First, Pave’s warm thanks to our French correspondents who have taken the time to commemorate America's part in the liberation of France. Some nice tributes were paid by France to express gratitude for Allied sacrifice on her behalf.

But Jack just couldn't pass up this opportunity to not shut up.

Elsewhere, Jack mush-mouthed:

We must understand that war never leads to a positive settlement of human difficulties. There are always scars that are left after the end of wars.

(To avoid scarring, best forgo any surgeries or root canals or cavity fills. Oh, and the next time Germany drops by with the Sichelschnitt, just let them take what they want.)

So what I hope we can do is be associated with an endeavor that shows… our whole values are the best values and also show we’re not trying to impose these values.

So the best values should defer to lesser values, mediocrity, and/or outright bad values? Jack hammers another shimmering lump of French Jell-O philosophy to the wall.

I think it is a fair question to ask, how long is one nation beholden to another for its liberation, its freedom, the restoration of its fortunes? Jack, speaking for France, says forever:

Mr Chirac said the French would forever remain grateful to America.

"France will never forget," Mr Chirac said. "It will never forget those men who made the supreme sacrifice to liberate our soil, our native land, our continent, from the yoke of Nazi barbarity and its murderous folly. Nor will it ever forget its debt to America, its everlasting friend."

But "forever", "never", and "everlasting" are all short-lived concepts in France.

Blow away the bunting and the feeling in France is somewhere between "Ouais, ouais, merci" and "Pfft".

¡No Pasarán! reports:

[T]he CSA polling company has released the results of a survey which found that 50% of the French public feel that France has no moral debt to the United States. This opinion is shared by 63% of those aged 18 to 24 years, 58% of those 25 to 34, 54% of those 35 to 49, 48% of those 50 to 64 and even 32% of those 65 and older. Among the professions, farmers thought this in the greatest majority (62%) while retirees and the self-employed were the least likely to share this view (39%). The study also found that 82% of the French felt that France was sufficiently grateful to the US and that as little as 3% admire the US.

We are not campaigning for French admiration -- we do quite well without it -- but in the context of the other findings, it is obvious that French gratitude to America, such as it is, is suffused with disdain.

Before going dark, Merde in France brought this sorry tract from the folk at ACG (“Agir Contra la Guerre”) to our attention.

[All emphases added.]

So commemoration du débarquement is an occasion to bloviate and make nice, but Americans should not be surprised to learn that beyond this French gratitude is spent. And were D-Day the whole of France's debt to America, well, three generations does thin out the spirit. But America followed up France's liberation with France's restoration, the Marshall Plan, and, most importantly, NATO.

France expects every American consideration to begin with acknowledging M. Lafayette's bringing France over to the colonists' cause. And M. Lafayette is still gratefully and fondly remembered here some 220+ years hence. And rightly so. Yet, America's steadfast reciprocations are remembered, if remembered at all, with an aridity, a smallness of spirit, in the desert of gratitude that is France.

ADDENDUM: In a post on the virtue of gratitude, it would be remiss not to remark the passing of Ronald Wilson Reagan, born February 6, 1911, died June 5, 2004. The world over owes him a debt of thanks that cannot be paid.

Mr. Reagan loved America and America in turn loved Mr. Reagan. He did not win everyone to his politics, though he won record numbers. It is hard to explain the personal sadness at his passing. It is a profound sense that something good has gone from us.

Thank you, Mr. President.

The French never fail to disappoint!
Especially in their own "nuanced" and sophisticated way to "thank" us simplistic "cowboys" in ways we could never comprehend.

http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2004/06/media_critics_t.html

I think polls generally tend to answer questions you want to hear. Your poll also suggest that 50% DO feel they owe the US gratitude, hence your "desert" analogy is rather exagerated. When 52% of American high school kids in a recent poll do not know who the US fought in WW2 (never mind La Fayette's contribution to the American independence), you cannot expect either that a great number of French kids to understand the significance of American contribution in WW2, and it's sad, I admit it. I think you are confusing ignorance with "ungratitude".

When 52% of American high school kids in a recent poll do not know who the US fought in WW2

To be more exact, a Gallup Poll ("How much do Americans know about D-Day?") indicates that 40% of 18-24 year old Americans do not know where the D-Day landing was, 47% of the same froup do not know who the enemy was.

My point is, how do you expect the same age group in France to comprehend what "gratitude" towards the US really mean? (incidentally the same group who eat at McDonalds the most, listens to hip-hop and wear Nike shoes).

