The number of American tourists visiting France has dropped dramatically this year, by as much as 80 percent in the first half of 2003, the newspaper Liberation reported Monday, quoting the president of a group representing France's travel agents.
The Tourism Ministry claimed the number of American tourists visiting France had dropped by only 30%, but the result is the same: bye-bye la France!
Hi.
Do you seriously believe you are that essential to the french economy?
I won't deny your boycott will have some consequences on our economy. But since the EU growth is so much important to your own economy, such childish behaviour will eventually harm your own economy - which isn't that healthy at this moment. It's your call...
Anyway, to be honest, my first reaction after the "Libération" column was : "Good riddance". Not that I am furiously anti-american :
- I had the chance to visit your country many times ;
- Most of americans I met were very nice ;
- There are so much things I love in your country (as well as things I hate :) ).
But after having read so many slanderous editorials or column in the WSJ, WTimes and even in the WPost and the NYT, I cannot deny that I feel really ashamed for you.
I was against your aggression in Iraq. I had my own reasons as a normal citizen.
I guess most of you guys were and/or are supporting this war. I respect that :
- your troops are currently risking there lives ;
- you were told Hussein was a great danger to your country ;
- Hussein is responsible of so much deaths.
For these reasons among many others, I would have found quite normal for you americans to criticize my government.
All these pitiful insults about the french people : our so-called cowardice, our anti-semitism, our b.o... (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92768,00.html) You will always find in a country, many people eager to state cheap racist clichés - either in the US and in France. But reading them in your main newspapers and hearing them in your main media is different - I would have felt ashamed to read the same stuffs about americans or whoever in my newspapers.
So ok, you are boycotting our products and calling us with names... For these reasons, yes, I am sad to say that, but : "Good riddance".
Sometimes you can say things really bad to your best friends or your GF/BF because of anger. Eventually, you try to make up with the person... but unfortunately sometimes too much damages has been made and you lose one of your best friend.
I think you don't realise yet that you lost many friends : and you may think whatever you want to think, but those were among your best friends...
Bye.
I think you don't realise yet that you lost many friends : and you may think whatever you want to think, but those were among your best friends...
Bye.
Who needs friends like you?
If it has NO effect on the disastrous French economy, why are you spending your time whining about boycotts, why are you offering rebates to American tourists only, why did you feel the need, for the very first time, to put the Paris Tourism Office in red, white and blue on July 4?
Pray that next time you'll need Americans to liberate your country, they won't remember your nice words and quote you as saying "good riddance".
Vous me faites honte. Vous faites honte à la France.
Answer to Carine :
"Who needs friends like you?"
Well, there are many example of fruitful collaboration between the americans and the frenchs.
"If it has NO effect on the desastrous French economy, why are you spending your time whining about boycotts, why are you offering rebates to American tourists only, why did you feel the need, for the very first time, to put the Paris Tourism Office in red, white and blue on July 4?"
1- I didn't say that it has no effect. I said exactly "I won't deny your boycott will have some consequences on our economy."
2- "desastrous French economy" is a little bit exagerated for the 4th/5th world economy, don't you think?
3- I don't spend my time as you are stating "whining about boycotts".
"Pray that next time you'll need Americans to liberate your country, they won't remember your nice words and quote you as saying "good riddance"."
Oh please! Not the WWII motto again or I'll use the Lafayette motto... :)
As I told you, I am not anti-american, and I explained you the reasons of the "Good riddance". Reasons you don't mention. Nor do you answer on the points I raised.
Nah, you just focus on the "Good riddance" and release the overvalued WWII motto. I guess controversy is your major hobby on that matter.
"Vous me faites honte. Vous faites honte à la France."
Well, young lady, calm down! There are things more important in life! :))
Can you explain me what makes you feel ashamed about me in my comment? I am curious.
Yours. :)
"Vous me faites honte. Vous faites honte à la France."
Hey, Carine speaks like Jacque Chirac.
The decrease of US visitors has many roots : fear of trip by planes after 9/11, fear of terrorist attacks abroad, difficult economical situation in the US, the high value of Euro currency. In this packet of reasons ,you'll find also some idiots that didn't visit France, because of France's opposition to the war in Iraq.
That's good, we don't need idiots on our ground.
That's good, we don't need idiots on our ground.
Indeed, there is no shortage in France.
"Indeed, there is no shortage in France."
Yes, since people like you live there...
Oh. I didn't know Carine was french!
And I thought this website was about americans angry about the frenchs!
I didn't understand this site was about frenchs insulting each others...
Me sorry. :)
no, no , Unvilainfrancais , we don't only insult each other.
I personally think you are a nice guy.
But some people like Carine betray their own country, they are like these "Vichistes" in the WWII.
But some people like Carine betray their own country, they are like these "Vichistes" in the WWII.
Yeah, sure, you know what Vichy was Marc. Certainly better than I do.
Of course, here's Marc's logic:
I'm defending Americans who came to liberate France and save my country from nazism, conclusion: I betray my country, France.
Anti-semitic attacks in France are disgusting me, conclusion: I betray my country, France.
I'm shocked by the collaboration (yes, collaboration) of our several governments with bloody dictatorships, conclusion: I betray my country, France.
Who's supposed to be compared to Vichy here? Me?
Considering what the Vichy Government did, the very idea of assimilating it to you would never have crossed my mind. But of course, you just crossed the line. Why should I be surprised after all?
---"I think you don't realise yet that you lost many friends : and you may think whatever you want to think, but those were among your best friends..."---
Hey, we have something in common. That is exactly our opinion in America too.
"I'm defending Americans who came to liberate France and save my country from nazism"
I do also defend. Eternal thanks to these americans.
"Anti-semitic attacks in France are disgusting me"
They also disgust me, and certainly 99% of non-arabic french.
"I'm shocked by the collaboration (yes, collaboration) of our several governments with bloody dictatorships"
The strategy of France is often to influence a dictator so that he become less bloody, instead to send an army to put a mess in a already weak country. It may appear like a collaboration to a non-enlightened mind.
Perdu ! you missed the real reasons that makes you a "Vichiste"..
You are a "Vichiste" because you are French, ennemy of "La France", as Vichists were. You also collaborate with Republicanazis American extremists, other ennemies of France.
I do also defend. Eternal thanks to these americans.
Republicanazis American extremists, other ennemies of France
Sure you do defend and send eternal thanks to these Americans. Do you remember General Eisenhower, Marc? Do you remember your History classes? Do you remember the role he played during WWII, hence your claim of sending him your eternal thanks today?
You know what? He was a Republican President. How do you call Republicans? "Republicanazis American extremist, ennemies of France". This is your way of saying thank you, I guess. Thank you to President Reagan and his decisive role in the Cold war too.
You are a "Vichiste" because you are French, ennemy of "La France", as Vichists were. You also collaborate with Republicanazis American extremists, other ennemies of France.
This is enlightening. I am a "Vichiste" because [I am] French, ennemy of France, as Vichists were. Which would make you and all the French "Vichistes". Interesting logic Marc, really.
I'm sad for my not-then French grand-father and all those who died fighting Vichy and Hitler to give the opportunity and liberty to France to bear enlightened souls like you. You missed everything Marc, including lessons of History. Thankfully, there are French people who still remember what Vichy was and that don't use it lightly to insult others just to score points. These people happen to be the ones truly grateful.
Again, when faced with not arguments, Marc insults. Easy but irrelevant.
I feel sorry for your Grandfather as well, Carine.
I'm sure he would be disgusted with what you are doing now.
How do you call Republicans? "Republicanazis American extremist, ennemies of France.
I was speaking of Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and so on...
Your mind invent names : I didn't speak about neither Eisenhower nor Reagan.
If you still know how to read a post , I wrote "eternal thanks to these americans". And as Eisenhower amongst these americans, you could read, with a little bit of initiative of your side:
"Eternal thanks to Eisenhower"
"I am a "Vichiste" because [I am] French, ennemy of France, as Vichists were. Which would make you and all the French "Vichistes". Interesting logic Marc, really."
No, it wouldn't make me a Vichiste, because I don't fullfill one criterion: I'm not ennemy of " La France ". Interesting logic, Carine, really.
"Republicanazis American extremists" - gee, what a sophistication, what a depth.
And Carine is Vichiste? You must be taking the alternative history courses.
Marc - get a grip on reality.
How do you call Republicans? "Republicanazis American extremist, ennemies of France.
I was speaking of Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and so on...
Your mind invent names : I didn't speak about neither Eisenhower nor Reagan.
Posted by Marc Levis at July 29, 2003 01:23 PM
---
It's a pity that some people continue to glorify this evil cow-boy that was Ronald Reagan.
Posted by Marc Levis at July 29, 2003 01:35 PM
No comment.
"The strategy of France is often to influence a dictator so that he become less bloody"
Give an example of when that has worked. I can give many examples of when force of arms has worked. You live in one. Germany is another, Afghanistan is much improved. Conditions in Iraq improve daily. The Americans have been greeted in Iraq as liberators, with the exception of a small minority, insignificant but for the fact that they are reasonably well armed. The position of France is little appreciated in Iraq these days among the people.
