I like French. They have the best striker in football right now.
http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/Conte...40213Henry.jpg

Sorry but I don't see how pointing out that you have a historical bias against France as demonstrated by your posts on GC is an attack on you...

Look if you read the whole of my post you'll note that first I viewed this article as a gross oversimplification and American-centric view of French political expression. The second thing I brought up was the bias of the writer (and in your case poster) of the article - but then I moved on to the important part: namely the Gaulish approach to world politics, within the context of the goal of re-establishing or re-gaining French prominence; not the goal of simply thwarting American interests...

Seriously I thought the ol' Republican bashing of France was so 2003 :rolleyes:

I don't condemn the entire country, and I certainly don't condemn French culture. Just the majority of contemporary Frenchmen who repeatedly elect these uber-nationalistic leaders.

There is no parrallel in contemperary American history for electing such presidents. None. Every single president since WWII has been committed to Atlanticist policies, and to expanding this to new spheres. So have the leaders of every major Western European nation, except for France. Every single president since WWII has embraced economic interdependence as the
only way to bring universal prosperity, and to eventually eliminate war. So have the leaders of every major Western European nation, except for France.

It is widely recognized among international leaders and scholars that a "balance of power" is more likely to lead to war than a structure with some type of hegemon. France wants a balance of power, and they want to lead a competing sphere. They want to dismantle the Atlanticist coalition that they have occasionally been a part of, and from which they have always benefited, for more than a half of a century. Do the French want war? I doubt it, but they are clearly too selfish to care about the consequences of their actions. France is a borderline xenophobic nation, and this is not a good thing.

And then there is the constant posturing by French intellectuals about how they can compliment American might with French wisdom. Like the wisdom to perpetually support genocidal regimes. When I say "support," I don't mean trade agreements. Go see Hotel Rwanda. You will be disgusted at the France of 1994. Openly selling arms to a government that was not only in the middle of a genocide, but that was so much under French influence that it was willing to curtail the genocide at French insistance. France chose to not use their influence to end this genocide (not that the U.S. was much better.)

Or how France was at Baathist Iraq's side almost every step of the way, only temporarily leaving during the 1991 Gulf War. Here's a lovely picture of Chirac and Sadaam:
http://www.lexnotes.com/misc/jacques_iraq2.jpg
Even after the '91 war, when Baathist Iraq was put under UN sanctions, France helped Iraq evade those sanctions. So what if Iraq was genocidal?

Or how about the way that after 9-11, a best selling French book appeared offering an absurd conspiracy theory about how the Bush administration caused it. Chirac's government has been silent as most of the French have come to believe this to be true.

France was once America's friend. France was once the friend of free people all over the globe. No more.

Sorry but on this I just have to disagree... come on now most "Atlantic" nations have had their nationalistic cycles now and then since WW2... lets think of G.W. Bush; or Margret Thatcher; or Jean Chreiten; or Chirac. So France hasn't hopped on board the "Atlanticist" train, maybe because they realize that they would never be a prime mover in that system; so they try to act or create a political system in which they are one of the 'great powers' - is that wrong? Not really because in a way every country tries to play their own influence to their advantage, and every country has their own sphere of influence.

Well one scholarly field of thought does hold to the belief that a "balance of power" is more likely to lead to war... however there are many scholars that believe that a system of checks and balances is neccessary ensure international co-operation for mutual self-interest. Do the French want to dismantle the "Atlanticist Coalition"... well that depends on what you mean by "Atlanticist Coalition" - however the French have set themselves apart from some aspects of the "Atlantic" power structure.. again because they'd rather be a big fish in another pond.



Actually this belief in complementing US power with "_____" wisdom is pretty common place in scholarly circles... and not limited to France... it's a common theme in international relations course in Canada, the UK, and Germany too - heck the going arguement still is that Blair went along with Iraq to be the voice of reason or advisor to the Bush administration (and this is the view of conservative lecturers at least here and in the UK).

As for the French support of genocidal regimes.... hmmmm... blaming them for Rwanda but glossing over western involvement there and in other places (again think Iraq) is more than a bit hypocritical don't ya think?



Yeah so what if Iraq was genocidal... afterall only a horrible people like the French would provide a manical dictator with conventional and chemical weapons right? :rolleyes:



Again books and articles like that came out in every western nation... it's just the media in their anti-France rhetoric played it up. The didn't play up the fact that newspapers (okay using term lightly) like the Guardian also printed stuff like that; or that the BBC, CBC, ABC, and even the Fifth Estate air programs exploring the conspiracy claims - heck there's nut jobs even in the US that have conspiracy websites talking about the same thing - it's just they didn't get national media attention...

Funny you should say that, because I have heard the French make the same remarks about the US... I guess it's all a matter of perspective isn't it?

1) Don't apologize when you attack someone Coop...do it straight on. You didn't point anything out...you simply labeled me as someone with a bias, which isn't true. Again let's look at our histories from my previous post (I don't mind repeating my words just for you): "I am intelligent, lived in France, speak French, eat French foods, have family in France with property, and also INVEST in French companies. Your reputation is one of violence, one of lies, one of absurdity, and oh yeah your link to France is that your brother went there for a little while."

2) You also attack the writer. Why? Let's see he writes for one of the top 2 most respected political publications in America (an honor which the National Review and the New Republic share). This piece was written for the New York Times, arguably one of the best newspapers in the world and quite possibly the best - also at a complete end of the political spectrum from the Review (not that it matters what political party you belong to one bit). You attack him as biased because he co-wrote a previous book detailing problems in Franco-American relations as well. Wow, I didn't know researching and having a background in something made you biased.

3) This has nothing to do with Republicans or American political parties. Stop rolling your eyes and stop attacking anything American for once as this is totally irrelevant.

-Rudey

France didn't just help Saddam, France PROVIDED HIM WITH NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY.

France has done quite a few things over the years and I'm sure the US has pissed off France.

Let's not forget how it was France that essentially put the bloody Khomeini into power in Iran. I could forgive them for a lot of things but for this, never.

-Rudey