I have been in Europe for the past few days. Watching the BBC makes it pretty clear why Europeans seem incapable of thinking for themselves. The story on the UNSC resolution only said that Bush was forced to compromise, but gave no details of the compromise. Now I finally get a little web access and I realize that the compromise was little more than a fig leaf of the Euro-weenies, as it does not give the interim govt the right to veto military actions, as was sought by France.

I could go on about the one-sided coverage given Reagan's death. How many times can one mention the 'contras' without once acknowledging that Nicaragua is now a free and demcratic country, which holds regular elections in which the Sandanistas participate?

It is little wonder that you Europeans seem so ill-informed. I used to think it was blind partisanship, now I see that your betters in the news media and govt withold data from you that might lead you to stray from the 'correct' position.

Unfortunately, I beleive the same can be said about US news...

M. Zoomerx,

Well, of course you are right that I exaggerate. The idea is to provoke thoughtful counter-argument. And you have.

I might argue that there is a qualitative difference between young Americans being unaware and young French being unaware.

First, as some have argued here, French education is purported to be superior to American education. Perhaps, then it is not.

Second, the forebears of American teens fought to free France, representing an indirect interest. The forebears of French teens were largely liberated by Americans, which was in their direct interest.

Third, I am guessing here, but I imagine the liberation of one's country would be a longer and more reverberant memory than a memory of fighting overseas for someone else's liberation.

But I was more consternated by the "54% of those 35 to 49, 48% of those 50 to 64 and even 32% of those 65 and older" that feel no moral debt to the United States. (The 18-24 percentage just seemed so huge.) Surely the 50 to 64 percentage is ungratefully large; surely the 65 and older number should be a thankful zero.

The French make much of Iraq being merely a political difference between friends, like a girlfriend who is "un Peniste" but still a lot of fun. But this is not how Americans see it. Jack & co., far more than Mr. Bush, seem to have an all or nothing approach to their American foreign policy. America won't play French ball? Good! That disobliges France of any consideration of America, past or present.

Except for Jack's more ham-handed comments, the commemorations were very nice. Sadly, not everyday is a D-Day commemoration in France.

Regards,
DGB

I'm always a little suspicious of polls (Americans seem to have an obsession with them). Who conducts them (America, French?)? Where? How many people interviewed? What is the full context of the question asked (example: was WW2 specifically mentioned when asked about "moral debt"?) etc...

America won't play French ball? Good! That disobliges France of any consideration of America, past or present.

I am grateful to you and always be, that does not mean I will jump off a cliff if you ask me to.

"I am grateful to you and always be, that does not mean I will jump off a cliff if you ask me to."

And nobody expects you to zoomer. All we ask is that you stop trying to push us off.

M. Zoomerx,

A link was provided to the original survey. Here it is again. The Fiche Technique is described at the top of the page.

The lead question mentions WWII, the specific question about the moral debt to America reads, in the original:

Pensez-vous que depuis le débarquement, la France a une dette morale envers les Etats-Unis ?

The title of the survey is: Le regard des Français sur le débarquement

Just what other French understandings of le débarquement other than the Normandy landings make sense in this context?

It was conducted by CSA, a French market research firm. Are French polling companies unreliable or not to be trusted? We'll take your word on this.

I do not know that Americans are obsessed by polls, but the French newspapers seem to have their fair share of them. So, perhaps this is a pan-national obsession.

Of course, our sense of French anti-Americanism or hostility to America is not based on polls. The polls seem only to support French government pronouncements, calumniations, and canards about America and its intentions. The polls also support the tone of the French media reporting on America. And lastly, the polls support the sentiments expressed by some of your compatriot franchouilles posting here at Pave.

M. Zoomerx, I will not ask you to jump off a cliff, but Mr. Jimmy the Clam has got it right: we'd appreciate France not trying to push America off.

Regards,
DGB

"we'd appreciate France not trying to push America off."
....since America already does a good job of jumping off all by itself?

"The story on the UNSC resolution only said that Bush was forced to compromise, but gave no details of the compromise"
Because Fox News sure went as far as saying that Bush had to compromise and that it took five weeks so that the resolution would state that the new govt would be informed of what is going on on its own territory?

How many times can one mention the 'contras' without once acknowledging that Nicaragua is now a free and demcratic country, which holds regular elections in which the Sandanistas participate?
A lot of times, particularly if one thinks that Mr.Reagan had Nicaragua's ports mined, crippling the local economy for years to come (a deed for which the US was condemned for state terrorism by the UN court of justice - a privilege it is alone to have as your very informing press might have let you know). I am sure your free press had a lot to say about this.
There are a lot of democracies in South America (if not all of them) in which the former ruling party still has seats in the government/in the democratic opposition, as in democratic Nicaragua. Yet, not so many had a local guerilla financed by the US (but then they also mostly were military dictatorships, with their leaders coming straight out of the School of Americas in Fort Benning, GA).

