-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Boycott France
- Thread starter Bill Marsh
- Start date
Ben Arown-Awile
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2001
- Messages
- 889
Is French Kissing unpatriotic?
Pax-V - never mind, in some places you can eat "freedom fries" now. - silly, childish thing in my eyes. Still wonder about French dressing, French beans, French cleaner, French polish or the mentioned French kiss - new national-correct language is on its way, fine for unemployed linguists but remembers me a bit of Orwell's 1984...
I have a dear French friend who is out of work because of the Gulf War-syndrome. The French fought with the US in 1991 and a lot of the dirty laundry Sylvrfalcn mentioned was in the Iraq before that - so I doubt if that is the reason. (OK, Chirac is President since 1995 - maybe he has some more dirty laundry there than Mitterand had.) Chirac knows Saddam Hussein in person from some economic negotiations - but so does Donald Rumsfeld who had the contacts to Saddam because of the common enemy in Iran. The best way to hide "dirty laundry" would be to engange military with some thousand troops and find the dirty laundry on themselves. Future economic contacts seem more likely, I do not buy the o so high morals (I think some of the German politicians are really serious about that, we have the Green Party as part of the coalition that is pacifistic under all circumstances (wich is a mistake in my eyes) - so it is really their opinion I think)
Well we will not solve the problem, politics is a dirty game and the first one to die in a war is the truth, but I am really upset by these pictures of Americans spilling French wine and smashing French cars - will they burn French books and beat French people soon? Makes me sad to see.
Andreas
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2002
- Messages
- 183
I learn so much from posts like these . . . have been busy and couldn't post earlier. . . but since I'll be in Paris/Europe next week . . . why not throw in 2 cents (rather the normal long winded 2 dollars). Maybe I'll get spat on or something when I'm there! (ha, ha!)
Boycott France - if it was an official boycott . . . as PT says: yup, wasted policies on the wrong target. A grass roots boycott based on mis-information? Well . . . the US has always been based on freedom which probably includes the right not to consume even if based on the lousiest info and as long as it is does not infringe on the rights of others (so starving oneself in a public place in front of a French restaurant is OK as long as you don't stare at customers or slobber on the front window . . . just be sure to get the necessary permits).
Modern France in the greater world? Well the track record is pretty lousy: a) didn't give up colonies leading to Vietnam for US, b) that Suez thing, and oh my, look at c) Algiers (but I guess that mainly hurt the French and Algerians). On the bright side, at least France didn't go communist after WWII. In general, the US has gotten in trouble bending to French policy. So yes, certainly the government of France does have a right to an opinion. But that UN Security Council veto? Hmmm . . . somethings should be changed. Maybe is should become an EU permanent seat. By the way in the interests of karma, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the current love-fest between the German and French governments ends up pretty badly for the EU . . . watch for an economic policy battle coming up.
Back to Iraq. I am hoping that the Bush Administration logic goes something like this: a) 9/11 and the grass roots turning of militant Islam against the US leads to an American reaction: how did that happen? We + NATO saved Bosnian muslims from the Serbs? We gave Afghanistan weapons when Russia was the great devil? OK, we had a tiff with the mullahs of Iran over the Shah (back when we supported Saddam). But heck their Shia. And the Sunnis (who seem to be the core of 9/11 militancy) would probably be at their throats if there weren't an enemy to militant Islam like Russia, US, Israel, Serbia or whoever. Anyway why the US? Israel, maybe. But Arab-Israel relations have been worse. And the US was pivotal in the movement toward peace (key player Egypt reached a settlement; Syria is now a semi-good guy; Lebanon is finally quiet; even hothead Quadaffi is paying up for Lockerbie).
I bet the gamble is that our troops in Saudi (the protector of Mecca and Medina) is what the Bush Admin sees as the long term affront to Islam (no accident that the leadership core of Al-Quaida is Saudi based). But to take our troops out, Saddam has to go first. We are assuming of course that Bush's team aren't bearing a grudge against Saddam (which they probably are but it's probably not enough to risk losing an election over).
