In fact, much if it may never be found. If I took something from your house or apartment and buried it somewhere within the State you live in, I'm almost certain you probably would never find it.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com