PDA

View Full Version : France no longer an American ally


diorio
Feb 4, 2003, 06:19 PM
WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 (UPI) -- France is no longer an ally of the United States and the NATO alliance "must develop a strategy to contain our erstwhile ally or we will not be talking about a NATO alliance" the head of the Pentagon's top advisory board said in Washington Tuesday.

This article pretty much sums it up. French (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030204-031831-1626r)

The U.S is getting increasingly impatient with Germany and France. It almost seems like they like Sadaam, and want him to stay ruler.

"France is no longer the ally it once was," Perle said. And he went on to accuse French President Jacques Chirac of believing "deep in his soul that Saddam Hussein is preferable to any likely successor."

I've said it before, the French are backstabbers, and are no longer a world power.

eyeluvmyimac
Feb 4, 2003, 06:52 PM
I did not read the article, so please forgive me if something in the article is contrary to what I say, but honestly, I have never seen France as much of an ally. We all know the stereotypes, take from those what you will. I see France's stance on this issue no different than their stance on any other issue. They side with the popular side, the side that will let them live. (as a general rule)

We will see what happens.

medea
Feb 4, 2003, 06:55 PM
Sorry but this is not true by any means, what Chirac said is he is opposed to war before U.N. weapons inspectors have time to comple their work. This is what the U.N. was set up for, we do not have the right to bypass them and start a war, otherwise it would be us turning our backs on the rest of the world.
Chirac stated "There is still much to be done in the way of disarmament by peaceful means," and I think that is honorable.
And I'd like to add, if people are going to post in the Current Events forum then they should have a title that has some sort of truth in it or is stated in the article, there is no news article anywhere that states "france no longer an ally" this is your opinion, save your opinion for the actual thread.

yosoyjay
Feb 4, 2003, 07:41 PM
I think wondering who or what group will be Hussein's successor is very legit and relevant. Shi'ites? Sunnis? What about the Kurds?

I'm glad every country's leader is not like Blair.

bousozoku
Feb 4, 2003, 07:41 PM
It would be a good idea for the U.S.A. to wait for the weapons inspectors to complete their work. It doesn't matter a whole lot what France says one way or the other. Remember Afghanistan? They came to help once the fighting was pretty much done. Remember French Indochine (Viet Nam)?

"Oh, that's not a foot race. It's the French military training."

Taft
Feb 4, 2003, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by diorio
WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 (UPI) -- France is no longer an ally of the United States and the NATO alliance "must develop a strategy to contain our erstwhile ally or we will not be talking about a NATO alliance" the head of the Pentagon's top advisory board said in Washington Tuesday.

This article pretty much sums it up. French (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030204-031831-1626r)

The U.S is getting increasingly impatient with Germany and France. It almost seems like they like Sadaam, and want him to stay ruler.

"France is no longer the ally it once was," Perle said. And he went on to accuse French President Jacques Chirac of believing "deep in his soul that Saddam Hussein is preferable to any likely successor."

I've said it before, the French are backstabbers, and are no longer a world power.

I take this more as a commentary on the sad state of our current leadership. These comments are ignorant, inflammatory and childish. Way to try to bully another country into siding with you. Great diplomacy?

And do you really think the French are that fundamentally different than people in our country? That they are a country full of backstabbers??? Grow up! I know many a French person and they are mostly great people.

The comments you and this person made border on racism. Just because people are from a different country and don't side with you on an issue doesn't make them evil, or fundamentally different to the extent they deserve such comments.

This kind of stuff makes me sick.

Taft

taeclee99
Feb 4, 2003, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by diorio
WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 (UPI) -- France is no longer an ally of the United States and the NATO alliance "must develop a strategy to contain our erstwhile ally or we will not be talking about a NATO alliance" the head of the Pentagon's top advisory board said in Washington Tuesday.

This article pretty much sums it up. French (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030204-031831-1626r)

The U.S is getting increasingly impatient with Germany and France. It almost seems like they like Sadaam, and want him to stay ruler.

"France is no longer the ally it once was," Perle said. And he went on to accuse French President Jacques Chirac of believing "deep in his soul that Saddam Hussein is preferable to any likely successor."

I've said it before, the French are backstabbers, and are no longer a world power.

I wouldn't go as far as calling the French "backstabbers." Maybe ingrates. If history serves me correct, the French were rolled by Germany in a matter a weeks during WW2. The U.S. bailed them out. The French should remember that they were liberated from the Nazi's. They have a history of appeasement.