No critical thinking, always blaiming the others. Typical Ameri-thug.

we'd appreciate France not trying to push America off.

Excuse me?

UN court of justice? Whats that?

Who in the UN knows anything about justice?

Excuse me?

M. Zoomerx,

Surely it hasn't escaped your attention that the prevailing opinion here at Pave is that France intentionally makes mischief for the United States. Hence, the push remark building on your own analogy.

M. Evil,

Yours is a rather pathetic post. You've got complaints but no argument. But why bother with sequiturs when you're just having fun slinging slop. We realize that you're in a snit about the United States mining Nicaragua's harbors, but just what deleterious bearing does that have on the free elections of Nicaragua?

Regarding the ICJ, had you taken the time to inform yourself or avail yourself of "your very informing press", you’d've known that neither the indictment sought nor the ruling found for any charge of state terrorism. This is your own fabulous addition. Nor was the United States condemned by the ICJ, it was ruled against. Another of your fabulous editorial enhancements.

The indictment alleged only a violation of international law in the support of guerrillas at war against a sitting government. By this measure France is indictable for supporting Hamas against the sovereign state of Israel.

Also, ICJ does not enjoy a "privilege" in rulings. It is granted a jurisdiction, in this case, the right and power to interpret and apply the nebulous canons of international law. However, unlike sovereign courts, it has no competence for enforcement. This makes it a quasi-legal entity. The ICJ is used by participating nations to justify their pet projects or national pique.

Your comment on South American democracies is simply confusing. In contesting Mr. DeProg's point, you appear to argue that South American democracies are largely derivative of United States projects, which, of course, was Mr. DeProg's point.

Please feel free to come and post your sneers, only try to make your complaints coherent, more or less in line with the established facts, and to the point contested. Why not try some critical thinking?

Regards,
DGB

We defeated the Japanese Empire in the 'wrong way' too? Just curious. Would it have been better after scores of millions had died in four years on conflict to continue the fight conventionally rather than win decisively and tamp down the global nightmare to a huge degree?

Is the fact that Japan is a pacifist democracy now overshadowed by our use of a weapon that scares you?

Do you really expect us to care that you believe we win dirty? Hint: we don't.

I am sure that a majority of Iraqis want Saddam beck because we removed him 'in the wrong way'.

This removing tyrants 'in the wrong way' seems to be a continuing concern on your side. Could you please explain why you think that it is better to leave tyrant, slave-seeking regimes like the Soviet Union in place than to defeat them 'in the wrong way'?

I know that France has a long history of success using these 'better methods' that are always hinted at by your side, and I know that I don't know about them because our media has witheld the news of these examples from us. So please share the history of success without force of arms that your arguments all seem to be based on.

All Nicaragua has to do to go back to the Sandanistas is elect them. Yet they don't. They don't seem to mind the mining of the harbors nearly as much as you. Just like the Iraqis don't seem to mind Saddam being removed as much as you do.

You should get therapy for your inferiority complex that seems to drive this pointless rage.

Dear all,

...
Oh well forget it. I was going to write something nice and verbose, but time is running.
I'll go line-by-line instead:

Yours is a rather pathetic post.
I somewhat agree, but I had not much time to spare for more than a cheap shot at DeProg's own pathetic comment.

You've got complaints but no argument. But why bother with sequiturs when you're just having fun slinging slop. We realize that you're in a snit about the United States mining Nicaragua's harbors, but just what deleterious bearing does that have on the free elections of Nicaragua?

You really try hard to be verbose (and you sure like to read yourself, I could bet my ass on it), but in the end only deviate from the original point to denigrate posters. Before you reply, cut pompous crap and save some time for critical thinking: ask yourself, as I was implying in the first place for instance, how mining ports really helped democratization. "They didn't mind demining" is not a valid answer.

Regarding the ICJ (..) the United States condemned by the ICJ, it was ruled against.
You are playing with words, but so be it (I will also blame my own imperfect command of English). The ICJ is mostly used as an arbitration tribunal for territorial disputes, its rulings are more like opinions to which countries -those that do not have enough tanks, that is- try to comply. That's the weak spot of the UN: its constitutive members are all independent countries. I thought it nevertheless an interesting opinion.

The indictment alleged only a violation of international law in the support of guerrillas at war against a sitting government.
Dammit, the US was only blatantly violating the international law! What's your point then?

By this measure France is indictable for supporting Hamas against the sovereign state of Israel.
1. Assertion. From your own comments, I'd expect
assertion-> proof. The "Hamasgate" still has to show up (before you object, rest assured I do not seriously believe that ransoms paid for French hostages in Lebanon all went to charities. Yet, what's that compared to selling weapons to your 2nd-worst enemy while it is at war with one of your own ally?).
2. How do you call openly mining an independant nation's ports with your warships and not care about what people think? Hint: I'd say it starts with "arr..." and ends up with "..gance". Since I am an arrogant French myself, I'm only pointing at this for the sake of irony. You do not need to justify yourself on that one.
3.The rule of law is largely the weapon of the weaker ones. Others can afford to bombard. That's why Israel won't sue Syria and Lebanon over Hamas, and the Palestinian have to go to court to contest the separation wall. Don't you agree?

In contesting Mr. DeProg's point, you appear to argue that South American democracies are largely derivative of United States projects, which, of course, was Mr. DeProg's point.

I maybe was only to suggest that Mr.Deprog's comment hinted that mining a dictatorship is only valid when it is not one's own pet dictatorship? (that these "projects", as you call them, would later become democracies sure was irrelevant at a time of cold confrontation). Since you seem to think of yourselves as the only champions of moral righteousness, I need some enlightning counter-argumentation on that one. Not just "this is confusing".

Why not try some critical thinking?
I was going to ask the same.

A few spelling mistakes in the previous post, sorry about that.

This removing tyrants 'in the wrong way' seems to be a continuing concern on your side.
Well if it creates more problemes than it solves solutions, yes. If removing tyrants is such a continuing concern for you, M.Zoomerx has a list of bad people for you to check out.

Just like the Iraqis don't seem to mind Saddam being removed as much as you do
Because the terrorists being recruited on this propaganda mess-up won't come around blowing them up. Oh wait, they also do. Then maybe terrorists are the lesser of two evils for the iraqis. For me, that is indeed quite the contrary.

You ameri-thugs should get around the idea that there is no simple answer to complex questions. Not even if you have a bigger gun.

You should get therapy for your inferiority complex that seems to drive this pointless rage.
I'll rather seek my remote control than therapy, and go check out the euro 2004. Pointless rage will come when Sweden doesn't make it to the final round and gets me to lose a few dollars.
Italy-Denmark 0-0: so far, so good.

Ca commence bien pour la Suède...

Speaking of pointless rage... Nothing worse than a drunk British football fan.

RE: "I have been in Europe for the past few days. Watching the BBC makes it pretty clear why Europeans seem incapable of thinking for themselves. The story on the UNSC resolution only said that Bush was forced to compromise, but gave no details of the compromise. Now I finally get a little web access and I realize that the compromise was little more than a fig leaf of the Euro-weenies, as it does not give the interim govt the right to veto military actions, as was sought by France.

I could go on about the one-sided coverage given Reagan's death. How many times can one mention the 'contras' without once acknowledging that Nicaragua is now a free and demcratic country, which holds regular elections in which the Sandanistas participate?

It is little wonder that you Europeans seem so ill-informed. I used to think it was blind partisanship, now I see that your betters in the news media and govt withold data from you that might lead you to stray from the 'correct' position."

Europe being mislead by their media?
CNN
FOX News.
It's not just the Europeans being mislead.... The US seems to be constantly mislead and controlled... it's just the way that those in power keep their population dumb enough to let them make some more money and stay a bit longer in power.
1st steps to get out of it?... read more from news sources all around the world and see how every country is slanting their news coverage. It's amazing to see how different Canadian, US, european, and Asian news differs on the same event.
Keep informed.

As for Reegan: he's dead. We'll all be dead. I'll always remember him for the Star Wars defence system and his on-air joke about pressing the button and nuking Russia.

Live for the moment.
Remember the past but don't get bogged down in it.

The "Hamasgate" still has to show up

Hardly.
France: No proof Hamas is terror group
I guess France didn't bother with anything as silly as reading the Hamas charter, watching the news, or listening to Hamas. The art of not paying attention when they proudly declare responsibility for terrorism must be difficult to master, but forgive me if I don't admire France for making the effort. France doesn't count charities that line the pockets of Hamas and Islamic Jihad as supporting terror - how delusional can France be? France not only permits, but champions the defense of terrorist funding.

