Why All the French Bashing?

i think its just the attitude towards us reflected back i think. who knows, we got more important things to worry about now.

namely, our troops in all out war on tv.

i have more respect than ever for our armed forces

This originally posted by PB:

"France

There are more than 4,200 French military personnel currently operating in the CENTCOM AOR.

The French Air Force, deploying C-160 and C-130 aircraft to Dushanbe, Tajikistan, have provided humanitarian assistance as well as national and coalition airlift support. Two KC-135 aircraft have deployed to Manas, Kyrgyzstan to provide aerial refueling. Six Mirage 2000 fighter aircraft have also deployed to Manas to provide close air support (CAS) capability.
French engineers helped construct runways, a tent city and a munitions storage facility at Manas. France also provided airfield security (with dogs), a field mess unit, a deployable weather bureau, and a Civil Military Operations (CMO) team.
France deployed an infantry company to Mazar-e-Sharif to provide area security up to December 2001.
Two French officers are currently serving as air coordinators at the RAMCC.
Atlantique aircraft deployed in Djibouti under national control are participating daily in Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) missions.
France provided its only Carrier Battle Group to support combat operations in the North Arabian Sea. Aircraft from this Battle Group have flown more than 2,000 hours for OEF to date, supporting the coalition with air reconnaissance, strike and AEW missions. France's naval contribution to OEF accounts for approximately 24 percent of their entire naval forces.
France is the only coalition country to be flying fighter aircraft from Manas airfield in Kyrgyzstan. Their Mirage and tanker aircraft actively supported the coalition during Operation Anaconda in March and are maintaining their full combat and support capabilities for further operations.
Kabul Medical Institute: The World Health Organization, French Embassy, Loma Linda (NGO) and French forces (500 personnel) inserted into ISAF are working to make major improvements to the Kabul Medical Institute - with equipment, books and a new curriculum. The student body of about 2,800 includes 544 women. "
http://www.centcom.mil/Operations/C...ages/france.htm


Edit: Link fixed, sorry

Are you referring to the committment of troops in the Iraqi war?? If so, the bashing is not because of troop committment, but because of promised veto in the UN for any resolution authorizing military force against Iraq.

Hey Mastrap, your link doesn't work and did I see a "December 2001" in there somewhere? It looks like part of the Afghan operation. But I cant tell from this post what operation is trying to be addressed.

With regards to "general" bashing, I think it is a portion of the population in the educated west who still can't conceptually separate disagreement over acts with dislike of people. Thus there is a sizable portion of people in Canada and Europe who move from just opposition to US Policy to active dislike of the US. By the same measure there are some in the US who do the same to France.

In general such things die down quickly. But you'll always have silliness among some people. i.e. those for whom it is not enough to protest - they have to get arrested. (How does that make the point stronger?) Likewise those for whom protest isn't enough, they have to boycott products. Very silly in my mind, but also very real.

As for why on this forum France has been "bashed" I think it varies. Some probably fit into the above. Others just notice a strong hypocrisy among many in opposition to the war and enjoy pointing this out.

Like what Clark G said. This group of rednecks think its ok for the US to veto UN resolutions such as the one banning land mines but they have huge problems with countries that want to veto their resolutions. Not because they believe their arguements are valid but because America helped liberate France in WW2 and therefore France should stand to attention when America says a-ten-shun.

And did America need the resolution to invade Iraq? No but the vocal minority continue slagging the French.

Can you point to that "UN resolution" please? There is a non-UN multilateral treaty, which the Clinton and Bush administrations both declined to sign. But I am not aware of any UN resolution on the subject - vetoed or otherwise.

It would be odd if there were. After all, the US isn't the only permanent member who didn't sign the treaty.

What kinda made me was when France said it would veto ANYTHING that was basically the Americans idea. Not because they thought it was wrong, but because we came up with it.

That is why I made fun of the people in charge of France.

Courtesy of ThinkInsane:



Zim, could you put up that Soldier of Surrender magazine cover again? Please?

Why all the French bashing?

http://argument.independent.co.uk/r...sp?story=394693

I have a URL for every occasion.

I am in shock. You have linked to a column that I agree with. And it is from The Independent.

I think I am going to have to lie down now. Somebody please fetch me a glass of water.

It's only funny SO many times.

I know! And you just made a funny in another thread that made me laugh out loud.

It's getting weird around here.