The French aided Iraq in building that Nuclear power plant that Israel bombed in 1981. The French and Germans are opposed to war because they have lucrative contracts
in place with the Iraqi regime.

Others say, "Let the inspections work."
UN Resolution 1441 makes it clear. The inspectors are not there to find weapons in Iraq. The burden of full disclosure is on Saddam. The inspectors are there to catalog what Iraq reveals.

The Iraqi's have not cooperated with the inspectors. Iraqi scientists have been threatened with death if they speak out.

Exactly how long should the inspections continue? Weeks? Months? Years?
Inspections are a farce because Saddam has had 4 years to hide his weapons. He has been pulling the Urnís chain for 12 years.

People who are opposed to war always love to tout the legitimacy of the United Nations.
Their mantra is "Let the inspections work."

What happens if the Security Council authorizes force? Then the Left will dismiss the validity of the very organization that it loves to endorse.
The truth of the matter is that there is no scenario in which the Left will support war.

The same people who criticize George W Bush now are the same people who had no problem with Bill Clinton bombing Iraq with cruise missiles, blowing up an aspirin factory in Afghanistan or sending our forces into Kosovo. The anti-war movement is driven by a hatred of George Bush.
Pure and Simple.

Taft
Feb 4, 2003, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by taeclee99

People who are opposed to war always love to tout the legitimacy of the United Nations.
Their mantra is "Let the inspections work."

What happens if the Security Council authorizes force? Then the Left will dismiss the validity of the very organization that it loves to endorse.
The truth of the matter is that there is no scenario in which the Left will support war.

The same people who criticize George W Bush now are the same people who had no problem with Bill Clinton bombing Iraq with cruise missiles, blowing up an aspirin factory in Afghanistan or sending our forces into Kosovo. The anti-war movement is driven by a hatred of George Bush.
Pure and Simple.

This is crap.

Do you think I was happy with Clinton bombing the aspirin factory in Afghanistan? Do you think I blindly follow Democratic leaders? Hardly. I am against this war because it lacks cause, it loses our focus in the war on terrorism and it will have uncertain and even disasterous results. I love how people paint broad strokes over the anti-war movement and the left. Its crap.

Also, if the UN authorizes force against Iraq, you can bet I won't try to take away the UN's credibility. I will, however, say that they acted under huge pressure from the US and threats to its credibility from the current administration. We NEED the UN as a global community. We must start coming together as a world community and working together towards peace and more diplomatic and multilateral solutions to situations like global terrorism and the Iraq situation.

I am beginning to resent the attitude most of you conservatives on these boards have towards the anti-war movement. You are so far from understanding my motives that its scary.

I am NOT a Democrat. I don't like most politicians in Washington right now. In fact, I find most of their policies and practices--and subsequent corruption and deceit--to be downright disgraceful.

I DO lean left in my political beliefs, however. So I end up voting mostly democratic to pick the lesser of two evils. But I by no means endorse many or most of their policies and I sometimes prefer the policies of Republicans.

In the case of war, I'm against it. But I do not stand with most of the Democrats in office, or even the NYTimes in their stances.

Whether or not you can believe it, I am against the war because of my own informed opinions. I'm getting sick of the crap you people are spewing to try to delegitimize the opinions of those in the anti-war movement. We are not all puppets of the incompetent Democratic leadership in this country.

Taft

springscansing
Feb 4, 2003, 09:16 PM
Hmm... maybe we should just say to hell with the war and move to France. *wants to visit IRCAM*

taeclee99
Feb 4, 2003, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Taft


This is crap.

Do you think I was happy with Clinton bombing the aspirin factory in Afghanistan? Do you think I blindly follow Democratic leaders? Hardly. I am against this war because it lacks cause, it loses our focus in the war on terrorism and it will have uncertain and even disasterous results. I love how people paint broad strokes over the anti-war movement and the left. Its crap.

Also, if the UN authorizes force against Iraq, you can bet I won't try to take away the UN's credibility. I will, however, say that they acted under huge pressure from the US and threats to its credibility from the current administration. We NEED the UN as a global community. We must start coming together as a world community and working together towards peace and more diplomatic and multilateral solutions to situations like global terrorism and the Iraq

Taft,

If you were there to oppose Clinton and his foreign policy in 1998, then I applaud your consistency in this regard. You were on of the few on the Left that did so.

I saw the recent anti war rally held in DC on C-Span recently. This is what I witnesses.

Nearly every speaker had quotes such as these:

Bush is the real terrorist
Bush is evil
The US is a terrorist nation.

See attached picture

and so forth.

