Again you attack me. You just don't stop. Fine.
This is a piece from the New York Times. The Times is one of the most reputable daily papers out there and often considered the best. You say I have anti-French views because I posted it?? Perhaps it's because I am intelligent, lived in France, speak French, eat French foods, have family in France with property, and also INVEST in French companies. Cut me a break. And you attack the author why? Because he wrote in the New York Times? Because he wrote for the National Review? Because he co-wrote a book detailing the friction between the US and France?? If you're going to attack me or the author, at least have some ground and merit. As it stands right now 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.
-Rudey
Quote:
Originally posted by RACooper
I'm sorry but the writer sounds a bit like "sour grapes"....
Firstly making the assumption that France's - or more specifically Gaulish - foreign relations are predicated solely on "thwarting" the US is more than a bit misguided and niave... I mean come on that'd be like saying that Canada bases it's solely on the UN; or the US solely on the War on Terror. Foreign policy is extremely complex, and in many cases on a greater long-term curve than many journalists have careers 
Secondly you know the article is going to have a wee bit'o bias when you look at it - a) the author is the co-author of what book? b) he's a writer for what? c) the poster of the article, has he ever expressed anything but anti-French views?
Now that being said if you wade through some of the rhetoric you start to see some meaty bits... such as the desire for a greater place on the world stage (both a Gaulish and French principle). The author's arguement about an American centred aproach (whether for good or bad) taken by the French only covers a small part of Frnech political and foreign attitudes - he does make the conection to the French desire for a return to "Great Power" status; but he views it only in the light of how this has directly or indirectly affected the US. In other words he assumes that the French did what they did for the assumed effect it would have on the US, not on the effect it would have in advancing French or Gaulish goals...
|