US and World Consensus (i.e. the new World Order) - It would have been nicer to show proof to everyone and preserve the "new" UN/NATO world order that orchestrated Iraq I and a belated Bosnia (by the way, for those who believe there should be no world order, look at Subsaharan Africa then gulp). But at this point given the stakes, it's pretty clear that for all the hi tech intelligence there ain't no concrete proof (otherwise it would have been shown with great drama a la Cuban Missle Crisis). So if anyone bothered to read the four gambles of the Bush Administration Iraq policy (which I humbly posted somewhere in never/never land), scratch gamble 1. The other three gambles are 2) they hope Saddam will leave or be disposed of by his own groups as the heat rises, 3) they hope they'll find proof when its over, 4) they are in too deep to pull out.
Point 4 already seems done. But rather than a Vietnam mud pit, IMHO and it all honesty, Iraq II is probably not as frivolous as I may have first painted. Another way to put it is that the Bushies believe the ultimate goal of getting US troops out of the middle East (in the hope of undercutting long term support for militant Islamic terrorism) is worth the gamble of stretching UN/NATO world order and maybe losing an election. See . . . almost anything can be put in a brave light if one tries hard enough?
Sorry 2 cents expanded to 2 dollars 2 quickly!
Boycott France - if it was an official boycott . . . as PT says: yup, wasted policies on the wrong target. A grass roots boycott based on mis-information? Well . . . the US has always been based on freedom which probably includes the right not to consume even if based on the lousiest info and as long as it is does not infringe on the rights of others (so starving oneself in a public place in front of a French restaurant is OK as long as you don't stare at customers or slobber on the front window . . . just be sure to get the necessary permits).
Modern France in the greater world? Well the track record is pretty lousy: a) didn't give up colonies leading to Vietnam for US, b) that Suez thing, and oh my, look at c) Algiers (but I guess that mainly hurt the French and Algerians). On the bright side, at least France didn't go communist after WWII. In general, the US has gotten in trouble bending to French policy. So yes, certainly the government of France does have a right to an opinion. But that UN Security Council veto? Hmmm . . . somethings should be changed. Maybe is should become an EU permanent seat. By the way in the interests of karma, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the current love-fest between the German and French governments ends up pretty badly for the EU . . . watch for an economic policy battle coming up.
Back to Iraq. I am hoping that the Bush Administration logic goes something like this: a) 9/11 and the grass roots turning of militant Islam against the US leads to an American reaction: how did that happen? We + NATO saved Bosnian muslims from the Serbs? We gave Afghanistan weapons when Russia was the great devil? OK, we had a tiff with the mullahs of Iran over the Shah (back when we supported Saddam). But heck their Shia. And the Sunnis (who seem to be the core of 9/11 militancy) would probably be at their throats if there weren't an enemy to militant Islam like Russia, US, Israel, Serbia or whoever. Anyway why the US? Israel, maybe. But Arab-Israel relations have been worse. And the US was pivotal in the movement toward peace (key player Egypt reached a settlement; Syria is now a semi-good guy; Lebanon is finally quiet; even hothead Quadaffi is paying up for Lockerbie).
I bet the gamble is that our troops in Saudi (the protector of Mecca and Medina) is what the Bush Admin sees as the long term affront to Islam (no accident that the leadership core of Al-Quaida is Saudi based). But to take our troops out, Saddam has to go first. We are assuming of course that Bush's team aren't bearing a grudge against Saddam (which they probably are but it's probably not enough to risk losing an election over).
US and World Consensus (i.e. the new World Order) - It would have been nicer to show proof to everyone and preserve the "new" UN/NATO world order that orchestrated Iraq I and a belated Bosnia (by the way, for those who believe there should be no world order, look at Subsaharan Africa then gulp). But at this point given the stakes, it's pretty clear that for all the hi tech intelligence there ain't no concrete proof (otherwise it would have been shown with great drama a la Cuban Missle Crisis). So if anyone bothered to read the four gambles of the Bush Administration Iraq policy (which I humbly posted somewhere in never/never land), scratch gamble 1. The other three gambles are 2) they hope Saddam will leave or be disposed of by his own groups as the heat rises, 3) they hope they'll find proof when its over, 4) they are in too deep to pull out.
Point 4 already seems done. But rather than a Vietnam mud pit, IMHO and it all honesty, Iraq II is probably not as frivolous as I may have first painted. Another way to put it is that the Bushies believe the ultimate goal of getting US troops out of the middle East (in the hope of undercutting long term support for militant Islamic terrorism) is worth the gamble of stretching UN/NATO world order and maybe losing an election. See . . . almost anything can be put in a brave light if one tries hard enough?
Sorry 2 cents expanded to 2 dollars 2 quickly!
- Joined
- Mar 5, 1999
- Messages
- 34,096
I think I'll fix everything -- buy Saddam a one way ticket to Siberia.
to the Poster who said Tony Blair is polically dead because of Rumsfeldt's comments- Nonsense. Wishful thinking by left leaning Europe and America pundits. I've seen the apperatus to remove him as Prime Minister and you might was well throw khukuris at the stars in hopes of hitting one.
I agree with the Boycott France movement, not because France doesn't have the right to disagree with the "Coaltion of the Willing", but because France is the number one trading partner with Iraq and has huge oil contracts signed on, and the opinion of most experts is that once many weapons of mass destruction are analysed after the war we will find many French Fingerprints all over them- and German. These are post embargo fingerprints. So it is to France's self interest not to invade Iraq and to see the post 9-11 world differently than do many other nations.
This idea, that we can double inspectors, and keep Saddam in a 'box' is a worthy French idea- with the US footing the bill by the stationing of nearby troops in Quwait. A sweet deal for France. She only has a security council veto because of politics after WWll that need to be revised.
I don't dislike France for her self interest, but I have the right not to like her for her actions and opinions and buy what I like.
I love the Statue of Liberty, and hope someday France and ourselves come together again.
.. ...
Foriegners have always been the backbone of this melting pot society. It is illegal immigration we must address.
munk
I agree with the Boycott France movement, not because France doesn't have the right to disagree with the "Coaltion of the Willing", but because France is the number one trading partner with Iraq and has huge oil contracts signed on, and the opinion of most experts is that once many weapons of mass destruction are analysed after the war we will find many French Fingerprints all over them- and German. These are post embargo fingerprints. So it is to France's self interest not to invade Iraq and to see the post 9-11 world differently than do many other nations.
This idea, that we can double inspectors, and keep Saddam in a 'box' is a worthy French idea- with the US footing the bill by the stationing of nearby troops in Quwait. A sweet deal for France. She only has a security council veto because of politics after WWll that need to be revised.
I don't dislike France for her self interest, but I have the right not to like her for her actions and opinions and buy what I like.
I love the Statue of Liberty, and hope someday France and ourselves come together again.
.. ...
Foriegners have always been the backbone of this melting pot society. It is illegal immigration we must address.
munk
- Joined
- May 16, 2002
- Messages
- 4,437
Maybe someone should let folks know that there were natives here b4 us, and that 99% of US citizens were imported between 16c. and now.
Lets not fight another cold war. As for mudslinging, thats fer kids in the sandbox. I prefer to keep the terra firmly planted beneath me feet.
It is easy to hate a generalized group, but much harder to hate individuals. Sure, an american travelling in France may have to endure some name-calling (especially the vociferous know-it-all amiericans abroad), but for each Frenchamn that casts dispersions, there are that many more who will welcome the american in and share their hospitality. Common man is common man, folks.
Keith
Lets not fight another cold war. As for mudslinging, thats fer kids in the sandbox. I prefer to keep the terra firmly planted beneath me feet.