These speakers were more fearful of GW Bush than Saddam Hussein. This is what the anti war movemnt is about, A hatred of George W Bush.

You say the war lacks focus? Hardly.
The war is to rid the war of a maddam and his weapons. This is a man who gasses his own people and is responsible for millions of deaths. He routinely stifles dissent through tortue and killing. Where is the Left's indigantion over Saddam's violatrtion of human rights? Where is the Left's compassion.

This war is not a distraction from the war on terror. It is the war on terrorism. Saddam has the means and the will to supply groups like Al Quaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad weapons of mass destruction. The last I looked, these groups hate us and want to kill as many Americans as possible.

Have we as a people forgotten what extremists did to us on 9-11. The war on Iraq is to prevent another horrible like that from happening again.

dubbelhund
Feb 4, 2003, 09:26 PM
"We NEED the UN as a global community. We must start coming together as a world community and working together towards peace and more diplomatic and multilateral solutions to situations like global terrorism and the Iraq"

EXACTLY, Any move against the global community is another step towards WORLD WAR 3.

Simon Liquid
Feb 4, 2003, 09:29 PM
I've been pretty impressed with how France has been handling the situation in the Ivory Coast. They've shown some pretty good leadership getting the parties to sit down, comply with cease fires, etc. Only time will tell, but it looks like they're headed in a better direction than a few US brokered peace efforts that come to mind.

alex_ant
Feb 4, 2003, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by taeclee99
I wouldn't go as far as calling the French "backstabbers." Maybe ingrates. If history serves me correct, the French were rolled by Germany in a matter a weeks during WW2. The U.S. bailed them out. The French should remember that they were liberated from the Nazi's. They have a history of appeasement.
As far as France's "early" surrender, well, that's what you do when you're sane and you know you've lost. If they had put up a fight, they would all have been killed and Paris would have been leveled. They relied too heavily on the Maginot Line which was a big mistake. I'm not sure how you can call the French ingrates. They've been a very loyal ally to the US over the years. They've helped us out in critical war or two, as well. I'd like to think that with the French-donated Statue of Liberty in one of our harbors, our friendship goes a little deeper than "you're not supporting us in this war so **** you."
I saw the recent anti war rally held in DC on C-Span recently. This is what I witnesses.

Nearly every speaker had quotes such as these:

Bush is the real terrorist
Bush is evil
The US is a terrorist nation.

See attached picture

and so forth.

These speakers were more fearful of GW Bush than Saddam Hussein. This is what the anti war movemnt is about, A hatred of George W Bush.
A lot of people on the left are really stupid, just like a lot of people on the right. The "Bush is evil" sign could be thought of as the lefist equivalent to the "Abortion is murder" sign. Don't pay any attention to the loonies on either side.
You say the war lacks focus? Hardly.
The war is to rid the war of a maddam and his weapons. This is a man who gasses his own people and is responsible for millions of deaths. He routinely stifles dissent through tortue and killing. Where is the Left's indigantion over Saddam's violatrtion of human rights? Where is the Left's compassion.
Re those "US is a terrorist" signs you mentioned: Part of the reason people feel inclined to make signs like that is because of our frequently hideous and shockingly human-rights-violating foreign policy. You criticize Hussein for gassing "his own" people. That's very good. I hope this was your stance when it happened, because most party-line US conservatives when it happened were cheering it on. Hussein was after all installed by them.
This war is not a distraction from the war on terror. It is the war on terrorism. Saddam has the means and the will to supply groups like Al Quaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad weapons of mass destruction. The last I looked, these groups hate us and want to kill as many Americans as possible.
And what a great strategy - piss them off even more. Are bioweapons not easy as pie to make and storable anywhere, as Republicans are so eager to tell us? If Iraq were to be leveled tomorrow, do you think the terrorist threat would be reduced by even 1%? Iraq's role in the War on Terror is as a scapegoat. Our administration would love nothing more than to tell us that if we go in and remove Hussein, it will all be over and terrorism will be gone forever. It won't.

macfan
Feb 4, 2003, 09:49 PM
Do you think I was happy with Clinton bombing the aspirin factory in Afghanistan?

Anyone who was angry about Clinton bombing an aspirin factory in Afghanistan hasn't been paying enough attention to be taken seriously given that Clinton did not bomb any aspirin factory in Afghanistan.

Much of the anger over plans to disarm Saddam is not about Iraq at all. taeclee99 is right that much of this is just about hating Bush. When Clinton had the same policy, many of these same people were quite silent on the issue.

macfan
Feb 4, 2003, 09:56 PM
I hope this was your stance when it happened, because most party-line US conservatives when it happened were cheering it on. Hussein was after all installed by them.

