How general is the anti-French sentiment in the U.S.?

I find nothing with which to disagree here. Sadly, I fully agree with fatfatcow.

It's been said before, but how exactly is a stance of "we will not support war," different from "we must attack, and we'll go with you or without you?" I don't like the French, and I think they've definitely got their own interests in Iraq *and* in being a pain in our global dominating ass. But demonizing them is ridiculous and shallow, IMHO.

If I could be a diplomat, I'd stick to the Godfather's advice. Keep your friends close, your enemies closer.

 

Exactly. It's not an anti-American stance as much as a pro-our economy stance. I may not agree with them or their reasoning, but I can understand it.

 

Isn't "fatfatcow makes a cogent argument" one of the 7 Signs of the Apocalypse?

 

Since the US sponsered Iraq's war with Iran (#1), gave them weapons which they used against Iran (#2), and watch as they murdered Iranians (#3), I see a great deal of MENDACITY and DUPLICITY in the US's using these three issues as pretexts for regime change.

Issue #4 is most of interest, since it adds the element of imminence and allows the US to declare this a "preemptive" war. Assuming that Iraq currently has WMD (which I do btw) and has had them for decades, this threat is a possibility. But is the threat probable? I posit that the threat is not likely. My rationale is that Saddam has had the wherewithal for decades and the motivation for decades, especially since the Gulf War I. But Saddam has not acted. I speculate that Saddam did not want to pay the price, when the US (or any other Western nation) retaliated. In particular, Saddam values his life more that whatever could be gained from attacking the US via aiding terrorists with WMD.

 

Last time I checked, France was a democracy and the representives in the UN are voting the sentiments of 85% of their people. Isn't that how Democracies are suppose to work?

This point is completely wasted on the Bush Admin. I guess their concept of democracy is that a country's people can have their way, unless it come into direct conflict with the US's current foreign policy. And the Bush Admin wants to establish a democracy in Iraq by their own design. That's pretty scary.

 

Nice, NW. Thanks for removing that line from its context and bashing something that was not my main point.

So you think France is purely expressing the will of their people then. You don't think motivations at higher levels have other aspects? That this one country is somehow more pristine than other governments?

Have you ever heard of Maxwell's demon? Let me condense it: statistical mechanics virtually never allow such an absolute exception to the rule to exist in the real world. Works for particles, works for peoples.

 

Thing is, Im not sure exactly how cogent of an argument it is...it is just fatX2cow slamming on American...he just happened to state the truth for once...

RM, I understand why they are the way they are....all I was saying in this thread is that it hasnt affected my opinion of the French from previous times....they have a strange dislike/distaste of us...and I dont particularly care for them either...I guess I am not cultured enough to care what the French do or think.

I do wish to reiterate, I am only for this war if we can get majority UN suport....not unanimous...just majority would be nice.

 

I understand that they seem to have a strange dislike or distaste for us (which, in my lifetime, I've always seen the other way as well), but doesn't the fact that they helped support us possibly more than any other country in the war in Afghanistan count for anything?

 

I have a feeling France hates us a lot more than we hate them!

 

So you think France is purely expressing the will of their people then. You don't think motivations at higher levels have other aspects? That this one country is somehow more pristine than other governments?

I don't think France's motives are pure, but they aren't any more suspect than our own. The week after 9/11, at the Camp David response-strategy meeting of senior security officials, the first suggestion before settling on going after Al Queda was to attack Iraq. I think the French have more than adequate reasons to believe our motives are suspect, and the fact that they have the backing of their people makes it all the better for them.

 

Major, we're in complete agreement. I was disputing this notion No Worries put forward. Mainly, I was getting pissy because he took an obviously overstated caveat from a post of mine that had another point entirely, and a point he would obviously agree with besides.

 

I didn't mean to bash. I should have removed your name from the reply, as I was making a general point versus attacking your points.

I have trouble faulting a democracy for working as such. Certainly there are French "interests" of a financial nature that are opposed to to the war, for reasons solely of self interest. But I do not think that these interests lead directly to 85% of the French people not supporting this war.

 

This is an interesting point. Are those who support action only with the UN's approval actually saying they support France's unilateral refusal for action (given France has a veto and has indicated it will not support the war), over the US's "unilateral" action.

What has often been described as "going it alone" is actually the US, Great Britain, and various other countries. UN support, on the other hand, to a great degree, hinges on France.

I think it’s presumptuous to expect France and every other country to automatically line up with the US. I'm not a fan of the 'with us or against us' school of diplomacy. And given the US sat out the first couple of innings of WWII (although Hitler was known to have WMD's), I think the outrage being leveled at France is a bit much. France’s stance may be grandstanding, may be economic, may be principled, or may be just outright wrong, but at least France is willing to make it.

My point is simply that the emphasis on America going without UN approval may imply that the US is going against the will of a majority of other nations. This may not be the case. The US, and its other allies, may be going against the will of a minority of nations. Sometimes you just cannot get a unanimous decision. We should be able to accept that France, or another nation may choose not to support a particular action, possibly disagree with that stance, but still move forward.

 

I suppose it should count for something...but did we really need anything more from them than their support in the UN in that case? I doubt we needed much help to bomb the Taliban back to the stone ages. Kinda like shooting fish in a barrel..

I wonder though, how much their large Arab population had to do with that? Like, maybe they felt that by trying to help eliminate Al Queda that it would help keep them safe from potential Arab terrorists attacks?

just a hypothosis(sp?) of mine that is probably wrong, but I cant help but think it considering their self serving stance in this case..

and as an aside to Major's point...I don't doubt a bit that our government is just as guilty of acting in a self serving way when it comes to most foreign affairs...but deep down, for the most part , in order for us to back our government's actions, we Americans really have to feel that our government is acting in the best interests of world peace when we have troops sent to various places in the world...
It may be a little naive to really believe that...but do you think the majority in this country are blind to the things our government do in our name?

and last but not least....bnb's point....

I do not support France and Germany's flatout refusal to back anything but inspections no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented but I do, deep down, wish that we could convince the majority of the UN that Saddam must be given a deadline to disarm (and I dont mean a week or two) or the world will do it for him.

more later...gotta get to work.

 

too bad it doesn't work anymore... newsday article about FMV

 

Well I happen to agree with the Dixie Chicks so

Just glad we have this...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
¡ª The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

 

Holy crap!!!!! That is the funiiest thing I have ever seen!!!

 

What is different this time, as opposed to Vietnam and the 80's nuclear disarmament protests, is that the governments that are fully at the forefront of anti-American sentiments, and were essentially leaders in its propagation.

"We'll do this with or without you" and "Old Europe" probably didn't help. How inclined are you to help someone who calls you irrelevent?

 

Those came out pretty much after anti-american opposition was voiced.