Fine. I'll do it myself



I still think it's funny.

I shall cancel my subscription immediately.

I'm not critical of them not sending troops. I am critical of their absolute refusal to pass ANY resolution, no matter timeline that would allow the use of force in Iraq.

In effect, that forced Bush/Blair to act without going through the UNSC.

Also, I have problem with a country where 1 in 3 surveyed wants Saddam to win, where anti-Semitism is at an all time high, where they deface the graves of the foreign soldiers that defended their country.

So I don't think a little joking is that big of a deal.

"Did you hear that the French suffered their first injury of the war?"

"No, what happened?"

"Someone sprained an ankle trying to jump on the bandwagon."

That really should make you rollingeyes. Because France didn't say _that_. They stated (like Russia, Germany, etc.) they would veto anything that would include an AUTOMATISM TO WAR. Maybe in your press that was the fine print. :-/

PB.

That suits your agenda doesn't it. Of course, it's completely divorced from the reality of what transpired. The French (and the Germans and the Russians together with the bulk of the rest of the world) said that inspections were working and that they wouldn't consider any proposal to create a trigger for war while the inspections were working (between the lines: Bush is a cowboy and we don't trust him enough to put his hand on a trigger). The French said they would veto any proposal to do anything other than proceed with inspections. They DID NOT say that they would veto anything that was "the Americans (sic) idea".

The US at one point claimed credit for the inspection regime and for 1441 so those were apparently American ideas that France supported. And your contention that France was against the war not because it thought it was wrong but because it was America's idea is absurd! The French made countless statements saying exactly why they thought the war was wrong.

There goes that bulk of the rest of the world exaggerations.


French Made it clear they was opposed of any US action that the US led. They didn't want to the US in it at all. They STILL don't want the US in it now. And when it's done, they don't want the US in rebuilding either. But sure, it's just about them being against the war. Riiiight.

Want to give us a link?

You are kidding right?

WAY off topic: I've seen the word "sic" before when in reference to a misspelling or grammatical error that was left in it's original context. Is that right? And, what does "sic" actually mean/stand for?

Because a french ******* stole my girlfriend.

Latin Abreviations

bis.- (As in V34.bis) It is Latin for "second."
cf.- latin:"confer" which means (compare).
et al.- latin:"et alii" or latin:"et aliae" which means (and others).
Sic- latin:"sic" which means (thus).
ca.- latin:"circa" which means (about).
e.g.- latin:"exempli gratia" which means (for the sake of example).
etc.- latin:"et cetera" which means (and so on).
i.e.- latin:"id est" which means (that is).
N.B.- latin:"nota bene" which means (note well).
viz.- latin:"videlicet" from "videre licet" which means (it is permitted to see).

Sic implies that what went before was a quote. Any errors are in the original. I think that the move from "thus" to "literal quote" came from "the text was thus."

It should have been "Americans' idea" (with the apostrophe). The sic does add something to the humour value though doesn't it? Sick idea (drum roll).

Well this is a first - my fave English rag gets quoted in MacNN! Interesting article but I can't see how it relates to this topic.

One final-ish point on the French bashing - I think it has a lot to do with the group/mob mentality

You know, French bashing in the US has been going on for years and years and years. It is not new, it did not appear just recently, it will go on for a long time most likely.
The same for US bashing on the other side of the water pond.

villa

Don't let some teenager that can't even get a swastika around the right way influence your opinion of a country with 61 million people.

Oh, man!! How am I supposed to quietly judge all 61 million of them if I can't rely on jumping to conclusions, ridiculous stereotypes, and gross generalizations?

You're no fun at all!

Vive la France!!!

I am very proud the French and the German governments listened to their people and objected to this injust, illegal and bloody war!

Happy to be European. US citizenship sucks!

How would you know?