If you read the history of Saddam's rise to power, you will see that this is not the case.

alex_ant
Feb 4, 2003, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by macfan
If you read the history of Saddam's rise to power, you will see that this is not the case.
OK, I'm an idiot.

macfan
Feb 4, 2003, 10:09 PM
OK, I'm an idiot.

I suppose you would be in a position to know that! ;)

taeclee99
Feb 4, 2003, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

As far as France's "early" surrender, well, that's what you do when you're sane and you know you've lost. If they had put up a fight, they would all have been killed and Paris would have been leveled. They relied too heavily on the Maginot Line which was a big mistake. I'm not sure how you can call the French ingrates. They've been a very loyal ally to the US over the years. They've helped us out in critical war or two, as well. I'd like to think that with the French-donated Statue of Liberty in one of our harbors, our friendship goes a little deeper than "you're not supporting us in this war so **** you."
[/b]
A lot of people on the left are really stupid, just like a lot of people on the right. The "Bush is evil" sign could be thought of as the lefist equivalent to the "Abortion is murder" sign. Don't pay any attention to the loonies on either side.
[/b]
Re those "US is a terrorist" signs you mentioned: Part of the reason people feel inclined to make signs like that is because of our frequently hideous and shockingly human-rights-violating foreign policy. You criticize Hussein for gassing "his own" people. That's very good. I hope this was your stance when it happened, because most party-line US conservatives when it happened were cheering it on. Hussein was after all installed by them.
[/b]
And what a great strategy - piss them off even more. Are bioweapons not easy as pie to make and storable anywhere, as Republicans are so eager to tell us? If Iraq were to be leveled tomorrow, do you think the terrorist threat would be reduced by even 1%? Iraq's role in the War on Terror is as a scapegoat. Our administration would love nothing more than to tell us that if we go in and remove Hussein, it will all be over and terrorism will be gone forever. It won't. [/B]

Alex,

You say that "conservatives were cheering" when Saddam was gassing his own people. Name me one prominent conservative who was applauding that. I donít think you can. No one in his right mind would condone such a thing.

Hussein was not installed by the US. Where did you get this nonsense?
In 1968 Saddam helped lead the revolt that finally brought the Baath party to power. Since then he has killed millions.

People hold up signs such as "America is a terrorist country" not because of our human rights foreign policy. These people blame America for all the world's problems. They resent the very nation which gave them the very freedom to dissent.
The world is jealous of America's wealth and position in the world. America saved the world from Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. It is the failed policies of Nazism and Communism that is responsible for the bulk of the last century's human rights abuses.

You really think that if we do not attack Iraq that these fundamentalist groups will pack up their bombs and all of sudden they will leave us alone? You got to be kidding. What did we ever do to them before 9-11?

I will tell you.

We liberated Kuwait.
We have funneled untold millions of dollars in aid to Middle East nations for decades.
We sold our consumer goods so that millions could have a higher standard of life?

How do these extremists repay us?
Through hateful rhetoric and vengeful actions. These groups will not stop until America and its ally Israel are destroyed.

You are right about one thing Alex,
The war of terror will not end once Iraq liberated. The fight must continue. The price of freedom is not cheap. We cannot afford to fall asleep at the wheel again.

Rower_CPU
Feb 4, 2003, 10:16 PM
An analyst speaking at "a public seminar organized by a New York-based PR firm"???

Please, diorio, you can do better than this. Find an article posted on CNN or the Washington Post or any news website that anyone has heard of and try again.

Taft
Feb 4, 2003, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by macfan


Anyone who was angry about Clinton bombing an aspirin factory in Afghanistan hasn't been paying enough attention to be taken seriously given that Clinton did not bomb any aspirin factory in Afghanistan.

OK, I was a bit off. But thanks for patronizing me, instead of providing the correct information. Also, I was regurgitating information that was previously posted.

The real incident was Clintons bombing of Afghanistan and the Sudan in response to a terrorist bombing. And the building was in Sudan and was a pharmaceutical company. Most of the casualties were civilian.

Taft

taeclee99
Feb 4, 2003, 10:45 PM
I stand corrected. It was a drug plant in Sudan not Afghanistan.

professor
Feb 4, 2003, 11:02 PM
... you failed to realize that the way you see it, many Germans do not feel like being an ally of George Bush's version of a free and democratic country. And the same is true for a great number of citizens from many, many other countries around the world.

arn
Feb 4, 2003, 11:19 PM
this thread seems to have offended some.