It is easy to hate a generalized group, but much harder to hate individuals. Sure, an american travelling in France may have to endure some name-calling (especially the vociferous know-it-all amiericans abroad), but for each Frenchamn that casts dispersions, there are that many more who will welcome the american in and share their hospitality. Common man is common man, folks.
Keith
I'm certainly not opposed to boycotting either france or germany, but I'm also not real sure how much it even matters.
Both countries are militarily powerless these days, with pathetically weak economies to boot, and no prospects for improvement anytime in the reasonably forseeable future.
While their moral hypocracy is annoying, their complete impotence rends their actions and opinions totally irrelevant.
France and Germany just don't matter anymore.
-Dave
Both countries are militarily powerless these days, with pathetically weak economies to boot, and no prospects for improvement anytime in the reasonably forseeable future.
While their moral hypocracy is annoying, their complete impotence rends their actions and opinions totally irrelevant.
France and Germany just don't matter anymore.
-Dave
- Joined
- May 16, 2002
- Messages
- 4,437
Is anyone on this forum, perchance, a person of light skin, hair or eye color? History would decree that:
You are not a Native of the US.
You are genetically related to a germanic tribe,
You speak English, which is a derivative of Old High German.
Even the French are descended from the Franks, a germanic tribe that settled the region long ago.
Donald Rumsfeld's last name is more german than mine, Sauer.
Can we really pretend to understand what our future will hold while forsaking the past? That's precisely why human history repeats itself.
Keith
You are not a Native of the US.
You are genetically related to a germanic tribe,
You speak English, which is a derivative of Old High German.
Even the French are descended from the Franks, a germanic tribe that settled the region long ago.
Donald Rumsfeld's last name is more german than mine, Sauer.
Can we really pretend to understand what our future will hold while forsaking the past? That's precisely why human history repeats itself.
Keith
Is anyone on this forum, perchance, a person of light skin, hair or eye color? History would decree that:
You are not a Native of the US. - Ferrous
And who is? Go back far enough... But really, Ferrous, you aren't going to treat us to any more white guilt are you?
.. ...
The trouble with hating foreigners is once they're here, they're not foreign any more. I imagine that makes it tough on the hater.
.. ..
Personally, I wonder if Beoram gave Beensaround too much credit. I don't know I'm not supposed to take Beenaround at his word. I'd like a correction if possible.
munk
You are not a Native of the US. - Ferrous
And who is? Go back far enough... But really, Ferrous, you aren't going to treat us to any more white guilt are you?
.. ...
The trouble with hating foreigners is once they're here, they're not foreign any more. I imagine that makes it tough on the hater.
.. ..
Personally, I wonder if Beoram gave Beensaround too much credit. I don't know I'm not supposed to take Beenaround at his word. I'd like a correction if possible.
munk
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2001
- Messages
- 1,780
English isn't derivative of Old High German actually Ferrous. It's derived from Anglo-Frisian, fairly closely related to Dutch. English is closer to the Low German dialects than to High German (Old High German underwent an additional consonant shift whence 'Vater' (> Gmc. Vader), 'Pfeffer' (> Gmc. Pepper), etc.).
But these are all Germanic languages, which is your point I believe. But so are Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Dutch, etc. So Germanic languages doesn't have a direct equivalence to the modern political entity of Germany (anymore than it does to modern Denmark, England, etc.)
--B.
- Joined
- May 16, 2002
- Messages
- 4,437
Well, we saw where the "white pride" good ol' boyz took us
Both are extremes. Extremes are for fanatics and the 'righteous'.
Seriously, I do not believe in guilt. Guilt is just a feeling that one gets when one has not striven to right wrongs that one witnesses or visits upon others. The proactive individual will never feel guilt. The proactive individual will strive to make right with the world and to seek harmony.
If one thinks on the consequences of an action BEFORE the action, and can live with the outcome, then guilt is nonexistent. Shouldaa, coulda, woulda, that's all crap to the psyche. Fix the fault, lose the guilt. Guilt is some baggage invented to keep people in line, under the yoke. (Productive members of society)
Example: Guy X tells Guy O that he needs to borrow something and can pay him back/return it next week. Guy O lends Guy X the thing. Weeks pass. Guy O now decides, hey -- i don't think I'll honor that contract (insert reason). Later, as he thinnks back to it, he may feel guilt, for having betrayed a trust--and this is because he acted in a fashion not in accordance with the spirit. Guilt is some schism of the spirit and human nature. If Guy X honors the contract, he saves himself the trouble of guilt. If he is simply immoral, his faults will expose him to society at large, his honor stripped of him, etc.
Well, sorrry, OT rant there. No 'guilting' intended. I'm comfy bein' a weird white guy.
Keith
Both are extremes. Extremes are for fanatics and the 'righteous'.Seriously, I do not believe in guilt. Guilt is just a feeling that one gets when one has not striven to right wrongs that one witnesses or visits upon others. The proactive individual will never feel guilt. The proactive individual will strive to make right with the world and to seek harmony.
If one thinks on the consequences of an action BEFORE the action, and can live with the outcome, then guilt is nonexistent. Shouldaa, coulda, woulda, that's all crap to the psyche. Fix the fault, lose the guilt. Guilt is some baggage invented to keep people in line, under the yoke. (Productive members of society)
Example: Guy X tells Guy O that he needs to borrow something and can pay him back/return it next week. Guy O lends Guy X the thing. Weeks pass. Guy O now decides, hey -- i don't think I'll honor that contract (insert reason). Later, as he thinnks back to it, he may feel guilt, for having betrayed a trust--and this is because he acted in a fashion not in accordance with the spirit. Guilt is some schism of the spirit and human nature. If Guy X honors the contract, he saves himself the trouble of guilt. If he is simply immoral, his faults will expose him to society at large, his honor stripped of him, etc.
Well, sorrry, OT rant there. No 'guilting' intended. I'm comfy bein' a weird white guy.
Keith
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2001
- Messages
- 1,780
amusingly Blair himself is theoretically part of the Left... But I do think Blair is in trouble if he commits the UK to an attack on Iraq against the UN resolution:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2848683.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2848535.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/uk_politics/03/blairs_political_gamble/html/default.stm
I'm sure there will be many more American Fingerprints than French (or German) - from the Iran days. But in any case, as someone else pointed out, if 'fingerprints' were France's real concern, then it would be better to 'sign on' with the US, who surely would be happy to overlook such things in return for support (cynical perhaps, but true).
This is part of the problem with the Bush-Blair idea -- it will cost the USA & UK massive amounts of money. I don't think people realise that the first Gulf War was financed largely by Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations -- and this one won't be...
I agree here. But Germany & India should be added to the security council.
Of course you do. But I don't think that France's primary motive is self-interest, so it still seems to turn into not liking France for her not agreeing with the USA.
By the bye, I'm not trying to be argumentative -- I won't bother posting here if I didn't know the people here were good guys.
cheers,
B.
- Joined
- May 16, 2002
- Messages
- 4,437
You are correct, I am generally saying that they (and we) are all related. The term "Germanic" and "Teutonic" can connote a great many things, and can be misleading.
I'd consider anything north of the Rhine germanic, but I would still be leaving out a few.
When I refer to the Franks and the other "Germanic" tribes, I might reference J.P. Mallory's "in search of the Indo-Europeans". Kinda suggests that we are all related to mass expansions of folk out of India, and that leads us nicely into postulation on how each of the tribes of Europe and the Baltic shook out.
Keith
I'd consider anything north of the Rhine germanic, but I would still be leaving out a few.
When I refer to the Franks and the other "Germanic" tribes, I might reference J.P. Mallory's "in search of the Indo-Europeans". Kinda suggests that we are all related to mass expansions of folk out of India, and that leads us nicely into postulation on how each of the tribes of Europe and the Baltic shook out.
Keith
You should have some trust in me by now, Beoram.
On Blair- your links are all BBC, like our PBS. Left. Temporary concerns- once we've ended Saddam, many will come aboard for the rebuild, at least philosophically. No one credibly argues Afganistan is not better off today. Blair's insured his place in history, which will prove him correct, regardless of political tides. If he is removed he can go out in Churchillian manner. None of the stories in the links say Mr. Blair is doomed, only that he has troubled waters.
You might be amused to know I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister congratulating him on his courage. An underling responded to thank me. I wonder if they shared my high opinion of their Boss?
I talked of post embargo fingerprints on WOMD. You responded with the 'Iran days" of the US. Granted, but not the issue today.
I like your idea of adding India to the Security Council. Germany? I don't know. Would we be adding and subtracting based upon GNP or military might? Some of these former Soviet Block nations will make it in ten years.
-But I don't think that France's primary motive is self-interest, so it still seems to turn into not liking France for her not agreeing with the USA. - Beoram
I have no idea why you wouldn't think this. Perhaps France has evolved unto a higher spiritual platform, one where self interest has been made secondary to?
munk
On Blair- your links are all BBC, like our PBS. Left. Temporary concerns- once we've ended Saddam, many will come aboard for the rebuild, at least philosophically. No one credibly argues Afganistan is not better off today. Blair's insured his place in history, which will prove him correct, regardless of political tides. If he is removed he can go out in Churchillian manner. None of the stories in the links say Mr. Blair is doomed, only that he has troubled waters.
You might be amused to know I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister congratulating him on his courage. An underling responded to thank me. I wonder if they shared my high opinion of their Boss?
I talked of post embargo fingerprints on WOMD. You responded with the 'Iran days" of the US. Granted, but not the issue today.
I like your idea of adding India to the Security Council. Germany? I don't know. Would we be adding and subtracting based upon GNP or military might? Some of these former Soviet Block nations will make it in ten years.
-But I don't think that France's primary motive is self-interest, so it still seems to turn into not liking France for her not agreeing with the USA. - Beoram
I have no idea why you wouldn't think this. Perhaps France has evolved unto a higher spiritual platform, one where self interest has been made secondary to?
munk
- Joined
- Mar 8, 1999
- Messages
- 8,911
I fear that 9/11 and the resultant Homeland security department added to the Iraq and Bin Ladin situations will lead to renewal of the 94 "crime bill" which villainizes some guns as "terrorist specials" which is outlandish and rediculous. And if it is renewed, the banning of full capacity magazines is part of that package.
We see deterioration by fiat of our rights in overzealous action in air travel. breaking locks and leaving suitcases unlocked rather than allowing xray checks with the passenger standing by and openind then locking bags after passage.
I'm not sure Bush is right in how he's going about things, but crushing Al Queada and Hussein and doing it now may let us look at the lack of constitutionality of measures already taken at homw in a less hysterical manner.
We see deterioration by fiat of our rights in overzealous action in air travel. breaking locks and leaving suitcases unlocked rather than allowing xray checks with the passenger standing by and openind then locking bags after passage.
I'm not sure Bush is right in how he's going about things, but crushing Al Queada and Hussein and doing it now may let us look at the lack of constitutionality of measures already taken at homw in a less hysterical manner.
In war the Constitution always takes a beating. I'll be curious to see if our civil liberties are returned to us afterwards. I doubt it, as these measures have been in the works for years.
I am for the war of liberation of Iraq. 9-11 changed forever who I was willing to take chances on. Saddam ownes a candy store of goodies for any would be terrorist.
Rusty, they tried the terrorist rap against the .50 but it hasn't worked.
munk
I am for the war of liberation of Iraq. 9-11 changed forever who I was willing to take chances on. Saddam ownes a candy store of goodies for any would be terrorist.
Rusty, they tried the terrorist rap against the .50 but it hasn't worked.
munk
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2002
- Messages
- 183
Hey Munk, it's good to see that your back and spirited as ever!
Beoram: "But I don't think that France's primary motive is self-interest"
I find Beoram's point to be an interesting one (partly because if all countries acted with pure self-interest, politics would actually be a lot easier). France's government is playing a very bad lose/lose hand. If weapons are discovered it loses international credibility. If weapons are not discovered but the end result is as it should be: i.e. Saddam out, Iraq quieter under better heads, US troops quietly out of Saudi, then focus on N. Korea and Iran (maybe with Iraq as an ally now), French "honor" will probably be forgotten.
If France had stood aside (they didn't need to join, just abstain like most), past arms sales sins could have been negotiated away. New markets would have opened up. A lot more $$$ and saving political points for future use on issues dealing directly with France.
The governments with a real incentive in cross-checking the US as sheriff are China (big time), Russia (less so) and India/Pakistan (it's coming). So it seems that France is happily being the front man. Notice how quiet China has been? In north Asia, the "Man" is never the guy with the big mouth. And the French government seems to have happily accepted the role of front man, busybody, self appointed world conscience, and complainer . . . without even being asked. Amazing.
I assume that the French government can do this because its electorate allows it to. That's what I've never understood about French culture. Is the feeling that France still matters in the world that important? (in contrast, the British have quietly eased into a role where they're punching internationally at a much higher level than their weight class) If this need for significance is part of French culture, then watch . . . its government is going to be used time and time again by the Chinese, Russians, whoever as a check on the US.
Hmmm . . . maybe that's the idea. France is willing to sacrifice goodwill, credibility, even money in exchange for the grand role of counter check against the US. Proud and prickly to the end (not unlike some forum members! )
In any case, given her track record and the somewhat "unique" French motivation for doing what she does, perhaps the town sheriff shouldn't listen to much to what the loudmouth, busybody old lady says. But learning the little courtesy gestures that old ladies love helps keep the town's noise level down (ever had to deal with a crabby grandmother?). And above all, keep a sharp eye on those townspeople who are drifting around quietly, whispering softly into her ear.
Beoram: "But I don't think that France's primary motive is self-interest"
I find Beoram's point to be an interesting one (partly because if all countries acted with pure self-interest, politics would actually be a lot easier). France's government is playing a very bad lose/lose hand. If weapons are discovered it loses international credibility. If weapons are not discovered but the end result is as it should be: i.e. Saddam out, Iraq quieter under better heads, US troops quietly out of Saudi, then focus on N. Korea and Iran (maybe with Iraq as an ally now), French "honor" will probably be forgotten.
If France had stood aside (they didn't need to join, just abstain like most), past arms sales sins could have been negotiated away. New markets would have opened up. A lot more $$$ and saving political points for future use on issues dealing directly with France.
The governments with a real incentive in cross-checking the US as sheriff are China (big time), Russia (less so) and India/Pakistan (it's coming). So it seems that France is happily being the front man. Notice how quiet China has been? In north Asia, the "Man" is never the guy with the big mouth. And the French government seems to have happily accepted the role of front man, busybody, self appointed world conscience, and complainer . . . without even being asked. Amazing.
I assume that the French government can do this because its electorate allows it to. That's what I've never understood about French culture. Is the feeling that France still matters in the world that important? (in contrast, the British have quietly eased into a role where they're punching internationally at a much higher level than their weight class) If this need for significance is part of French culture, then watch . . . its government is going to be used time and time again by the Chinese, Russians, whoever as a check on the US.
Hmmm . . . maybe that's the idea. France is willing to sacrifice goodwill, credibility, even money in exchange for the grand role of counter check against the US. Proud and prickly to the end (not unlike some forum members!
)In any case, given her track record and the somewhat "unique" French motivation for doing what she does, perhaps the town sheriff shouldn't listen to much to what the loudmouth, busybody old lady says. But learning the little courtesy gestures that old ladies love helps keep the town's noise level down (ever had to deal with a crabby grandmother?). And above all, keep a sharp eye on those townspeople who are drifting around quietly, whispering softly into her ear.