An Englishman, a Dutchman and a Frenchman are all in Saudi Arabia, sharing a smuggled crate of booze when, all of a sudden, Saudi police rush in and arrest them. The mere possession of alcohol is a severe offense in Saudi Arabia, so for the terrible crime of actually being caught consuming the booze, they are all sentenced to death!
> >
However, after many months and with the help of very good lawyers, they are able to successfully appeal their sentences down to life imprisonment.
>
By a stroke of luck, it was a Saudi national holiday the day their trial finished, and the extremely benevolent Sheikh decided they could be released after receiving just 20 lashes each of the whip.
> >
As they were preparing for their punishment, the Sheikh announced:
"It's my first wife's birthday today, and she has asked me to allow each of you one wish before your whipping."
> >
The Dutchman was first in line, he thought for a while and then
said: "Please tie a pillow to my back.
> >
This was done, but the pillow only lasted 10 lashes before the whip went through. When the punishment was done he had to be carried away bleeding and crying with pain.
> >
The Frenchman was next up. After watching the Dutchman in horror
He said smugly: "Please fix two pillows to my back."
But even two pillows could only take 15 lashes before the whip went through again and the Frenchman was soon led away whimpering loudly (as they do).
>
The Englishman was the last one up, but before he could say
anything, the Sheikh turned to him and said: "You are from a most beautiful part of the world and your culture is one of the finest in the world. For this, you may have two wishes!"
> >
"Thank you, your Most Royal and Merciful highness", The Englishman replied. "In recognition of your kindness, my first wish is that you give me not 20, but 100 lashes."
> >
"Not only are you an honorable, handsome and powerful man, you are also very brave". The Sheikh said with an admiring look on his face. "If 100 lashes is what you desire, then so be it. And your second wish, what is it to be?" the Sheikh asked.
> >
"Tie the Frenchman to my back."

It had nothing to do with them listening to it's people. It's not unjust, nor is it illegal. And compared to most wars in this world, it is hardly "bloody" in comparison.

helen left you?

I love the New York Post's referring to the French on the front page as "Les Weasles" and "Cheese-eating Surrender Monkeys".

I would call a simp like our own moorice a friend of the surrender monkeys, or FoSM. When "troll" siply won't do.

It doesn't have much to do with them not committing troops, it has to do with the Gaullist attitude that resurfaces from time to time, but most recently with quite a bit of ferocity.

Mostly, it has to do with a duplicity that is fairly transparent. France was once a world power; it no longer is, but it seeks to occupy the spotlight on the world stage. Historically, they have taken to accomplishing this by tweaking the US's nose when it suits them.

Consider that France was Iraq's #1 trading partner (though it only made up 1.5% of their total exports).

France also built a nuclear reactor for country that is sitting on an incredible amount of oil; it is hard to argue that it was for electricity or power needs.

France also supplied Iraq with 13% or so of total arms shipments since 1973 (Russia was over 53%, and the US didn't even register on the chart[listed as 0%])

France has lucrative oil deals with Iraq, and is owed a significant amount of money by Iraq.

It is with these facts (sources available if you like) that I, and many others, look at their actions over the past 6 months with a vast degree of skepticism. Saying that a resolution the UK suggested would be unacceptable before the Iraqi representative even commented on it is telling.

Chirac speaks perfect English (educated in the US), yet gives interviews to American media in French, via a translator. I mean please... the arrogance the US is often accused of is in full force here.

That polls showed 33% of French citizens wanted Saddam to win the war is also telling; they wanted a dictator like Saddam to defeat the US military.

The defacement of the graves of UK troops who died liberating France in WWII with statements that said "Take your rubbish home, it's stinking up our country" certainly didn't win any fans either.

And then there are the reports of highly anti-semetic behavior in France, and, well, taken in toto, I think it's a bit understandable that people are miffed at France.

I for one do hope that they do not profit at all in the reconstruction of Iraq.

For the sake of being a devils advocate

There is a polution issue. Nuclear power is clean... oil refinaries are dirty... and they wanted to have a ton processing oil... so it's a way to keep polition down without hurting trade.

Secondly, that devotes more oil processing resources to processing exportable oil. That means more profit.


Very good point... But in the mid 70's to 80 or so... who gave them the most lethal of their arsonal... and the information needed to make them (the ones we are trying to destroy I might add).

Russia's tanks (most of what they gave), and frances nuclear reactor (considered arms by the US) isn't quite the same.


Very true.
[snip]

Good point.


Now this is a very distorted fact.... Allow a brief explanation:

France since WWI, and exploration of the middle-east has a very large population of middle-east decent. Larger than any other europian nation I might add. It actually is a decent percentage of the population. Most of whom still have family in Iraq, or neighboring nations.

As a result, they do want to se Saddam in power, because defeat will bring instabity, and new dangers to their loved ones. Their loved ones survived this long.

In the other respect, Saddams downfall can bring a better government to improve the lives of their loved ones.

It's a toss up.

This population, while tossed up, and patriotic about their homeland, is a large group of the population. While not the majority it is still able to sway votes, and cause political problems in France....

If France were to go war... they could swing the other way... and cause political instability in France.

That could be a big problem in it's own.

"A house divided can not stand"


Good point.


Agreed.

I'm sure they will. France is a cheap country.

Slightly more complex, but good points none the less.

I really didn�t want to get into this debate again, but as a guest of France, I feel an obligation to set the record straight on some of these issues. So, here goes, Moki, this isn�t personal, it�s just that your post raises so many of the things I hear Americans saying that are just not true.
I did a search just yesterday on precisely this point and there was no evidence to suggest that this statement were true. Prior to 1992, Iraq�s biggest trading partner was India. After that date, all of the information I could dig up listed France, Germany, Russia and the USA in no particular order as the biggest traders with Iraq. I�d be very happy if you could supply me with some information proving that France was Iraq�s number 1 trading partner. NOTE: Trading partners means all trade, imports and exports of all commodities.
[Criticism covered, Snipping]France is also recognised as the leader in the field of nuclear power generation so it�s logical that they would have fairly won the tender to build the reactor. If your suggestion is that France is inherently more evil than the USA because it supported an evil regime more than the USA did, then I could argue that the USA supported Iraq more than Cuba, so the USA is inherently more evil than Cuba. Who cares where on the hierarchy of evilness any state stands even if there is a way of determining that.
Here�s that graph of yours being put forward as the holy grail again. It�s misleading for a whole bunch of reasons that you know. Besides, there is no credible evidence of France breaking the sanctions on arms sales imposed against Iraq, so we�re talking about legal arms sales before the First Gulf War. Something the US also did although evidently more surreptitiously and less successfully. This is a case of degrees of evilness again, of the pot calling the kettle black � so what if the kettle is blacker!
French COMPANIES you mean, rather than FRANCE. Of course, it�s entirely logical that US companies wouldn�t have gotten any contracts from the Iraqi government after 1990. The US was, after all, the principal aggressor in the first Gulf War. It�s not like US companies didn�t WANT the contracts. They couldn�t get them! If American companies are not owed money today (which isn�t true), it�s not because Americans didn�t want to get their hands on Iraqi oil.
That�s not what France, Germany, Russia, China, the Non-Aligned Movement � (shall I go on?) said. They said that inspections were working and that consequently there was no need to entertain a second resolution. Say one of your fellow board directors walks into your office and says he wants you to organise a weekend retreat so that the company can discuss his proposal to commit industrial espionage against one of your competitors to improve your sales. If you say, �Look, our products are doing fine as it is, we don�t need to waste time talking about changing our strategy,� is it fair for him to say that you were unreasonable in refusing to waste time discussing his proposal? If he goes ahead and commits the espionage anyway claiming that he had authority under a resolution of your board 5 years ago to increase sales of your products, do you get p*ssed off with him for misrepresenting your standpoint and ignoring you?
This is a reason to not like the French?! Have you ever had a conversation with Chirac? I had to endure him speaking English to someone who spoke no French once. Despite all the time he spent in the US, his English is not that good. My French is better than his English and I�m not confident talking about my political beliefs in French. He is fully entitled to put his best foot forward by using his mother tongue. Besides, who says that just because someone can speak English, they should? And you call that arrogance? Does Bush EVER give interviews in any language other than English? Tony Blair worked as a waiter in a bar near the Gare du Nord (Paris) when he was a student. I�ve never heard him give an interview in French!
Did the poll you refer to (I assume it�s the Le Monde one) mention why they wanted Iraq to win? Perhaps, you could also say that they want the Iraqi people to repel the illegal use of force. Did anyone do a similar poll in America? You think 100% of people living in America wanted to see the US win? Besides, polls are not always that valuable. National Geographic found that 90% of Americans couldn�t point out Afghanistan and Iraq on a map of the world. Did it mean that the Army couldn�t find its way there?
They were also preventing the Germans from launching attacks on England! French people don�t judge the American population as a whole by random acts of vandalism. French people didn�t take Rodney King as evidence that Americans are racists or soccer violence as evidence that the English are racist. French people all recognise the role that the UK forces played in preventing the Nazis take over the world. They appreciate the help they got from the Indians and the Egyptians and the South Africans and the Canadians and the Australians and the Irish and the Belgians and the Dutch and the Americans too. They�re getting a bit sick of hearing that they need to shut up and be grateful for eternity, but they certainly appreciate all that everyone did to defeat the Nazis. France and the US have a long-standing good relationship. The American embassy in Paris is the oldest US embassy in the world and it�s guarded by hundreds of French policeman that put their lives on the line every day for the US diplomats inside. American culture is popular and pervasive in France, American products are bought enthusiastically by French people and despite all that has happened recently, French people adore the idea of America and American people. France is a refuge for many American people. Many artists and writers and businesspeople are here and they get on famously with the French. France has done much to help the US over the course of its history culminating in the massive contribution the French police have made to the success of the �war on terrorism,� providing vital intelligence and leads.

What really irritates me about this anti-French behaviour in the US is that you are focussing on the French and ignoring the fact that they are the least of your worries. The US has never ever been more criticised and more hated by people all over the world than it is today. If the French are now starting to criticise in a way that you think is inappropriate, you can just imagine what the feeling is on the streets of countries that never liked you much to start with. On my recent trip through Africa, I was horrified to note how much of an increase there was in anti-Americanism there. I was in Africa on 11 September 2001 when there was a genuine outpouring of grief and empathy. What has replaced it is the kind of raw emotion that can so easily turn ugly. The Americans need to listen to their friends a little more. They need to take some of the criticism on board. George W Bush was 100% right when he said that the US needed to wield its power humbly. That�s precisely what they�ve got to learn to do if they want to be safe.

France needs an ass-kicking.

WHOA!

Please stop surrendering!

I can't hardly process all these emails from surrendering French readers.

A: Because it feels good?

Is that a good enough reason? Or not? Seriously...

I'm having a really hard time believing that Iraq under Saddam was concerned with polution. Indeed, this guy who worked in Iraq said that back in 1981, he says he hid 39 rods of enriched uranium, enough to build two nuclear bombs.

Sure... this isn't a misconception, it's a fact. Here's just one article to back it up.

from: http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Dai...2001041828.html

.....

Egypt third largest trade partner with Iraq after France, Russia
Iraq-Egypt, Economics, 4/18/2001

Egypt is the third largest trade partner with Iraq after France and Russia, according to Iraqi Minister of Trade, Mohammed Mahdi Saleh who was speaking on the sidelines of a trade exhibition of Egyptian products recently held in Baghdad.

[snip]

What do you base this on?

Is this your opinion - or are you trying to state this as fact?

I can you some quotes of Chirac willing work together with the UN (including the USA) post-was Iraq if you want.

Of course Chirac is interested in benefiting materially through reconstruction and trade agreements with a newly liberated Iraq. This is a no-brainer.

Yes, but what you have to realise is: the French, are well, the French. You have to learn to ignore them. But all this whining from both sides, is that really helpful?

Agreed; but when they hold a security council seat in the UN, they aren't easily ignored.

I don't really understand that actually -- a country like Japan, India, etc should be on the security council, not France.

The security council needs an overhaul. In fact the UN needs an overhaul. I really think the UN concept isn't feasible, and I think NATO should extend itself much more to include all western orientated countries, thus creating the 'The Western Federation'. (insert better name).

I agree that other countries should be on the Security Council too. In fact, perhaps the SC should be scrapped entirely and the GA given the power over all decisions. Of course, the US wouldn't like that at all, because it quite likes exercising its veto. The US is second only to Russia in flexing its veto right. France has only been the sole veto power twice in the history of the UN.

I'd point two things out about your proposal to include Japan and India (etc.) and exclude France. First, including India and Japan and excluding France wouldn't have helped the US get their Iraq plans past the SC as (how many times do we have to say this) France wasn't the only country against the invasion. The US and Britain didn't have enough votes for the resolution to carry and even if they had had enough, both China and Russia were committed to using their veto.

Second, to suggest that you can leave France off the Security Council is about as ridiculous as suggesting that the US should be left off. France has nuclear weapons and highly sophisticated technology for developing them. EADS has pretty decent military capacity manufacturing Ariane rockets and some of the finest military aircraft in the world. France has the capability and the will to deliver military force globally. France is the second biggest economy in Europe after Germany (which is not a permanent member of the SC). For those reasons alone, and for so long as we believe in the value of the Security Council, France should be on it.

funny thing is France, Germany & Russia are discussing how to run things in Iraq.