OK Froggies and Frog Lovers..read this and weep!
A letter from a Green Beret Lieutenant Colonel stationed in Baghdad......
A letter from a Green Beret in Baghdad
Hey Guys, sorry it's been so long since I've sent anything but a quick note
to you individually. However things have been pretty
hectic since the end of hostilities and the start of the real war. Despite
what the assholes in the press like to say over
and over: 1) We did expect some armed resistance from the
Ba'ath Party and Feydaheen; 2) It isn't any worse than expected; 3) Things
are getting better each day, and 4) The morale of
the troops is A-1, except for the normal bitching and griping.
My brief love affair with the press, especially the guys who had
the cajones to be embedded with the troops during the fighting,
is probably over, especially since we are back being criticized by
the same Roland Headly types that used to hang around the
Palestine Hotel drinking Baghdad Bob's whiskey and parroting
his ridiculous B.S.
I'm in Baghdad now, since SpOpComm 5 relocated here from Qatar. It looks,
sounds and smells about the same but at least
you can get Maker's Mark at the local OC. We came up in
mid-June to help set up operation Scorpion and Sidewinder. It represents a
major (and long overdue) shift in tactics. Instead
of being sitting ducks for the ragheads we now are going after
the worthless pieces of fecal matter.
I'm no longer baby-sitting the pukes from CNN and the canned hams from the
networks, but have a combat mission coordinating a bunch of A teams,
seeking, finding and rooting
out the mostly non-Iraqis that are well-armed, well-paid (in U.S.
dollars) and always waiting to wail for the press and then shoot
some GI in the back in the midst of a crowd. The only reason
the GIs are pissed (not demoralized) is that they cannot touch,
must less waste, those taunting bags of gas that scream in
their faces and riot on cue when they spot a camera man from ABC, BBC, CBS,
CNN or NBC. If they did, then they know the
next nightly news will be about how chaotic things are and how
much the Iraqi people hate us. Some do. But the vast majority don't and more
and more see that the GIs don't start anything,
are by-and-large friendly, and very compassionate, especially
to kids and old people.
I saw a bunch of 19 year-olds from the 82nd Airborne
not return fire coming from a mosque until they got a group of
elderly civilians out of harm's way. So did the Iraqis. A bunch
of bad guys used a group of women and children as human shields. The GIs
surrounded them and negotiated their surrender fifteen hours later and when
they discovered a three year-old girl had been injured by the big tough guys
throwing her down a flight of stairs, the GIs called in a MedVac helicopter
to take her and her mother to the nearest field hospital. The Iraqis watched
it all, and there hasn't been a problem in that neighborhood since.
How many such stories, and there are hundreds of them, ever
get reported in the fair and balanced press? You know, nada.
The civilians who have figured it out faster than anyone are the
local teenagers. They watch the GIs and try to talk to them and
ask questions about America and Now wear wrap-around
sunglasses, GAP T-shirts, Dockers (or even better Levis with the red tags)
and Nikes (or Egyptian knock-offs, but with the
"swoosh") and love to listen to AFN when the GIs play it on their
radios. They participate less and less in the demonstrations
and help keep us informed when a wannabe bad-ass shows up
in the neighborhood. The younger kids are going back to school
again, don't have to listen to some mullah rant about the Koran ten hours a
day, and they get a hot meal. They see the same
GIs who man the corner checkpoint, helping clear the playground, install new
swingsets and create soccer fields. I
watched a bunch of kids playing baseball in one playground,
under the supervision of a couple of GIs from Oklahoma. They
weren't very good but were having fun, probably more than
most Little Leaguers. The place is still a mess but most of it
has been for years.
But the Hospitals are open and are in the process of being
brought into the 21st Century. The MOs and visiting surgeons
from home are teaching their docs new techniques and One
American pharmaceutical company (you know, the kind that
all the hippies like to scream about as greedy) donated enough
medicine to stock 45 hospital pharmacies for a year. Safe water
is more available. Electricity has been restored to pre-war
levels but saboteurs keep cutting the lines. And The old Ba'ath
big shots are upset because they can't get fuel for their private
generators. One actually complained to General McKeirnan,
who told him it was a rough world.
The MPs are screening the 80,000 Iraqi police force and
rehabbing the ones that weren't goons, shake-down artists
or torturers like they did in East Berlin, Kosovo and Afghanistan.
There are dual patrols of Iraqi cops and U.S./U.K./Polish MPs
now in most of the larger cities. Basra has 3.5 million inhabitants. Mosul
is a city of 2 million. Kirkuk has 1 million.
How many and hundreds of other small towns have not had
riots or shootings? The vast majority.
The six U.K. cops were killed in a small Shiite town by the
ex-cops they were re-habbing. According to a Royal Marine
colonel I talked to, the town now has about twenty permanent
vacancies in its police force. Mick, he's a big potato eater from
Belfast named Huggins and knows how to handle terrorists
after twenty years fighting with the IRA. He sends his regards
and says he'd love to have you here. Thinks you'd make a
great police chief, even though the cops would be more frightened of you
than the local hoods (then he laughed)
I heard one doofus on MSNBC the other night talk about how
"nearly 60" GIs have been killed since 01 May. The truth is that
21 GIs have been killed in combat, mostly from ambush, from
01 May through 30 June, Another 29 have been killed by
accidents or other causes (two drowned while swimming in the
Tigris). The MSNBC idiot is the same jerk who reported on the air that
"dozens of GIs" were badly burned when two RPGs hit a truck belonging to an
Engineer Battalion that was parked by a
construction site. The truck was hit and burned, three GIs
received minor injuries (including the driver who burnt his hand)
and three warriors of Allah were promptly sent to enjoy their 72
slave girls in Paradise. Hell of a way to get laid.
A mosque in that shithole Fallujah blew up this morning while
the local imam, a creep named Fahlil (who was one of the
biggest local loudmouths that frequently appeared on CNN)
was helping a Syrian Hamas member teach eight teenagers how to make belt
bombs. Right away the local Feyhadeen
propaganda group started wailing that the Americans hit it with a TOW
missile (If they had there wouldn't have been any mosque
left!) and the usual suspects took to the streets for CNN and
BBC. One fool was dragging around a piece of tin with blood on
it, claiming it was part of the missile. The cameras rolled and the idiot
started repeating his story, then one of my guys asked him
in Arabic where he had left the rag he usually wore around
his face that made him look like a girl. He was a local leader
of the Feyhadeen. We took the clown in custody and were asked rather
indignantly by the twit from BBC if we were trying
to shut up "the poor man who had seen his mosque and friends blown up." I
told the airy-fairy who the raghead was and if he
knew Arabic (which he obviously didn't) he'd know he was a
Palestinian. I suggested we take him down to the local jail and
we'd lock him and his cameraman in a cell with the "poor man"
and they could interview him until we took him to headquarters.
They declined the invitation.
Guess what played on the Bullshit Broadcasting System
that evening? Did the Americans blow up a mosque? See the poor man who is
still in a state of shock over losing his mosque
and relatives? Yep. Our friend the Palestinian. Our search
and destroy missions are largely at night, free of reporters
and generally terrifying to those brave warriors of Allah.
The only thing that frightens them more is hearing the word
"Gitmo". The word is out that a trip to Guantanimo Bay is not a
Caribbean vacation and they usually start squealing like the little
mice they are, when an interrogator mentions "Gitmo". No
wonder the International Red Cross, the National Council of
Churches and the French keep protesting about the place.
They know it has proven to be very effective in keeping several
hundred real fanatical psychopaths in check and very frankly
would rather see them cut loose to go kill some more GIs or
innocent Americans, just to make W. look bad.
We have about 200 really bad guys in custody now and
probably will park them in the desert behind a triple roll of razor
wire, backed up by a couple of Bradleys pointed their way, if they decide to
riot. Maybe a few will get to Gitmo but most are human garbage that wouldn't
take on your five-year old grandson face-to-face. The more we go after them
and not
vice-versa I think we will see the sniper attacks go down. Yeah,
they'll get lucky now and then, but it's showtime, fellows. Our first
objective is to get the die-hards off the street (or make them too scared to
come out in them) and destroy their caches of weapons (we have collected
more than 227,000 A-47s and that is only the tip of the iceburg; Curly
bought nearly a million of them from our pal Vladimir), then cut off their
money supply, mostly from Syria and Lebanon.
We must continue to get public services up and running, so
the local families can get water, sewage and garbage service;
electricity, public transportation; oil fields and refineries working
and a dinar that won't halve in value every month. It's going to be a long
haul (remember it took 10-15 years in Japan and West
Germany) but if we don't stick with it, nobody else will, and we'll
have some other looney running the place again. This place
has greater potential than Saudi Arabia (bunch of goat-herders
who struck black gold) or Iran (weird dudes who can't run a
rug bazaar much less a major country).
I keep telling myself even the Democrats can't be that self-destructive.
But then I look at the current line-up. The cream of the crap. If that
lying bitch ever gets elected we're really in trouble. By we, I mean the
whole world. She'll slide just plain
Bill in as the Secretary-General of the U.N. and then the whole
world will be trying to take our great country... the greatest ever
(and that's coming from an ex-Canuck)... down and civilization
with it. Armageddon, here we come. Remember, it's located
on the outskirts of Jerusalem. Enough of that cheery speculation.
The good news is that General Schoonmaker is going to
appointed ChiefArmy and the old man is coming to Tampa to
run the SpOps desk at CentComm. He's tops and will be getting his second
star. To me it means that SpOps will be more
predominant in future operations and after 18 years as a GB
maybe I'll have a shot at a bird-level combat command.
The old man asked me to come to MacDill and be his ACS but I told him after
I spent four months changing the diapers of the media types, I wanted to go
back to action. Hence, my current
gig. As the movie quoted old General Patton, "God help me, I love it." I
do. Nothing more satisfying than working with the BEST damn soldiers in the
world, flushing real human poop down the drain and giving some folks a
chance at trying freedom for a change. They may learn to like it and then my
great-great-grandson won't have to worry about some maniac trying to destroy
the planet.
My tour is over at the end of August, and I plan to return to
Tampa, brief the old man, then head to San Rafael and see my
two sweethearts. I'd like to visit my parents in Toronto and my
brother in London, before taking on a trip across the country.
Just like any other family. It will charge my batteries before I
end up back in some other interesting and challenging location.
I hope to see most of you and ask for some advice, not support.
I know I've had that all along. Thanks.
God Bless America
Mark.
"I didn't speak about neither Eisenhower nor Reagan.
Posted by Marc Levis at July 29, 2003 01:23 PM"
"It's a pity that some people continue to glorify this evil cow-boy that was Ronald Reagan."
Posted by Marc Levis at July 29, 2003 01:35 PM"
Indeed Carine, no comment.
"The strategy of France is often to influence a dictator so that he become less bloody"
Worked great as a strategy in the late '30s on Hitler. Of course, we are to overlook the billions of Euros that France stood to gain by consorting with Saddam as insignificant.
And by the way, you can't insult Ronald Reagan. I know too many people who had escaped communism's boot and admire him greatly. I know you care little for the suffering under communism that they endured, but I hear their stories. Insults from commie wannabees just add to my admiration for him and what he accomplished. Try reading "The Black Book of Communism" It was orignally released in French as 'Le Livre Noir du Communisme' and translated into English.
I think you don't realise yet that you lost many friends : and you may think whatever you want to think, but those were among your best friends...
Bye.
Friends?
My friends don't kiss brutal dictators' asses and ignore the slaughter of millions of innocent lives, you self righteous prick.
The feeling's mutual, btw
"I didn't speak about neither Eisenhower nor Reagan.
Posted by Marc Levis at July 29, 2003 01:23 PM"
"It's a pity that some people continue to glorify this evil cow-boy that was Ronald Reagan."
Posted by Marc Levis at July 29, 2003 01:35 PM"
The second post was in a completely different thread.
I think this illustrates the deceitful and disingenuous nature of Carine's arguments.
Again, shame.
My friends don't kiss brutal dictators' asses and ignore the slaughter of millions of innocent lives, you self righteous prick.
No, the US government helps establish them, arms them, supports them financially and allows them to steal millions from their people.
Leave the glass house before you start throwing stones.
http://www.normangeras.blogspot.com/2003_07_27_normangeras_archive.html#105948316257163866
A *marxist* destroys Marc, Luther, et al's arguments piece by piece.
A sample:
"c) Or else your anti-war interlocutor will freely concede that of course, we all agree it is a good that that monster and his henchmen no longer govern Iraq; but it is too stupid a point to dwell upon, for it doesn't touch on the issue dividing us, support or not for the war (on grounds of WMD, international law, US foreign policy, the kitchen sink). Er, yes it does. No one is entitled simply to help themselves to the 'of course, we all agree' neutralization of what was and remains an absolutely crucial consideration in favour of the war. "
From normblog via AndrewSullivan.com
"No, the US government helps establish them, arms them, supports them financially and allows them to steal millions from their people."
See section 'e' of normblog for the whole rebuttal.
"(e) If you can't eliminate the inconvenient side of the balance, denature it. The liberation of Iraq from Saddam's tyranny can't have been a good, because of those who effected it and of their obviously bad foreign policy record: Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua and the rest. It can't therefore have been a liberation...."
It takes a marxist to really understand these guys. It is clear that they do not have an original thought. It is funny how the Frenchies grow more strident as their arguments, built as they were on the sands of hatred, melt away beneath them.
Posted by Marc Levis at July 29, 2003 10:09 AM
> You are a "Vichiste" because you are French,
> ennemy of "La France", as Vichists were.
Chauvinistic nationalism, re: my country right or wrong, is at the heart of fascism. Doesn't hurt to have an outside enemy either (now us Americans) to blame everything on to rally the true believers...
> You also collaborate with Republicanazis
> American extremists, other ennemies of France.
Yes, so dissent is now collaboration with the 'enemy'... extremist ‘nazis’ enemies at that... har har... classic projection… your superior in your intellectual sophistication than Le Pen how?
Hmm Carine,
I don't know..if I had to choose between a Wrangler wearing hunk in a cow boy hat who could ride a horse and tell it like it is and a Colonge dipped, silk shirt wearing french fruit cake
what would I choose?
The mans man or the fag?
Here is the dillema..
I mean we have a President who now..shocker is called a Cow Boy, who wears Wranglers, flies jets, and drives a pick up truck, who will call a spad a spad and use the word..EVIL in his speeches and arggh mention God to....
I don't know, maybe its my estrogen, the fact that I like a man who knows he is a man and isn't afraid to be masculine I would choose the Cow Boy..
Not some faggoty french silk shirt wearing grease ball.....
"In this packet of reasons ,you'll find also some idiots that didn't visit France, because of France's opposition to the war in Iraq.
That's good, we don't need idiots on our ground."
So what are you still doing there? The sheer ignorance of your comments is astounding. You just dont get it. Lots of countries chose to stay home and not join us in our fight to end Saddam’s reign of terror. But America and Americans are singling out France for special retaliation. But retaliation for what? Not for staying home like so many other countries chose to. No, that’s not the reason. The reason for American anger and retaliation against France is very simple: France embarked on an open and concerted campaign of blocking America vis a vis Iraq in every possible manner. Consider the following widely publicized French actions:
The United Nations: France announces its intentions to veto – sight unseen – any further resolutions aimed at enforcing Resolution 1441. Now there’s a reasonable position.
Eastern Europe: French President Chirac has a hissy fit, threatens to block EU entry to a number of Eastern European countries because they sided with America on Iraq. He tells them “they missed a good opportunity to be quiet”. AMAZING! Only FRANCE gets to voice a view on Iraq?
Turkey: France threatens to block Turkey’s EU candidacy if Turkey permits America to use Turkish bases as part of any attacks on Iraq.
Turkey:[/q] And this one may be the worst - France vetoed a NATO resolution to defend Turkey in case Iraq attacked. First veto in the history of NATO.
[b]What other country did these things? Name three, other than France.
O.K., name TWO other than France.
O.K., Name just ONE country other than France that engaged in these actions!
You can’t; because only FRANCE engaged in an active and concerted effort to block American choice of action with respect to Iraq. And that’s a LOT different that simply not agreeing with American actions and choosing to stay home. And THAT is why Americans are pissed at France. And THAT is why things are never going to be the same again between America and France. And THAT is why a lot of Americans will never put another dollar into France if we can help it. The only idiot is the one who refuses to see the realities of your actions and not take appropriate measures. Considering how stupid, uneducated, provential, naive...etc Americans are it must be hard to be beaten by us constantly. Anti-Americanism is a crutch that helps the French to maintain a state of denial about their own national failings. The more they persist, the faster their downhill spiral accelerates. I'm guessing we'll have little trouble outlasting them as they fuck themselves into oblivion.
The national bird of France is a Rooster. How appropriate that the national symbol of French pride is a noisy stupid cock.
"we'll have little trouble outlasting them as they fuck themselves into oblivion."
Actually, I think that they are "not fucking" themselves into oblivion.
"The data sheet's listing of the world's 20 largest countries in 2003 and 2050 show industrialized countries, with the exception of the United States, falling in rank. Russia, Japan, Germany, and France are all being passed by less developed countries. As a sign of the times, France was replaced as number 20 by Uganda."
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=132-07172003
"Actually, I think that they are "not fucking" themselves into oblivion."
I stand corrected. Its the muslims who will fuck the French into oblivion. I so glad I'll get to watch.
Spawn, demonstrate exactly how that destroys my argument piece-by-piece.
Its not enoogh to post an article connected to the same subject, stick it up and claim it rebuts the argument. I suspect you are incapable of doing that. Why you had to scour the net to find that when you have your own sizeable intellect, to use anyway is beyond me.
Do your self a favor hold whatever you were going to post and scroll down to see cozmogirls post you will thank me
I don't normally refer to an entire website. I thought maybe you would be more likely to listen to an actual marxist rather than an unrepentant capitalist. It is remarkably well argued.
