Is France Bashing Unwarranted?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I think we need to avoid confusing the ordinary French people and their government. French Cheesemaker X isn't necessarily going to approve of his/her government's actions. I do not know how many political parties France has but it's quite a few. Some French people oppose Chirac. I don't like this French bashing because I don't think it's fair. I remember being in Paris a few years back and seeing a demonstration against the government. I think the demonstrators were members of some union. I don't want to penalize French wine-makers, cheesemakers and others because their government is doing something I don't like. It's not my government, anyway. Since I disagree with some of my own government's policies I'd hate it if people in other countries didn't like me because of the government. I don't think that's fair. My family in Italy can't stand their government. Please don't hate Italians if you think Berlusconi is a :censored:. The Italian branch of my family agrees with you!
 
nbcrusader said:
"Bashing" is really never directed at the ordinary citizens.

Excuse me, how do you figure? Boycotting French products, calling French cowards, not even wanting to mention the word "French"...you don't think any of this effects or is aimed towards the citizens of France?
 
Oh, please.

When there was a boycott against Arizona for refusing to adopt the MLK holiday, it was directed against the actions of the Arizona legistlature. No one was crying about how this would affect the people of Arizona

Now we get hypersensative to how the French citizens might be affected by US-France relations?
 
Bashing IS directed at the ordinary French citizen when their livelihoods are affected by the "patriots" in the US who refuse to buy anything with the "F word" on it.

By all means, bash Chirac and his government directly if you don't like their support of Iraq but boycotting all things French and calling the French people "surrender monkeys" (among other things) hurts people who have no control over what their government does.
 
If everyone lived up to the cries of boycotting French products, you think that's an attack on the government. No, it hurts the everyday citizen that work their ass off every day just like you and I. Stop and think about it for a second.
 
So, BAW, are you suffering from US bashing by Europeans? When Europeans stop eating at McDonalds, are you hurt by the economic impact?

The affect on the ordinary French citizen is so negligible, I don't understand the self-flagellation over individuals expressing dissatisfaction with the actions of the French government.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
If everyone lived up to the cries of boycotting


Pretty big IF there.


Outline the principle of your position (avoiding negative speech if it could impact others indirectly) and lets see if we really want to live according to that standard.
 
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.
 
Pretty big IF there.

Of course it is. People talk the big talk, but when it comes down to it very little want to change their lifestyle. But the point is these attacks are aimed towards France. If it was the French government people wanted to bash then single out that administration. If someone had something derogative to say about the Bush administration then change everything that had the word Bush in it, not everything that has the word American in it. Bush is not America.
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:
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.

I agree. I get incensed when I read letters in the local newspapers calling the French "cheese eating surrender monkeys" and other such names. This stuff is directed at French citizens. It's not fair. By all means call Chirac a :censored: if you don't like what his government's doing but spare the people who may be planning a demonstration against his government. I don't like it when someone boycotts U.S. businesses because of my government's policies. Many Americans were involved in protests against the war in Iraq, many Americans didn't vote for Bush, many Americans are Moslems and/or Arabs, etc, etc. It's unfair to lambast us all because of our government's policies.
 
nbcrusader said:
So, BAW, are you suffering from US bashing by Europeans? When Europeans stop eating at McDonalds, are you hurt by the economic impact?

The affect on the ordinary French citizen is so negligible, I don't understand the self-flagellation over individuals expressing dissatisfaction with the actions of the French government.


No, I can't say that I have personally suffered because of a European boycott of McDonalds...I don't have a financial interest in McDonalds. You can't compare a massive, globally recognized brand like McDonalds losing a few customers to the small, family run businesses that lost money due to French bashing. This also directly impacted merchants in the US who depend on selling French imports and were left with unsellable inventories.

Just because the results of this backlash aren't directly hurting the average French citizen, does it make it right?
 
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
 
Bono's American Wife said:
Just because the results of this backlash aren't directly hurting the average French citizen, does it make it right?

I've seen essentially two arguments suggesting that any backlash against the French is wrong.

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

besides, db3 might be offended

2. The backlash hurts the average French citizen. If individual US consumers had this much power, we could scrap the military and boycott other countries into submission.

The article referenced in my original post suggests that France took direct actions to protect members of Saddam's regime - actions contrary to the clear objectives of the United States (and most would support the removal of Saddam's regime given the evidence of Iraqi's suffereing under the regime). I think it is fair for people to ask, "Hey France, what the :censored: "?
 
nbcrusader said:


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

besides, db3 might be offended



:lol: no monkey bashing :shame:

I think it is fair for people to ask, "Hey France, what the :censored: "?

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.
 
Dreadsox said:
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 Government?s 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 said:

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 Government?s 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.
 
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
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:
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
 
Last edited:
Moonlit_Angel said:


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.
 
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.
 
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....
 
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,

"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 said:
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,

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom