You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why do they hate us?
- Thread starter KymarFye
- Start date
Quote from swoop[TR]:
This article is a joke. The guy doesn't know what he's talking about. He's making hyperboles everywhere. Words such as "doomed" or "we have to do something about it" point in that direction.
Actually every nation that I know in the Western world is going to face a medicare crunch, not only France. While it is true that taxes are high in France, these rates are coming down, albeit slowly. The author is in self-aggrandizing mode and seems to be looking for a way to convince himself, let alone others, why France is acting the way it is. The truth is, France is not the only one acting this way. Why is it so hard to see that this war is just not popular ? Why do they have to go dig some dirt everywhere they can find it.
Kymar: Maybe interesting but certainly pointless.
Nothing "interesting" is entirely "pointless" in my opinion. I even find some of the articles that msfe links to worth reading, even when I strong disagree with their reasoning and their presumptions.
As for France: France's fiscal and related economic difficulties appear to be a bit more serious than a "medicare crunch," or even than what used to be called "Eurosclerosis." You might start by reading some of the articles that Den Beste links to, especially the one at http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_the_barbarians.html, and there is much other analysis and reporting out there that confirms Den Beste's basic point.
You don't need to get as dramatic as Den Beste to acknowledge, along with many observers, that France has sought a privileged position in the EU, and has historically identified European unification as its best if not only chance to retain (or re-gain) its position in the world. The recent draft EU constitution, written under French guidance, has already fallen under strong criticism as being overly favorable to the French, not to mention overly statist. Chirac's widely noted and criticized insults to the "New Europe" nations likewise reinforced the impression that France would be unsatisfied by an EU that wasn't created in its own image, and dominated by French priorities.
The exact degree of desperation among the French governing elite is obviously impossible for us to measure with any exactitude, but the idea that the only explanation for anti-US/UK policies from the French government, and others, is that "this war is just not popular" is just as obviously simplistic, and, given the nature of French media and intellectual culture, rather circular as well. It's quite a bit like looking at current US opinion polls approving Bush policy, and saying that the US embarked upon the war because "it is just popular."
Having lived 19 years in France, I am quite aware of France's economy and social problems. While your analysis is not false, it still does not have a point. Is your point that France should be less invoved in EU matters? That it should not take such a central and important role?
The EU seems to be a positive for everyone, don't you think? Everyone wants to be in the EU. The Germans and the French started it. It may be a way to deal with their own problems but it seems to me that it may solve a lot more than their own issues.
I still believe in the synergistic values of the EU. Whether or not the two most powerful nations of Europe are leading it is not really a surprise. Chirac's singling out of the eastern countries is understandable, maybe not very diplomatic, but I think they all have their diplomatic issues (personally I won't delve into Bush's diplomatic skills).
Also, your example of circular reasoning does not portray at all what is going on in anti war nations. The war is not popular point blank. It's not circular reasoning, it is clear. I think the French made a valid point when they questioned the existence of WMD and as to date, there have been no discoveries.
And won't you acknowledge that the US is playing the same game as France? Not letting the UN in anymore because it wants control? I don't think one can possibly criticize France for being so hands on.
The EU seems to be a positive for everyone, don't you think? Everyone wants to be in the EU. The Germans and the French started it. It may be a way to deal with their own problems but it seems to me that it may solve a lot more than their own issues.
I still believe in the synergistic values of the EU. Whether or not the two most powerful nations of Europe are leading it is not really a surprise. Chirac's singling out of the eastern countries is understandable, maybe not very diplomatic, but I think they all have their diplomatic issues (personally I won't delve into Bush's diplomatic skills).
Also, your example of circular reasoning does not portray at all what is going on in anti war nations. The war is not popular point blank. It's not circular reasoning, it is clear. I think the French made a valid point when they questioned the existence of WMD and as to date, there have been no discoveries.
And won't you acknowledge that the US is playing the same game as France? Not letting the UN in anymore because it wants control? I don't think one can possibly criticize France for being so hands on.
Quote from swoop[TR]:
Having lived 19 years in France, I am quite aware of France's economy and social problems. While your analysis is not false, it still does not have a point. Is your point that France should be less invoved in EU matters? That it should not take such a central and important role?
If by "less involved" you mean, "accorded no special privileges or advantages" then, on democratic principles, I would respond "yes."
The EU seems to be a positive for everyone, don't you think?
The EU remains a work-in-progress. In its current form, it is decidedly not a positive for "everyone" - such as non-French agricultural and fishing interests, for instance. There are others who argue that the Germans got a horrible deal economically, and that the French themselves have had to evade the same EU regulations and strictures that they've insisted on for everyone else. I am persuaded that adoption and enactment of the EU draft Constitution would be a decided negative for the vast majority of Europeans, including the French themselves, and also for the rest of us, who would benefit from a more dynamic, less dysfunctional Europe.
Everyone wants to be in the EU.
Not everyone. French and German behavior may not already have destroyed the Euro-integrationist political consensus, but some observers believe it's on the verge of doing so. Even the EU prophet DeLors has expressed deep skepticism about the practicability of the kind of "strong EU" model - unifed foreign policy, centralized economic and monetary policy, etc. - that up until recently seemed unstoppable.
Also, your example of circular reasoning does not portray at all what is going on in anti war nations. The war is not popular point blank.
There's no such thing. Popular opinion does not form in a vacuum - in Europe or here. Observers both within and outside of Europe have depicted, for example, a virtually uniform anti-American slant in coverage both of the war itself and the lead-up to it, especially in the state-supported and state-aligned media. I've posted or linked to articles on this subject both here and elsewhere on ET. As yet, I've seen nothing but unsupported assertions arguing to the contrary.
As for the WMD issue - stay tuned. In any event, the issue for the US was never strictly the existence of deliverable WMDs in Iraq.
And won't you acknowledge that the US is playing the same game as France? Not letting the UN in anymore because it wants control?
I would acknowledge that both countries are playing the same "game" only to the extent that each is pursuing national interests as currently defined and interpreted by its national leadership.
From the perspective of many Americans, the behavior of the UN after the passage of UNSCR 1441, as led by France, destroyed whatever credibility the UN may still have had. It will be a long time until the US trusts the UN, or France, with central involvement in or control over anything identified as a US vital interest. I think that anyone who would expect anything different from the US would have to be deeply deluded.
Define "vital US interest".
I am not sure I get this part.
France was not to be trusted or otherwise, it is not a matter of trust but difference in opinions.
Mixing oranges and apples make this world terribly difficult to live in.
Saying that the media shaped the beliefs of the people is nonesense. Why are a lot of British anti war, so many have resigned over this issue? Why are Spaniards anti war when its government is pro war? Is it all because of the media? Come on, I don't mean to corner you, but I don't see what exactly you are saying.
I am not sure I get this part.
France was not to be trusted or otherwise, it is not a matter of trust but difference in opinions.
Mixing oranges and apples make this world terribly difficult to live in.
Saying that the media shaped the beliefs of the people is nonesense. Why are a lot of British anti war, so many have resigned over this issue? Why are Spaniards anti war when its government is pro war? Is it all because of the media? Come on, I don't mean to corner you, but I don't see what exactly you are saying.
Quote from swoop[TR]:
Define "vital US interest".
I am not sure I get this part.
In my words, not the Administration's: US policy treats Islamic fascism as a clear and present danger to the US and its allies. The bill of particulars against Saddam Hussein went far beyond his military's current possession of usable WMDs, but extended to a pattern of behavior and frequently re-stated and realized intentions.
France was not to be trusted or otherwise, it is not a matter of trust but difference in opinions.
Distrust of France goes way back. Events in Yugoslavia - such as the infamous incident in which French forces refused to defend American forces under attack - deepened this mistrust. The perception that France engaged in a post-1441 betrayal - originally agreeing to demand for "full and immediate compliance," backed by a threat of "serious consequences," then threatening to veto any enforcement of the resolution - and the active organization of opposition to US policy, convinced many that France had to be treated not as an ally but as an adversary. Many here believe that French policy unnecessarily endangered US and Iraqi lives, not least by emboldening Hussein and his supporters, and otherwise worked to raise the political, economic, and military costs of the Iraqi operation.
Saying that the media shaped the beliefs of the people is nonesense. Why are a lot of British anti war, so many have resigned over this issue? Why are Spaniards anti war when its government is pro war? Is it all because of the media? Come on, I don't mean to corner you, but I don't see what exactly you are saying.
The media are a critical force in the formation of popular opinion. I'm certainly willing to acknowledge that there are many other factors, beginning with reflexive revulsion before the prospect of war and fear of repercussions - though it's worth pointing out that the British mass media, particularly the BBC, have been widely accused of anti-American bias. In any event, to say that European leaders were merely following popular opinion would be, on its face, a strong indictment of their leadership. In my opinion, many European leaders - Chirac and Schroder most prominently - sought to exploit and in turn to inflame anti-war and anti-American opinion, as did many of their allies in their own countries and elsewhere.
Did you read the essay by Glucksmann et al that I linked earlier?
On Monday, Apr. 14, another American said something about free speech: "Wonderful thing about free speech...you get a lot of opinions. Some of them are right, and some of them are wrong. But that's what we believe." That American was visiting soldiers at Bethesda Medical Center who were wounded in Iraq. His name is George W. Bush.
It says a lot about the credibility of this man who purportedly fights for democracy and free speech.
The article is here:
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/apr2003/nf20030417_9673_db009.htm
It says a lot about the credibility of this man who purportedly fights for democracy and free speech.
The article is here:
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/apr2003/nf20030417_9673_db009.htm
Quote from swoop[TR]:
On Monday, Apr. 14, another American said something about free speech: "Wonderful thing about free speech...you get a lot of opinions. Some of them are right, and some of them are wrong. But that's what we believe." That American was visiting soldiers at Bethesda Medical Center who were wounded in Iraq. His name is George W. Bush.
It says a lot about the credibility of this man who purportedly fights for democracy and free speech.
The article is here:
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/apr2003/nf20030417_9673_db009.htm
The accusation is spurious.
In every one of the examples cited in that article - including the mis-reported shopping mall incident - the complaints or other actions "against" the war protestors were made by private individuals or corporations. Even in the case of the First Lady, whose role might be seen by some to be ambiguous, but who does not hold office or exercise independent authority, she is under no obligation to host an event that she has reason to believe is going to be turned into a propaganda forum. Indeed, if she chose to host a pro-Administration propaganda forum, she might be subjected to criticism from political opponents, but it would be entirely within her rights to do so, and not very unusual.
If the basketball player who turns her back on the American flag is exercising her right of free speech, so is the individual who calls her unpatriotic. If a movie star exploits his fame to speak out more loudly than others, and thus, in the view of his employers and fans, tarnishes the same image that he is exploiting, it is fully within the rights of someone who has hired him on that basis of that image to end the relationship. And by what law or rationale are country music fans obligated to stay silent when Natalie Maines makes statements abroad that they find digusting?
There are literally thousands of newspapers, magazines, radio stations, television outlets, and web sites where the anti-war side has gotten a chance to say its piece.
There have been many incidents on the other side as well, including children who've been subject to ridicule or isolation, by teachers, on the basis of parents' military service.
Let's try this one more time: If marching down the street with a "Bush = Hitler" sign is free speech, so is calling the person who does so an idiot.
If someone comes on an internet message board, and accuses the country's leadership of criminality, or accuses all war supporters of being stupid, or blind, or bloothirsty, or whatever, and that's exercise of free speech, then so replying in equally or even disproportionately harsh terms.
Are we clear yet?
I think the real question is what does it portend for the EU when France assumes Third World status. One of the EU's pillars will be a majority muslim country, probably ruled by a radical Islamist party, with a functionally illiterate population unable to compete in the world economy, yet still possessing nuclear weapons.
Quote from KymarFye:
The accusation is spurious.
In every one of the examples cited in that article - including the mis-reported shopping mall incident - the complaints or other actions "against" the war protestors were made by private individuals or corporations. Even in the case of the First Lady, whose role might be seen by some to be ambiguous, but who does not hold office or exercise independent authority, she is under no obligation to host an event that she has reason to believe is going to be turned into a propaganda forum. Indeed, if she chose to host a pro-Administration propaganda forum, she might be subjected to criticism from political opponents, but it would be entirely within her rights to do so, and not very unusual.
If the basketball player who turns her back on the American flag is exercising her right of free speech, so is the individual who calls her unpatriotic. If a movie star exploits his fame to speak out more loudly than others, and thus, in the view of his employers and fans, tarnishes the same image that he is exploiting, it is fully within the rights of someone who has hired him on that basis of that image to end the relationship. And by what law or rationale are country music fans obligated to stay silent when Natalie Maines makes statements abroad that they find digusting?
There are literally thousands of newspapers, magazines, radio stations, television outlets, and web sites where the anti-war side has gotten a chance to say its piece.
There have been many incidents on the other side as well, including children who've been subject to ridicule or isolation, by teachers, on the basis of parents' military service.
Let's try this one more time: If marching down the street with a "Bush = Hitler" sign is free speech, so is calling the person who does so an idiot.
If someone comes on an internet message board, and accuses the country's leadership of criminality, or accuses all war supporters of being stupid, or blind, or bloothirsty, or whatever, and that's exercise of free speech, then so replying in equally or even disproportionately harsh terms.
Are we clear yet?
Not quite there yet Fry. Of course the government is the only entity able to infringe on your free speech rights. This is besides the point. Have you seen many examples of pro war people being denied access to certain events? Denied the right to show a movie that has some actors that are of different opinions? Denied being able to buy a printer online because of your political opinions (A canadian guy was banned from buying a printer, simply because he was Canadian) All this is extremely disturbing if you ask me. You can deny the allegations all you want but the fact and the matter is, this is not free speech, it is repression.
Denying, cancelling or acting upon someone who is of different opinion than yourself is not free speech. It's plainly wrong.
The government might not be behind this wave of anti peace movement but it is a reality that one must come to: Free Speech is being impeded by the very people who celebrate it.