I did refer you to a specific section, 'e', regarding the tactic of defending France by smearing the US:
You said: "No, the US government helps establish them, arms them, supports them financially and allows them to steal millions from their people."
Section 'e' responds:
"This argumentative move just fixes the nature of the act via a presumption about those who are responsible for it, sparing one the necessity of examining the act for what it actually brings about and of assessing this in its own right."
That is to say, we are arguing about Irak, not the whole history of American and French foreign policy. In this specific case, France had business dealings with, and defended a bloody dictator. One can say that the US did some bad things during the Cold War, the worst, it seems, in the eyes of the French was to actually win it. We have done many stunningly good things too. Our argument should be about the facts of this case.
It also seems to Americans that while we do not expect 'obedience' from France, we would hope that a country like France have enough respect for the sacrifices we have made in her behalf to honestly evaluate our motives in Irak, rather than falling back on propaganda that could have come right out of Pravda.
I already referred Marc to section 'c'. I can't say it better than this guy.
Mr GC,
France was against the war in Iraq. In this aim, it used every legal possibilities and legal means to achieve its goal.
It's a pity that the US wanted so much this war, but if it would have been China or Russia, French would have behave the same.
France consider the legitimy of the United Nations at the regulating power of this world.
It's a pity that the US doesn't consider it like this, and prefer use their army for their own profit , instead to reinforce the power of United Nations.
"It's a pity that the US doesn't consider it like this, and prefer use their army for their own profit"
This is why I gave up arguing with Marc. He is so brainwashed that there is no possibility of getting through. Look at what is actually happening in Iraq! But there I go, arguing with him again. If he were to look at the facts, he might have to give up his arguments.
"Look what happen in Iraq."
I see what happens. After a brillant victory (no irony), the US army is now in the mud of a guerilla. Everyday few Us soldiers are killed , don't you read the news ?
The US call for some helps ( India, Germany were asked, some others), but they don't have positive answers, except maybe Spain.
The motivation of refuse is : we need an UN mandate to send the army there.
I think that the US should stop to behave unilaterally, and bring back strongly the United nation in the game, to legitimate the rebuilding of Iraq.
With more legitimity, the US soldiers wouldn't be so much attacked.
And also, there's a need of more soldiers there. How long US citizens will accept to pay alone the cost of all this mess?
"the US army is now in the quagmire of a guerilla war. Everyday a few US soldiers are killed. Don't you read the news?"
Yes, many US soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Not "a few everyday" though. More are likely to die. I do not minimize this. I have friends there. I do not want any of them to die. But in the larger context, life has greatly improved for Iraqis. The torture chambers are closed, the goverment sanctioned rape and murder has stopped. Life under the brutal boot of dictatorship is one of the "root causes" of terrorism. Soon there will be a free, democratic Iraq. An Iraq more concerned with the well being of its own people than with attacking its neighbors and exporting terrorism. (Yes, there is proof that Iraq supported international terrorism, Abu Nidal lived there). The Middle East has been transformed.
The people of Iran are also calling for a new government and more freedom. I know that you think that people do not want "freedom", but they do. Refugees have returned to Afghanistan in huge numbers. All of these good things are going on and all you can focus on are a small number of casualties in a pacification operation.
It took seven years to pacify Japan. Should we have given up after a couple of months because it was too hard? If you were not limited to what is fed you by your govt owned press, which has a strong interest in trying to show that it was right, you would know that many good things are happening in Iraq right now. It took a lot of effort to pacify Europe and a lot of American lives after "major combat operations had ceased", now we are repaid with a continent which has renounced war (no irony either) after centuries of bloody warfare. Also we now have a pacifist Japan.
Call us stupid, but we hope for the same in the Middle East.
Spawn,
Tthe achievements in Iraq are globally positive for Iraqian people, the problems are not there, not at all.
Do we now want to remove every dictators by wars ?
Do we want to let the US rule this world as they want , opening the door to a catastrophic era, in case a "Rumsfeld-like" is elected one day as US president ?
The history teach us some lessons: When a power is much stronger than the rest of world, wars will follow wars: Rome, Mongols, French, British, Germans prooved that is is true.
You can say, that it is rubbish, bullshit, "this is the past", and so on. The US doesn't make an exception to this rule. Some people in the US administration (wolfowitz) would make perfect bloody dictators. That's why we can't let the US, and any other single power become too strong.
Some people in the US administration (wolfowitz) would make perfect bloody dictators.
And Marc would make a perfect Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf. Or is that you?
That's why we can't let the US, and any other single power become too strong.
And what are you gonna do? Try to stop them with the super Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier. Is it working now? I kind of lost track at the second or third time they needed to repair it. You know, when they realized the deck was too short for some planes to land and then clear the deck.
Without the powerful US you so despise and fear, your ass would be either German or Russian, supposing there would still be a Europe and Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR wouldn't have nuclear-ly annihilated themselves.
But all you seem to be able to articulate is US+power=bad. Live with it. They won't just give up their hegemony for you. And we should be thankful for that. I know I am.
""And what are you gonna do?""
Build stronger Europe.
Block the US at the UN.
Only in case thnigs go wrong of course. We , in Europe, must all stay ally with the US, but must be ready to counter any attempt from the US to go against our interests, if the case occurs.
"Try to stop them with the super Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier "
Don't you know our nice submarines , Carine ?
Without the powerful US you so despise and fear, your ass would be either German or Russian>
Right. But I never said that the US sohouldn't be powerful. I only told that it can't be the only power to be so powerful, and that the Us shoudn't consider themselves superior to the United
Nations.
"But all you seem to be able to articulate is US+power=bad."
Oh my god ! you almost got it. I will only modify it a little:
US + only power in the world = Bad may be expected.
The "may be" justify all the efforts to build a counter power, just in case of too huge hegemonic will from the US.
History goes on. US have not now a so terrible ambition for this world, but in 30 years, who knows how it will be. We must prepare the future.
Europe as counter power is valid. I personaaly want and hope that the power that will be built in Europe will be an ALLY of the US, so that the world can be even more efficiently regulated.
But we must be ready for everything.
In 1760, US were a British colony,and everybody was happy of this . In 1812, it was already the second war between this "colony" and British !! In 52 years, things changed a lot...
So let's don't trust so much the future use of the enormous power of United States, this is the message....
Us shoudn't consider themselves superior to the United Nations.
They don't consider themselves, THEY ARE. Especially since the UN is just a club of lazy diplomats from mainly un-democratic and rogue states. In part thanks to France.
Tinfoil getting too tight again, Levshit?
Yes, of course Congress is run entirely by Bechtel, Halliburton and the Carlyle Group (and Disney, let's not forget Disney), and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (helped a tad by the Illuminati, the Bilderbergers, Skull'n'Bones and the Mickey Mouse Club, of course) cleverly manage to trot us all out every other year to vote them in. But to be sure, the UN is indeed a forum that lends a soapbox to a wide variety of views. Views from failed nations, dictators, terrorists and assorted other scum. We just fail to see how on Earth that can be considered a Good Thing™. Here's a wittle history lesson of the UN for you: Precursor was the League of Nations. Actually, Brazil quit the League of Nations in 1926, seven years before the Austrian syphilis incubator came to power. Funnily enough, they quit as a protest to the plans to let Germany in, but don't let that get in the way of your, er, "theory". Because, as we all know, the Brazilians then proceeded immediately to arrest all their Jews and send them to the concentration camps of Rio de Janeiro, after which they started a war that would encompass the entire globe and last for 6 years. We still remember the failed Brazilian invasion of the Soviet Union (failed in part due to a shortage of landing craft, it's a LONG way across the Atlantic) that marked the turning point. Also in 1926, the Spanish threatened to do so for the exact same reason, namely a refusal to let Germany in. This was the beginning of what would later become known as the Spanish-Brazilian Axis, the greatest military power of the early 20th century. Finally, after having been admitted in 1926, Germany left again in 1933, but that was after Hitler had gotten around to burning the Reichstag, rounding up all privately owned guns, opening the first concentration camp in Oranienburg, boycotting Jewish shops, burning books, opening another concentration camp in Dachau and abolishing every other party but the National Socialist Workers' Party of Germany. Now, since we're clearly trying to draw parallels here, insinuating that leaving the U.N. is EXACTLY what Hitler was all about, it would seem to us that we'd first have to wait for a couple of other countries to leave, burn down the Capitol, abolish the 2nd Amendment, open a couple of concentration camps in, say, California and Taxachusetts, single out a minority for a nation-wide boycott, burn half the Library of Congress and make the Republican Party the only legal party of the United States of America. But THEN we'd leave the U.N. and THAT would make us all Nazis. The rest wouldn't be all that bad, would it? And, the above taken into consideration, it is our learned opinion that you probably should be a little bit more careful about asking everybody else to "learn history's lessons", m'kay?
Just trying to help here.
"in case a "Rumsfeld-like" is elected one day as US president"
One HUGE difference between the US and Europe is our system of limitations on the power of our leaders. Chirac has much firmer control of the French government than ANY US president ever has, I am tempted to say 'except Lincoln', but even then, elections were held while a civil war was under way.
The Canadian premier, what's his name? Cretin? He has much more power in his country than the US president has in his. It is your fundimental ignorance of our electoral system that completely disqualifies your comments. If this is your argument, leave it to bandy about among your proto-human Eurowog freinds, because it won't gain you any sympathy here.
Another reason that we can't lay down to the UN is your 'precautionary principle'. The world is getting along pretty good with the US maintaining its sovereign power, it would be too risky for us to change now.
"The achievements in Iraq are globally positive for Iraqian people, the problems are not there, not at all.
Do we now want to remove every dictators by war?"
So you admit that the French and the UN were wrong in the single case of Iraq? Even though Hussein was the "legimate" ruler? That's progress. There is now one less dictator, a good thing. Yes, I think that we will have to remove every dictator who does not respect his neighbor's borders, as Saddam did not respect the borders of Iran and Kuwait, by force, eventually.
You wanted us to quit after we got rid of your little mustachoid dictator, didn't you?
And another thing. Even if some evil dictator got total control over the US military and civilian government. After breaking every kind of rule imaginable to do this, do you think that such a ruler would be bound by your pathetic UN? No.
Your only protection is the same as it ever was, and you will not do it for the same reasons you never have. Cut social spending and strengthen your military. Then, when you say war is not the answer, we will see that it is not because for Europe, war is impossible anyway.
French Submarines???
Hmm isn't that what the French Aircraft Carriers are? Submarines????
Oh yeah I forgot they merely sink....
HA HA HA!!
If I were Levshit I would stop bragging about French Air Craft Carriers....
We have 12, and one more on the way..
its going to be christened....the USS GEORGE BUSH!
The newest one CVN 76 is the USS RONALD REAGAN!
Why does the Charles de Gaule have a glass bottom?
So it can find its airplanes.
If the US ever did get a "Rumsfeld like" president, the UN would just appease him anyway. You know, throw him Canada and Mexico to see if that makes him happy. You are very stupid to place your hope and trust and security in such an institution.
Ah...A Rumsfeldian President...be damned interesting.....damned interesting. Id be up for it! I don't know if the rest of the world would be but then in Rumsfeldian fashion...who cares....:)
"The decrease of US visitors has many roots : fear of trip by planes after 9/11, fear of terrorist attacks abroad, difficult economical situation in the US, the high value of Euro currency."
Americans are still flying, more are going to Spain ('cause they never heard of the Basque and that whole thing), Italy and Britain. Tourism from the US has increased in those places. Tourism in Hawai'i has increased and tourism in other parts of the US has risen.
Americans are still flying, they're still going on vacation, and the strength of the euro doesn't seem to be stopping them from going other places. It's just that not as many are choosing to have their money contribute to the French economy.
I personally know several people who changed their plans from France to Italy, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and South America. I know one person who keep their plans to visit Paris, but he cut that to one day and went to Israel (I have no idea why, he's from Texas and he's not Jewish). Admittedly it was an odd situation where most people took a two-week vacation every eight weeks, many went back to their families in the States, but of those who went abroad most changed their France plans.
Kal
Spawn told :
"One HUGE difference between the US and Europe is our system of limitations on the power of our leaders."
You must be ignorant to write this. In case of serious conflict, or so-called, the first thing that would nake a "rumsfeld-like" president would be to declare an "emergency state", in which he would get all the power. With nobody inside the US to oppose him, why he wouldn't do this ?
"After breaking every kind of rule imaginable to do this, do you think that such a ruler would be bound by your pathetic UN? "
No, but by a strong EU,allied to others "poles" in this case maybe. Such alliance even would prevent any action to start.. Cold war...
You are very stupid to place your hope and trust and security in such an institution
UN demonstrated his ability to maintain peace in numerous occasions, for example Lebanon in 80s.
It is not the perfect organization, but it is a valid and great concept, re-initiated .. by the US after the WWII. It needs the energy of everybody to make it stronger. The US behavior at the UN concerning Iraq case is irresponsible.
you admit that the French and the UN were wrong in the single case of Iraq?
Not at all. Where do you read this ? The complete lack of repect towards UN carries in itself dangerous change in the world security.
China observe what the US do.
Hysterical Cozmogirl wrote :
If I were Levshit I would stop bragging about French Air Craft Carriers....
I spoke about French submarines; Please take a break, and read again what I write: SUBMARINES
Got it ?
The complete lack of repect towards UN carries in itself dangerous change in the world security.
AND WHAT IS THE VIOLATION BY IRAQ DURING 12 LONG YEARS OF 19 RESOLUTIONS VOTED BY THE UNSC - INCLUDING FRANCE - FOR YOU? RESPECT??
All your arguments are completely false. For Christ's sake, do some research at least before writing your comments.
And start with the system of checks and balances in the US. Of course, being you, you must be completely foreign to the very concept of it.
No, the US government helps establish them, arms them, supports them financially and allows them to steal millions from their people.
Leave the glass house before you start throwing stones
Kind of like your government's relationship with Iraq during Hussein's regime Luther?
Damn if we do, damn if we don't.
When we intervene, we're called imperialists. (i.e. Iraq)
When we don't, we're responsible for all of the misery. (i.e. Cuba, various other third world countries)
As far as bowing down to the UN?
**Spit**
FOAD
BTW, Luther!
Let's see how fast the UN comes to the rescue when France is under sharia.
So far their track record with Islamonazis ain't that good...
I'm not actually French, I'm British, if that makes any difference to your tabloid-arguments.
Feel free to criticise my government now!!
PS. Maybe one of the reasons the UN doesn't work too effectively is that US blocks a lot of it's initiatives, and owes billions of $ to it!
UN:
Free room and board. Unpaid tickets, diplomatic immunity, etc. And we still send the majority of a military force when the UN decides to take action.
So you're British?
Well, I be damned! So is my husband and his family!
He's over here, living a better life (like owning a house and a well-paying job), his Mum is coming over here once she sells her house. My sister-in-law and her husband are looking at moving out of the country as soon as her husband gets a transfer.
Don't get me wrong. I love the UK. Have visited several times. Keep up with the news over there.Love the people.
But don't preach to me about so-called American atrocities. Your closet's full of them, my man. So get off the high-horse.
thats exactly my point
Brititsh, French, all our governments are guilty of some nasty things. Thats why i think all this directed at the french is racist bullshit.
"UN demonstrated his ability to maintain peace in numerous occasions, for example Lebanon in 80s."
The UN has demonstrated its utter lack of ability on even more occasions.
"The complete lack of repect towards UN carries in itself dangerous change in the world security."
True, and so long as the UN refuses to follow through on its own policies this disrespect will continue (see Iraq). The UN has shown itself to be a castrated organization whose only strength comes when a few western nations decide to do something about it. Even after UNSC resolution 1441 the UN was unable to follow through with its threat. It was up to the US and Britain to enforce the resolution, an enforcement that the UN did not want.
The UN is a paper tiger.
Luther: "Feel free to criticise my government now!!"
I will. Hmmm, let's see... If not for your government the Nazi fifth column would have continued to control opinion in the US and France. If not for your government Vichy France would have continued to support and work with Nazi Germany, or as French ambassador Henry-Hayes said, "France, after all, is a nation governed by intellect, not by crude emotions. Her accomodation with Germany was not surrender. A great consolidation of Europe is in progress."
Oh, and I blame your government for trying to give Hoover evidence that Pearl Harbor might be an Axis target all the way back in Jun of '41.
Damn you British and your interfering world saving ways.
Kal
i know!
bastards!
What do you think then Kalroy?
Racist bullshit or what?
"PS. Maybe one of the reasons the UN doesn't work too effectively is that US blocks a lot of it's initiatives, and owes billions of $ to it!"
And when the UN supports using those payments to pay off its debt to the US I'll support paying it. But I won't support paying them money so they can continue to stiff the US. Now they want the US to pay billions to upgrade and re-build their facilities in New York.
"Thats why i think all this directed at the french is racist bullshit."
Nope, it's the natural reaction of people who find that someone who has claimed to be their friend betrayed them and actively worked against them and may have cost more American lives by working to keep Saddam Hussein in power than in supporting a country that has saved their bacon in major conflict several times.
As to your racism charge, it's utter BS. Americans don't much care what race the French are , whether of Norman descent (norse/scandanavian), Gaul (celtic), Arabic (did you forget France is no longer a homogenous whites only country?), or African-French. We view all supporters of France's treachery as simply being French.
Kal
"UN demonstrated his ability to maintain peace in numerous occasions, for example Lebanon in 80s."
This is the top of the honor roll for the UN success? Lebanon is a great place to live now, eh? Infested with terrorists, and an itchy trigger finger to start a war with Israel. (I know, I know, you think that's a good thing)
Lets look at other UN successes: North Korea. What a beautiful move that was. Iraq between the two gulf wars. The UN stood, holding back the Americans, while the mass graves filled.
You bring up the League of Nations, which dithered and did nothing while Germany and Japan violated all of the agreements that they had signed to bring "peace in our time", as they said then. That turned out rather well, didn't it?
Spawn,
The UN will have the success that its members want for it. If everybody respect the UN and put energy to reinforce UN, it will work as a regulating power of this world.
If a country like US decide that it is strong enough to go over the UN, it's irresponsible.
What want the US ? To become the regulating power of the world in every conflict ? It's a hard job ... Do the US citizens want to pay for every the presence of thousands of soldiers everywhere in the world ? Do the US citizens want to sacrify the life of their young men at the rythm of one per day for ever ?
The united Nations "forces" are present in many places in the world, to maintain peace.
The forces are swedish, American, Australian, Franch, Canadian, slovakian, Egyptian.
To maintain peace, there is a need of a lot of soldiers, a lot of good will, a lot of legitimty.
The UN is the perfect frame for this. The world need this organization.
The US , too proud for the moment to ask the UN for help, try to set bilateral agreements so as to get help from different countries.
They are not so successful, it's difficult to convince these countries, it's a loss of time.
Within the Frame of United Nations, a force can be send quickly and a strong one, made by different countries.
Within the Frame of UN, some equatorian soldiers can participate to a regulating force in Asia for example. Who else would convince Equator to send soldiers there ?
Here is the efficiency of the United Nations, and it's already very important advantage.
Yes, UN is not efficient to start "preemptive wars", because it's not the reason of its foundation. However, it still says an important tool for the stability of this world, and to make it weaker, as some people of the US administration try to do, is madness.
Pardon my drive by ranting...but the League of Nations???? HUH?
What a useless waste of time, energy and manpower. WOW they did a great job protecting human rights in Germany, for the Jews, Conservtives, Socialists, Lutherans, Catholics, gee I don't believe there is enought space here to write down all the groups who the Nazis victimized...but...hey....The League of Nations really worked. Hitler was shaking in his jack boots.
God Euro trash is really stupid.
All I had to do was walk through Sachsenhausen and the Gestapo Jail on Prinz Albrecht Strasse in Berlin to know what the League of Nations was all about.
Levshit your a moron. No, really your a moron!
Cozmogrill wrote :
"The League of Nations really worked"
No, sorry , it didn't worked. Check your history books.
And I speak aobut the UN, not "league Of Nations".
Please read posts , take a break, read again them in calm, and then you are welcome to post. Thank you.
Please read posts , take a break, read again them in calm, and then you are welcome to post
Practise what you preach Marc. I quote Cozmogirl AGAIN:
but the League of Nations???? HUH?
What a useless waste of time, energy and manpower.
Learn to read Marc.
We have discovered the French are really that stupid.
When I said the League of Nations really worked LEVSHIT I was being facetious..SARCASTIC! You would think Froggies would have learned about sarcasm and irony from the Germans.
I like to put small traps so that silly mind fell in them. I got Carine and Cozmogirl with this very small one about "League of Nations".
Enlightening...
Yeah, sure Marc, and then you want us to believe you're older than 15... Thanks for confirming this.
So your thing is to put traps?? Interesting...
Btw, if all you have left to get us wrong is to "put small traps" to lead us to think you can't read, you can stop now.
Because first we already know that for a fact, you've proved it before.
And then if that's really your only solution left to counter our arguments, this is pathetic.
Who's being silly?
What are you trying to do? Have us pity you? Then go on, you've almost reached your goal with me.
Marc:
"The UN will have the success that its members want for it. If everybody respect the UN and put energy to reinforce UN, it will work as a regulating power of this world."
That's true, and history has shown that countries such as the former USSR, the present Russia, France and Syria are pretty guilty of this. Recall that North Korea's attack on the south would have been allowed had the USSR's representative not stormed out and left the voting to the other memebers of the UNSC. Recall also how in 1991 the UN members decided to allow Iraq to simply pull back its forces behind its own borders, and how they decided not to let the coalition continue on to overthrow a regime that actually had imperialistic goals. Then you'll notice how for 12 years they allowed Iraq to continue killing and ignoring not only the UN but the cease-fire agreement it had signed.
Then notice how when the UNSC, unanimously, decided to finally do something about it countries such as Russia and France decided to actively work against implementing penalties they had voted on. It was Britain, Spain, America who forced the issue and enforced UNSC Res 1441 despite France's desire to maintain Saddam in power.
"If a country like US decide that it is strong enough to go over the UN, it's irresponsible."
And if a a country, like France, decides that it is strong enough to go over the UN, it's irresponsible. Remember that it was France that continued to try to block UN action on the resolution. The US and its allies just went ahead and enforced it anyway.
"The US , too proud for the moment to ask the UN for help, try to set bilateral agreements so as to get help from different countries."
Totally untrue. The US has asked the UN for help on part of re-building Iraq. The UN has, for the most part, refused because the US refuses to give the UN total control of the situation. Possibly because the UN bungles such efforts, and has a history of mistaking 'status quo' with 'maintaining world peace.' Also because it would be foolish to allow France to gain control of the rebuilding after their support of Saddam Hussein, and considering what a mess they made of Ivory Coast and the Congo.
"Within the Frame of United Nations, a force can be send quickly and a strong one, made by different countries."
Unless it's to Bosnia, then France can block all UN efforts forcing NATO to act, with the UN coming in, grudgingly, later.
"Within the Frame of UN, some equatorian soldiers can participate to a regulating force in Asia for example. Who else would convince Equator to send soldiers there ?"
I'm thinking you mean Ecuador. I'll admit my ignorance of Ecuadorian military prowess, but I'm thinking that I'd much rather have a force of Aussies or Kiwi's than twice the number of Ecuadorians.
"Here is the efficiency of the United Nations, and it's already very important advantage." Or lack of actual efficiencey. Srebrenika...Go UN!
"However, it still says an important tool for the stability of this world, and to make it weaker, as some people of the US administration try to do, is madness."
It is a tool. If it fails to work properly it has no use and needs to be replaced. It is weaker because so many countries want it to be. The UN put Syria on the Human Rights council and Saddam's Iraq on the board responsible for inspections. France decided to work against enforcement of a UNSC resolution that was voted for unanimously by all members of the UNSC.
You ought to re-examine what the UN has actually done to promote world peace as opposed to status quo.
Cozmogirl:
Relax lass,
Kal
Use of the 'veto' by the 5 permanent members:
United States:
Seven of the last nine vetoes at the Security Council have been by the United States, and six of these have been of draft resolutions criticising the Israeli Government in some way.
The most recent, in December 2002, was a draft resolution criticising the killing by Israeli forces of several United Nations employees and the destruction of the World Food Programme warehouse in the West Bank.
In total, the US has blocked 35 draft resolutions on Israel.
Washington first used its veto in March 1970. Along with the UK it blocked a draft resolution on what was to become Zimbabwe.
The US has vetoed 10 resolutions criticising South Africa, eight on Namibia, seven on Nicaragua and five on Vietnam.
It has been the lone voice in blocking a resolution 53 times.
France:
Thirteen of France's 18 vetoes have been on resolutions also vetoed by the US and UK.
France has vetoed two resolutions alongside the UK - both on the Suez crisis in 1956.
Only two resolutions have been vetoed by France on its own - one on 1976 on a dispute between France and the Comoros and the other on Indonesia in 1947.
In 1946, France and the USSR vetoed a resolution on the Spanish Civil War.
United Kingdom:
Of Britain's 32 vetoes, 23 have been on draft resolutions also vetoed by the United States, and 14 also vetoed by France.
The most recent UK veto was in 1989, when the US, France and Britain vetoed a resolution deploring the US military intervention in Panama.
The UK has gone out on a limb, by vetoing a resolution alone, only seven times. The most recent solo veto was in 1972 and all seven were on the situation in Rhodesia, later to become Zimbabwe.
Russia:
During the first 10 years of the UN the Soviet Union used its veto 79 times. In the same period China used the veto once, France twice and the others not at all.
The Soviet Union came to use its veto less and less, however.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the veto has been used by Russia only twice - once to block a resolution criticising Bosnian Serb forces for denying the UNHCR access to Bihac in Bosnia and once to block a resolution on the finances of UN operations on Cyprus.
China:
Between 1946 and 1971, the Chinese seat at the Security Council was occupied by the Republic of China (Taiwan), which used its veto once to block Mongolia's application for UN membership.
China vetoed resolutions twice in 1972: once to block Bangladeshi membership and once, with Russia, on the situation in the Middle East.
Other vetoes were in 1999 blocking the extension of the mandate of United Nations Preventive Deployment Force in Macedonia and in 1997 blocking the sending of 155 UN observers to Guatemala to verify a ceasefire.
Gee Levshit the only thing you proved to me is that you have no understanding of humor and sarcasm or American culture.
I think EVERYONE ELSE KNEW I WAS MAKING A JOKE!
Obviously you didn't and now your excuse is that what...you trapped Carine and I? How? By showing us how utterly dimwitted and igorant you really are? If anyone got trapped it was you Levshit, you actually thought I was being serious....again, your a moron. MORON!
"And if a a country, like France, decides that it is strong enough to go over the UN, it's irresponsible. Remember that it was France that continued to try to block UN action on the resolution. The US and its allies just went ahead and enforced it anyway."
Sorry, but France didn't go over the UN. The voting of a resolution belongs to the UN process, the Veto also.
But what Veto ? France didn't put any Veto. US failed to convince enough countries at the UN council. So,according to the UN rules, it shouldn't have been a war.
France action was following the rules of UN. And as it went wrong for the US, US decided to go over the UN. That's all.
You examples against UN are valid, unfortunately, but I still believe that UN helps a lot in the cases it can help.
Sure it's not the perfect one, but to regulate this world we need co-operation of everybody, not only US, Aussies, or Kiwi.
An African force will fight son in Liberia, under UN mandate. Do you prefer to send Aussies, and Kiwis there ?
Who can take the decision to send troops there ?
Bush ?
Why not let the UN organize the thing ?
"But what Veto ? France didn't put any Veto."
Technically true, but you conveniently ignore the fact that France threatened to Veto no matter how the voting went. So you're right, France did not veto the resolution, they killed it by making it clear that no matter how the vote went they would kill it.
"France action was following the rules of UN."
True, there is no rule stating that any country has to vote yes, and there is no rule stating that the UNSC has to persue a resolution when it is clear that one of the permanent members will veto it no matter what the vote count.
"And as it went wrong for the US, US decided to go over the UN. That's all."
Not entirely. The US did not go over the UN. There was NEVER a UNSC resolution preventing the coalition from acting under UNSC resolution 1441. The US and its allies enforced the UNSC's own resolution because France made it clear it would block any resolution calling for enforcement of the resolution or removing Saddam Hussein from power.
"You examples against UN are valid, unfortunately, but I still believe that UN helps a lot in the cases it can help."
I can't really comment on that since I don't know how all UN interventions by force end up. I can't recall hearing an example where they did make a positive long term difference.
"Sure it's not the perfect one, but to regulate this world we need co-operation of everybody, not only US, Aussies, or Kiwi." I agree, but that ignores reality. Reality is that all nations act out of self-interest, America, France and Vanuatu are no exceptions. The problem is when those interests conflict. The Iraqi situation resulted because the security interests of a number of countries (chief among these being the US) were in conflict with the economic interests of France and Russia. This caused a breakdown in UN effectiveness that could not be rectified. This has been common since the UN's inception when the interests of the free West conflicted (on a very regular basis) with the interests of the communist nations.
"An African force will fight son in Liberia, under UN mandate. Do you prefer to send Aussies, and Kiwis there ?"
I don't know that any African force would do well. None have a history of effectiveness and almost all of them have histories of violent depravity. The Liberians would probably prefer Aussies and Kiwis to Hutus and Tutsi.
"Who can take the decision to send troops there ?
Bush ?"
Already done. They're waiting off-shore for Charles Taylor to leave. Then again they're also already there in other respects. If you want to know more I would suggest you make friends with an SO Wingnut whose willing to talk about it.
"Why not let the UN organize the thing ?"
That all depends on your goal. If your goal is to protect Liberians, stabilize the country, and institute a western democracy with a free-market economy giving Liberia a chance to be a free and successful nation then the reason not to let the UN organize it is plain.
If your goal is to look good in the newspapers then you let the UN deal with it. I'm sure they'll do as good a job as they are doing in the Congo.
Kal
Marc,
Regardless of whatever we say on this thread, the fact remains that Chirac and Villepin overplayed their hand in the UN. Now your precious UN lies damaged by it.
You guys should get rid of Chirac and start over. That's what democracies do to failed leaders.
Spawn,
Next presidential election: 2007.
Rumors have been circulating that Chirac could try to change the law to get a third mandate.
GIs could be needed and would be appreciated in France too please. Thanks in advance ;)
"GIs could be needed and would be appreciated in France too please."
What for ? To visit again Prostitutes in Toulon as they do each time a US navy boat stop there ?
What for ? To visit again Prostitutes in Toulon as they do each time a US navy boat stop there ?
Here's Marc Levis' respect for the guys who saved his Frenchie ass!
How do you know Marc btw? Do you own/hold a whorehouse, do you visit one regularly or are you... are you a transgendered prostitute or something like that?
"The Liberians would probably prefer Aussies and Kiwis to Hutus and Tutsi."
Sure, but you are not forced to send Hutu and Tutsi. It seems that you have a really poor image of Africa. Many countires are stable, owning a valuable army, that would made this job of stabilization correctly.
It's better to send "black men" to regulate other "black men", to avoid racism problems , and all feelings of "colonization", or "slavery".
Indeed, It is also sure that the Aussies and Kiwis would make the job better.
But the question is : Who on earth can decide to send them ?
Why Aussie and Kiwis should send troop them ?
Because Bush wants ?
The UN system is based on contributiopns , money and soldiers. By this way, you can mobilize almost any soldiers anywhere, without setting any tricky bilateral and suspicicious agreements. That is the point.
"Who can take the decision to send troops there ?
Bush ?"
Already done. They're waiting off-shore for Charles Taylor to leave.
Yes , US follow this case also, because there's a strong historic link between Liberia and The US.
But I strongly believe that the US can't be everywhere, the US citizens wont accept that. It's a question of Money.. and life of their soldiers.
We need the UN.
I can't really comment on that since I don't know how all UN interventions by force end up. I can't recall hearing an example where they did make a positive long term difference.
So, I invite you to visit this :
http://www.un.org/english/
It's a valid source. The UN is not only the secutiry council. The list of achievements is impressive. We can't say that there were UN interventions by force up to now. Maybe the First gulf war ? Inteventions up to now were mostly forces sent after the fights, to ensure that the war doesn't start again. The philosophy was rather this one up to now : Force the fighters to stop the war in a "diplomatic" way, then send troops to ensure that indded , the war will not start again.
"If your goal is to protect Liberians, stabilize the country, and institute a western democracy with a free-market economy giving Liberia a chance to be a free and successful nation then the reason not to let the UN organize it is plain."
Why ? The aim of the UN are these ones. I dont understand why it wouldnt be able to do it..
UN is able to send inpectors to check how democratic elections runs. Un is able to send soldiers to protect liberian. UN is able to keep an action in a long term.
Do you really see now the US engaged for 2 years, protecting liberians, organize elections ?
The cost of sych ambition for any problematic country would give almost an automatic victory to Democrats at the next elections. Bush can't go this way.
Bush needs the UN, at least to do the "every day's job". And when you need someone, you should be careful to not bash him.
And when you need someone, you should be careful to not bash him.
Indeed Marc, that's exactly what this site is all about.
Put your own house in order.
"And when you need someone, you should be careful to not bash him."
Good advice my Friend, when you need the UN, you should be careful not to weaken it too.
You know I am old enough to know some history now and I cannot think of a time when the USA ever needed France in my lifetime. Of course when Germans are crashing through your back gate from Liege and Antwerp who decides in a moment of desperation who needs who? Dare I say the French?
Makes me wonder now that the German population has been emasculated to the point of irrelevancy could the French now handle them without screaming like girls for help? Hmmm...I think we should see that. I really do.
Hmmmm.......
"You know I am old enough to know some history now and I cannot think of a time when the USA ever needed France in my lifetime".
Do you remember about your friends only when you need them ?
I'm sad for your friends.
Your lifetime is short is the scale of mankind. We were there in 1776, to save your ass.
If you think "it's old story", ""it was long time ago", then don't even try to speak about history.
History didn't start 50 years ago.
The difference is that we have not stabbed you in the back in the past 50 years anything like you have stabbed us in the back for the past 225.
Your lifetime is short is the scale of mankind. We were there in 1776, to save your ass.
You know, this is funny coming from you. Let's talk about being grateful.
Several cities in France, as I've already posted here, have made Abu Jamal an honorary citizen.
The US Congress voted a legislation to make the Marquis de Lafayette an honorary citizen of the United States of America.
The House bestowed honorary citizenship on Lafayette (1757-1834), who, according to the legislation, "gave aid to the United States in her time of need and is forever a symbol of freedom."
The original Senate bill was introduced by Sen. John Warner, R-Va.
Looks like the bill was introduced by one of your "republicanazis extremists", Marc. Sorry.
Now who's beeing grateful and respectful?
Marc,
"Sure, but you are not forced to send Hutu and Tutsi. It seems that you have a really poor image of Africa. Many countires are stable, owning a valuable army, that would made this job of stabilization correctly."
I don't have that great an image of Africa, that's true. News from African nations has done a lot to change my once high opinion of them. They'll have to do a lot to change it back.
"It's better to send "black men" to regulate other "black men", to avoid racism problems , and all feelings of "colonization", or "slavery"."
I guess that would be true if the if not for racism being responsible for some pretty horrid nastiness between Africans. As to the slavery part, I don't know how you came to that conclusion, considering that historically slavery is the province of blacks and arabs in Africa. Caucasians, a long time ago, bought slaves from Arab slave-traders after they were captured by other "black men." So I don't see how that would alleviate feelings of slavery. As to colonization, I'm sure that could be alleviated by not colonizing.
"ndeed, It is also sure that the Aussies and Kiwis would make the job better.
But the question is : Who on earth can decide to send them ?"
The Australian and New Zealand governments, of course.
"Why Aussie and Kiwis should send troop them ?
Because Bush wants ?"
Nope, though they may, but I doubt in this case. Perhaps they'd go because Chiraq wants them to. After all he seems to feel that the US should act 'unilaterally' and go to Liberia, or hasn't French news been reporting Villepin's harping at how the US should go in?
"But I strongly believe that the US can't be everywhere, the US citizens wont accept that. It's a question of Money.. and life of their soldiers."
Partially true, though Americans would accept it if their were a compelling American interest involved (other than France and Kofi Annan said we should). If it is actually humanitarian concern and not an attempt by France to paint the US in further bad light, then why doesn't France go in? They have a basing in the area, the US does not.
"We need the UN."
I would prefer a UN mission to Liberia rather than a US mission. Problem is that the UN shows no inclination to take this problem on beyond calling for the US to act unilaterally to take care of the problem. Last month American diplomats sent out feelers to see if there would be any support for UN intervention in Liberia. I don't know if any results were published, but looking at what the UN is actually doing about it I'd guess that it was negative.
"So, I invite you to visit this :
http://www.un.org/english/
It's a valid source. The UN is not only the secutiry council. "
Been there, but for other research. I'll probably go looking for their success today, however, to help offset the magnitude of the failures that I know of.
". We can't say that there were UN interventions by force up to now. Maybe the First gulf war ?"
Korea for one. Though the truth is that never really ended. The UN brokered a cease-fire agreement and promptly left South Korea, which would have left them vulnerable to further attack from the North, but the US, Britain, and Canada (among others) stuck around to help it re-build, and to maintain a protective presence. Half a century of constant hostility because the UN sought a return to the status quo, rather than seeking peace.
"Inteventions up to now were mostly forces sent after the fights, to ensure that the war doesn't start again. The philosophy was rather this one up to now : Force the fighters to stop the war in a "diplomatic" way, then send troops to ensure that indded , the war will not start again."
Totally true. The effect, however, hasn't been that war doesn't start again, but rather that hostilities never end. The killing is far more limited than without the peacekeepers in some (if not most) cases, but I think the Balkans and the Congo show that it's not an effective solution, and the killing tends to start right up if the UN peacekeepers leave. Also, I don't know how effective UN peacekeepers actually are when they're not allowed to keep the peace. In the Congo they're not allowed to fight unless the UN compound itself is attacked. In the Balkans there are places where the ROE is weapons hold even after fired upon.
"Why ? The aim of the UN are these ones. I dont understand why it wouldnt be able to do it.."
Because the UN chooses not to. Look at their previous peace-keeping efforts. Where have they been successful? Has that success ever matched the same efforts by the Americans and the British?
"UN is able to keep an action in a long term.
Do you really see now the US engaged for 2 years, protecting liberians, organize elections ?
The cost of sych ambition for any problematic country would give almost an automatic victory to Democrats at the next elections. Bush can't go this way."
Ummmmm, Korea - half a century or so, Western Europe - half a century or so. Several hundred thousand American troops in place for long periods of time whose purpose is to prevent the renewal or start of hostilites, and to defend those areas should the enemy decide to attack. Those are pretty serious commitments, and the Western European commitment is no longer needed (and with the fall of the USSR no longer wanted).
The Democrats won't defeat the Republicans on this platform. They have a problem in that they have been petty and just about any argument they make now sounds like they put their own elections above America's security (they don't, but they sound like it) and the majority of Americans don't believe the Democrats are as effective in times of conflict as the Republicans. The hawks and warmongers have a better image than the doves and collabarators.
"Bush needs the UN, at least to do the "every day's job"."
You're mistaking convenience with need. We need the UN for everyday jobs so that 1) it looks good in the media, 2)the UN can interface with NGOs and 3)free up American resources for use elsewhere. That's convenience, not need. Need is what the UN has for countries that contribute soldiers.
"And when you need someone, you should be careful to not bash him."
True. Makes you wonder what the UN is thinking when they bash the US then ask for help. Do me a favor and remind France about that idea too.
Kal
" Do you remember about your friends only when you need them ?
I'm sad for your friends."
Britain and the US are friends. We disagree on things (War for the Falkland Islands anyone?) but we don't actively work against our friend's interests the way France did. We bitch about it and we back them up if they need it, but we don't stab them in the back while claiming to be their friend.
"Your lifetime is short is the scale of mankind. We were there in 1776, to save your ass."
After the Americans proved they could win battles, and after much cajolling. Still, for all that I know I am grateful to the King of France for sending ships (the French blockade made a huge difference) and for Rochambeau's 5,500 troops from France in 1780. I don't know that America should be particularly thankful to the French for killing those most responsible for helping us.
"If you think "it's old story", ""it was long time ago", then don't even try to speak about history.
History didn't start 50 years ago."
True, but it didn't stop 200 years ago either, and the US more than paid its debt to France (with interest) in WWI. 120,000 dead, compared to the number of French troops sent to the US in 1780.
I'm not sure how many French citizens came to the US to fight for the Americans (as private individuals) before France signed an alliance with the Americans in 1778. I don't know how many Americans joined British, Canadian and French forces prior to 1917 or 1941 either, but I do know that in both cases there were enough to form 'American' units.
Kal
Oh, and so long as we're bringing up old debts I'd like to thank the Polish Secret Resistance forces for getting an Enigma machine to the Brits right after they were invaded. I'd like to thank the Brits for being such manipulative bastards and battling isolationist/pro-nazi feelings in the US, Britain and France until Hitler's overall plans could be made public (or became obvious).
Sneaky British bastages.
Kal
Levis again your moronity comes back to haunt you.
I am a history major. In fact I can trace back my heritage all the way to the colony of Vermont in 1640. I am an indirect decedent of Nathan Hale, who uttered the immortal words, "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country." These words are in fact my motto.
Considering I am 35 years old lets see in that span of 3 1/2 decades how many times we (USA) ever needed France?
Vietnam?? No. France was the country who dragged us into that shit hole.
Remember the Berlin Disco bombing where American Service men were murdered by Lybian terrorists?
We asked from our friends the Frogs for the right to fly over with our f-111 bombers to make Quadaffi realize he was pissing off the wrong peeps. Of course our "Friends" would allow us to do that and endangered our pilotsby forcing them to fly a further and more dangerous rout.
Lets see, we go into Afghanistan and then after the Taliban is removed and Osama runs screaming like a girl the French come (Post war) to help "train" an Afghan army.
Now, after the shootings all but over in Iraq France is there to stick her greedy filth ridden fingers back in the pie. Of course Saddam was a madman, a butcher, his sons rapists and psychopaths but we were not allowed to go in..Heaven forbide that the evil little rat Dominique and Herr Ch-Iraq were doing business with should fall.
And since we (USA) have been doing the heavy lifting..the rest of the world is incapable of it, the French then decide that they will be a part of Iraqi reconstruction. I think Mr. Talabani and his friends need to be aware of this because I am pretty sure many of the Iraqi interim leaders are madder than hell at our French friends as well as those faggots in Germany and have determined they want nothing zero, nadda to do with the French or Germans...
COzmogirl,
you are a very offensive lady with a foul mouth and vitriolic tone but nothing of any note to say.
COzmogirl, relax and chill out a bit. You're not going to get anywhere with such vitriol.
Kal
All i have to say is you petty americans would be nothing without the french. I myself am of french hertiage that unfortunaltly was born in America. I am utterly ashamed of the way Amercia has become. The french came and saved the american's ass during the war for the americans to declare their independence from england. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps we would still be a territory of Britain, and have to abide by the English ways. No it didn't. All this is, is a little temper tantrum the Americans are having because the french won't help. So they want to not get involved in Iraq. Quite frankly, I wouldn't blame them. Look what Sadam and his people of done to the American military. I have a friend, who's uncle died over there. They never found his body. I have a neighbor that is 21 years old, and is being sent over seas. All I can do is pray he is not killed. Why would the french want to help the Americans screw themselves over? The Americans think the French owe them something after World War 2. But the French don't owe the Americans shit. And they are greedy and selfish to think that. Not to mention arrogant to become racists against the french, when they don't know jack shit about them. Not all French people feel the same. Just like not all Americans feel the same. The way I see it is the Americans are hypocrites not just for the way they are treating the french, but for other things that i'm not even going to get started on. Like I said I am highly ashamed of living in American in such prejudice times like this and as soon as I turn 18, I am through with this arrogant country. And as for the American citizens, they need to open up they're eyes and see what's going on in the world. Sorry but the world does not involve around America and it's people. Au revoir. (excuse my spelling, I'm only 15)
Nikki,
There was no need to mention your age. Your ignorance of History and basic facts is betraying you. And it's quite laughable.
You're right on one point though: you don't belong in America. You don't deserve to be born in America. And this is a French citizen telling you that.
Grow up quickly and come back to France, where you belong. L'Amérique ne s'en portera que mieux.
