• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

France is it time?

Number Six said:
Although I qualified my post re. the French 9/11 book pretty heavily while asking politiely to be corrected if I was wrong, I'd still say going to #7 (or going anywhere in the top 1000 for that matter) was a pretty big slap in the face.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, it has been a big slap in the face of all the French who were utterly shocked and horrified by what they watched all day on TV on that day ...
 
Grammatron said:


I can sit or stand here and assert that. Forgoing the fluke spike and drop that was post 9/11 the world opinion of the USA in no way "nosedive[d]."
Click to expand...


I can't resist posting a link to a Le Monde story in this thread:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/060804H.shtml

It's a Le Monde interview with Charles Kupchan, professor of International Relations at Georgetown University. You might find it interesting.
 
Sundog said:
I can't resist posting a link to a Le Monde story in this thread:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/060804H.shtml

It's a Le Monde interview with Charles Kupchan, professor of International Relations at Georgetown University. You might find it interesting.
Click to expand...
Interesting yes, informative? No.

Who was interviewed? All I know is it was an American who was against the war, a Pole, and a Frenchman.

????

Hard to guage what if any meaning or "truth" was there. Thanks though.
 
RandFan said:
Interesting yes, informative? No.

Who was interviewed? All I know is it was an American who was against the war, a Pole, and a Frenchman.

????

Hard to guage what if any meaning or "truth" was there. Thanks though.
Click to expand...

You've done better. The interview was with one person, a very reputable person.The article's header is misleading, you should have read further.

So you automatically discount a professor of International Relations at Georgetown University to "an American who was against the war" because you don't like his conclusions. You'll excuse me if I find that weak.

It seems to me that that's a common tactic of the right, simply to dismiss people who disagree, no matter what their credentials.

I find it tragically funny that you guys won't even admit something this obvious - that they used to like us more.
 
Late to the party folks. Sorry, I wasn't going to even read the thread since it is such a sore subject with me.

I'll say this.

I think it was quite appropriate for France to oppose the war.

I think it was quite appropriate for France to forcefully voice its opposition to the war.

I think it was quite appropriate for France to sit out of the war.

I think France could have done all of that and said something to the effect of "We are allies, and while we disagree with the decision to invade Iraq at this time we will continue to be allies. We are saddened and regret that America will not change course. However we will continue to support America where appropriate and hope for the best possible outcome for both America and Iraq.

France could have sought to keep its ties with America while opposing the war. The leadership could have helped resolve citizens to continue to support America in principle while rejecting the arguments that the Bush administration made to support the invasion. It should be noted that Bush extended his hand and made it known that we were friends of the French. It seems to me that hand was pushed aside. Being a friend means being a friend even when you disagree.

I personally see the events surrounding D-Day as a sham. I don't think that efforts made by America to liberate France are truly valued any more than a good time Charley gesture. France is merely happy that they were liberated and it is only coincidental that the Americans took part. While red carpets and pomp and circumstance abound it is more for the result of liberation and not for the sacrifice of Americans. Why do I think that? If it were different then the feelings of the French would have been markedly different.

It should be noted that the French are not monolithic and there are many who are truly grateful to the Americans for liberation and truly care about America regardless of their feelings about Iraq. I hope those who are not will find it within themselves to not harbor resentment towards America.

America is not monolithic either. I hope American's like me can overcome the anger and resentment towards France for not at least supporting us to some small extent at this time even if they did disagree.
 
Sundog said:
You've done better. The interview was with one person, a very reputable person.The article's header is misleading, you should have read further.

So you automatically discount a professor of International Relations at Georgetown University to "an American who was against the war" because you don't like his conclusions. You'll excuse me if I find that weak.

It seems to me that that's a common tactic of the right, simply to dismiss people who disagree, no matter what their credentials.

I find it tragically funny that you guys won't even admit something this obvious - that they used to like us more.
Click to expand...
It would seem a common tactic of the left is to find common tactics of the right. :)

I read the entire article. How was I to know the article was wrong (in part)? Why should I have come to that conclusion. I was sincere in my criticism. I will re-read the article. Please have patience with me. FWIW, I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusions.
 
Sundog said:
It seems to me that that's a common tactic of the right, simply to dismiss people who disagree, no matter what their credentials.
Click to expand...
Sundog, I think you still labor under the false illusion that those on the right are fundamentally less honest than those on the left. Keep in mind that your observations are prone to bias. Critical thought requires you to question your observations. That is assuming that you place in value in critical thinking, I think you do.

Instead of attacking perceived behaviors of a given group (stereotypes) stick to the arguments (propositions, premises, inference and conclusions). Sorry if I'm being condescending or patronizing. I don't mean to be.
 
Elio said:
Number Six,

I'm sorry, but what are you trying to demonstrate here ?

Elio.
Click to expand...

It was a response to a post directed at me by demon. I'm not good as quoting others posts and making it all look nice and readable so sometimes I just answer someone without quoting them, which can be confusing to others in the room. For whatever reason he insists there was no evidence that Al Qaeda or bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attacks at the time that the US began military action in Afghanistan. He's yet to explain how he knows what everyting about US intelligence and knowledge at that time.
 
blackpriester said:


What Grammatron says is NOT true.
Germany never had an unprotected Western border in the entire war. Plus, the French thought it best to trust in the "inconquerable" Maginot line. I suggest reading Raymond Cartier's excellent strategic account of WWII.
Click to expand...

You are forgetting about the Saar offensive.
 
RandFan said:
Sundog, I think you still labor under the false illusion that those on the right are fundamentally less honest than those on the left.
Click to expand...

Sorry for including you in my generalization. The problem I have, RandFan, is that I have on the one hand people like yourself who can pretty much be relied upon to be honest debaters, and then on the other hand the torrent of outright lies, distortions and misrepresentation coming from the right-wing propaganda machine ( check mediamatters.org on any given day).

It makes for cognitive dissonance.
 
RandFan,
I personally see the events surrounding D-Day as a sham. I don't think that efforts made by America to liberate France are truly valued any more than a good time Charley gesture. France is merely happy that they were liberated and it is only coincidental that the Americans took part. While red carpets and pomp and circumstance abound it is more for the result of liberation and not for the sacrifice of Americans. Why do I think that? If it were different then the feelings of the French would have been markedly different.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry to say that, but I think you're missing the point.

Yes, the efforts made by America to liberate France – and the rest of Europe - are truly valued.

The problem is that the current french administration (as well as other current administrations...) has some disagreements with the current american administration.

Any criticisms towards Bush must not be seen as a lack of respect for all those brave american - among others - young boys who sacrified their lives to free Europe from nazism.

Elio.
 
Elio said:
RandFan,

I'm sorry to say that, but I think you're missing the point.

Yes, the efforts made by America to liberate France – and the rest of Europe - are truly valued.

The problem is that the current french administration (as well as other current administrations...) has some disagreements with the current american administration.

Any criticisms towards Bush must not be seen as a lack of respect for all those brave american - among others - young boys who sacrified their lives to free Europe from nazism.

Elio.
Click to expand...
I think you missed the point of what I said. I think I addressed your points directly. Could you re-read my post?

It is not the criticism towards Bush that concerns me (see post). It is the unwillingness to extend a hand of reconciliation or to leave a door open while expressing that criticism.
 
Sundog said:


Sorry for including you in my generalization. The problem I have, RandFan, is that I have on the one hand people like yourself who can pretty much be relied upon to be honest debaters, and then on the other hand the torrent of outright lies, distortions and misrepresentation coming from the right-wing propaganda machine ( check mediamatters.org on any given day).

It makes for cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...
Cool, but please note that there are lots of outright lies, distortions and misrepresentations comming from the left wing also.

RandFan
 
D-Day was a great thing and all that stuff but the problem is that anyone that had anything to do with it is now in their late 70s or older. In other words, most Americans today didn't even have anything to do with it.

It's good that it brings the two countries together after this much time but at some point closer relations have to be based on something more recent. After all, the French don't still sit around saying how the Americans should be grateful for French aid in the late 1700s in their fight against the British (or maybe they do, I don't know).
 
RandFan,
I think you missed the point of what I said. I think I addressed your points directly. Could you re-read my post?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if I missed your point, but there are a few things that remain obscure :

I don't think that efforts made by America to liberate France are truly valued any more than a good time Charley gesture.
Click to expand...

Really ? What make you think that ?

I hope American's like me can overcome the anger and resentment towards France for not at least supporting us to some small extent at this time even if they did disagree.
Click to expand...

So France should support America even thought France thinks America is wrong ?

To what extend ?

Does that apply to any other country ?

How about saying that America must support France whatever France is doing ?

Elio.
 
Grammatron said:


There's a lot of assumption and no data in the article.
Click to expand...

Well, true enough.

For the record, you honestly think that world opinion has not changed significantly for the worse during the last couple of years?

I respect that opinion if that's what you really think, but to me that sure seems to filter out a lot of the available information. It can't all be bad reporting, can it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom