France no longer an ally?

i think it just ignores the language the administration had to speak to get action from the UN...can you imagine how far behind we'd be in getting the UN to this point if the US hadn't talked tough?

again..it's a simple negotiation strategy...if you want the moon, ask for the moon and the stars...then give your opponent the sense you're just settling on the moon.

 

That's probably true, but I still see no fault in people criticizing him for it especially since we probably would've gone for it alone if we hadn't have received this much support.

 

unless of course they never intended this...i mean, we knew at the very least we'd have the support of the UK...and these other smaller players on the world scene probably let the administration know months ago of their support....we heard positive signs from turkey...and even some from saudi arabia as well...but instead we heard, "oh this president is a wild cowboy...he can't build a coalition and he won't even try." i mean we were hearing that kind of criticism right up through this morning, rocketman! those voices were just flat out wrong.

 

I still would like to slam France.

 

America is all about the right to criticize. Is it possible that the strong stance (we WILL go at it alone) helped persuade some of the fence straddlers?

If we did go in alone and found some of the WMD we all know they have, no leader is going to want to be thought of as the hold-out that refused to accept the evidence.

 

We'll just kick France's collective ass in the world cup.

 

But how are we supposed to know he didn't intend it? We can't mute our voices anytime we think what the President is saying is simply a negotiation ploy.

 

agreed...but the criticism didn't even allow for the possibility. the immediate assumption was that bush was a cowboy and was gonna go it alone...how many times did we hear that? almost as many times as we heard, "it's all about oil!"

 

Oddly, France just paid their annual dues in excess of 94 million. Maybe they should have paid their dues in December.

 

I don't understand this statement in the context of this thread...could you explain a little more?

 

probably not...

 

You know what's really stupid - France has a permanent seat on the UN security counsel, with Russia, China, the US and GB. Who gives a rat's ass about France and GB? The whole structure of the UN is a joke. All we need is detente with Russia and China, and a sphere of influence agreement. Nato is a big drain on our resources with no payback. Why station a buttload of troops in Germany? Move them all to Slovenia, fine. They'll take our money, no problem.

This is all a bunch of hooey designed to get France and Germany a better oil deal after we carve up Iraq's fields and set up new pumpers. They're the one's buying from Saddam now. They deserve to have this blow up in their faces, get squat for oil channel, no bases, and lose the prissy bully pulpit they work to blackmail us into shoveling money at these blowhards.

 

The French are useless from a security standpoint. Militarily, they are not even integrated into the NATO structure, they only want to influence decision making within that body, usually towards their own ends. Personally, I think that because of French and German involvement (and Greece, to a lesser degree), NATO as an organization is irrelevant. It is paralyzed 4 times out of 5 because one of these countries refuses to go along, and NATO cannot by its charter commit to any action unless it it unanimously supported.

I think it is time for a new security agreement. US, UK, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Poland, Bulgaria, Czech, Slovenia, Slovakia, Croatia, and the Baltic states should band together with Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, and Australia in a new defense structure. I would also try to get Russian involvment in such a structure (hopefully as a member, but if not then a "partner"), and possibly India's as well - considering that we have largely the same enemies as those two nations.

Buit it's time to flush NATO down the toilet. French and German involvement have become too much of a hindrance. What good is a mutual security agreement when some of the parties involved refuse to act to protect each other? Worthless.

 

Sorry rimrocker, I normally don't blatantly contradict someone here, but you're wrong.

My father served in one of the 4 armored divisions under 'that guy' making a push to the Rhine. Ever since I was little, my father told me how the only decent French fighters were from Morocco. The French were often supposed to be protecting the flank, but they either weren't there at all, or would start running when the shooting started (odd, we were just discussing that last night). He found that particularly reprehensible since their first experience of that was when they were fighting in France.

And FWIW, I believe that it was the French military, not the resistance (maybe the resistance provided some assistance, but it was their military that ran like chickens).

Re. the Moroccans, my father said the Germans would hate to see them coming. They had old rifles and little ammo, but once they ran out of bullets, they would storm the German lines with their bayonnets. The Germans would mow them down with machin guns, but many would make it to the German line. Apparently, getting bayonnetted was not a desirable way to go.

 

Brilliant post, treeman. Nice codicil, Cohen.

Shove it up yours, France. You too, Krauts, if you're F-ing stupid.

 

I think one of the most telling comments I've heard so far was regarding how France sees itself as trying to provide a 'balance' against the US; that is not how one speaks about an ally, now is it?

 

Good summary. These nut cases like Perle are going to bring America down.

************************************

Guys like Perle and [deputy defense secretary Paul] Wolfowitz are so blinded by their loyalty to Israel that they seldom look at the long-term consequences. Finally, once we occupy Iraq, the Perles of the world are going to say, 'Why don't we just go into Iran and solve that problem, too?' I really think occupation is something the Bush administration has not thought through yet. It will be a huge problem, especially if we decide to go it alone."

Richard Perle

 

Cohen, is it possible that maybe there were just as many if not more French soldiers who weren't the way your father described them? Also, isn't it just as possible that there were americans who turned tail on the battle field? I'm just saying that your Dad's experiences with the French shouldn't be enough to erase acts of heroism by any French soldiers and make it seem like they were ALL cowards.

My other problem with lots of people here is that the criticism should go to the leaders of France and Germany. I find it funny that there are people here who haven't served or never will serve in the military, yet they criticize the people and the military of these countries. If you haven't served, you don't have the right to say anything about French and German soldiers. These guys are willing to lay their lives on the line, but they can't just show up in Iraq on their own. Hope I didn't offend any chicken-hawks too much.

 

France will come on board, because if they don't and we go anyway, it renders them irrelevant, and they would NEVER want that.

The way it is now, France can look like they gave permission to us.

I find the attitude of the French Government...arrogant.

I loved how the rest of Europe is behind us, while France and a guy who is a lame duck in Germany squeal about lost oil production.

Sorry guys....Saddam is going down, and hard.

DD