That's why Israel won't sue Syria and Lebanon over Hamas, and the Palestinian have to go to court to contest the separation wall. Don't you agree?

Actually, I think it's because Israel has no illusions about its chances of successfully suing anyone for any reason, ever. Can you recall a single act of defense Israel has not been internationally condemned for? I'm pleased that you mention the wall, since it's a perfect example. After building the first wall annual attacks against Israel and IDF forces dropped from over 5,000 to roughly 2,800, loss of life on both sides decreased dramatically, and homicide bombings comitted against civilians in that area stopped altogether. It's the single most passive measure Israel has ever taken - and could concievably ever take - in its defense. Yet that wall is under constant attack... and is building this wall such unusual behavior that it should be so roundly condemned?

Walls separating conflict zones have been in place in Cyprus, Iraq/Kuwait, and Korea for years now, and no one's panties seem to be in a bunch over it. Oh, but this is different, there's no official DMZ in Israel/Palestine, right? Let's make a game of this.

Alright. There is no international outcry over anti-terrorism fences in Northern Ireland, Thailand/Malaysia, or India/Bangladesh. One, two, three strikes - you're out. Wait, I know - those are different, those aren't in disputed territory, right? Batter up!

Ok, then there should be UN resolutions regarding the anti-terror barriers in India/Pakistan, Saudi Arabia/Yemen, and Kyrgyzstan/Uzbekistan, right? Hmm. Nope. Another batter down. Oh, but the Israeli wall is "racist" because it doesn't allow Palestinians to saunter into Israel at a whim, isn't that the next complaint?

Fine. Then how about the walls and fences cutting off illegal immigration in places like Spain/Morocco or Botswana/Zimbabwe? Two strikes, but we have a man at bat - the US/Mexico barrier! Yes, the racist US wall! Home run! *French crowd goes wild* Dr. Evil wins the game.

This would be the perfect time to ask why the US isn't foursquare behind international courts, by the way. Go ahead - pretend you haven't got a clue.

You ameri-thugs should get around the idea that there is no simple answer to complex questions. Not even if you have a bigger gun.

Maybe you euro-weenies can enumerate the countless obstacles which have been overcome by inaction and appeasement? No, don't bother - we know the history of those policies, don't we.

Declaring a question complex doesn't remove the burden of answering it, but sanctimonious condemnation seems a simple enough alternative for you to manage. Perhaps it's only the portion of the answer you've chosen to observe that is simple, however I suspect that it's your understanding of the actual question. Would you care to prove me wrong and frame it in it's entirety?

Well I guess the only option left for France is to directly sell French missiles to Hamas, so as to be on a real par with the Irangate. That'll give jobs for the industry and funding for "pet projects" in other countries. Quite clever, indeed.

Thank you also for the numerous fences you mention around the world but that is, at best, irrelevant. Israel is designing the borders it wants. Being such a great advocate of fairness and justice-for-all, please explain why it wouldn't build this wall on its 1967 borders (which are internationally recognized, or close enough), if it weren't for a policy of de facto land annexation. The wall in itself doesn't bother me as much as where it is built.

Maybe you euro-weenies can enumerate the countless obstacles which have been overcome by inaction and appeasement?
You mean like when the UK went to give a beating to Argentina in the Falklands (with French support), while the Reagan administration first tried to play the whole thing down (the "bunch of icy rocks" thing)? No, you are right, action is sometimes needed. But I still believe there is a difference between self-defense and bullying around. Your arrogant rhetorics won't change anything to that.

The Commission's report will be out on July 28th. I shall come back on the 29th and ask for a formal apology.

Thank you also for the numerous fences you mention around the world but that is, at best, irrelevant. Israel is designing the borders it wants. Being such a great advocate of fairness and justice-for-all, please explain why it wouldn't build this wall on its 1967 borders (which are internationally recognized, or close enough), if it weren't for a policy of de facto land annexation. The wall in itself doesn't bother me as much as where it is built.

I even took the trouble to inclide three instances of other countries putting fences outside disputed borders (which you term "designing the borders they want"), and you still managed to evade the point.

The fences are irrelevant only after putting forth the effort to miss the relevant point - Israel doesn't have anything resembling hope of getting a fair shake in an international court when the international scene is fixated on vilifying Israel. The point was, very simply, that no one else is under attack for doing exactly what they've done, for exactly the same reasons. And you'd like to pretend that they can get a fair day in court? Israel is not permitted the right even to defend itself in the much of the world's court of public opinion, as the wall proves pretty conslusively.

In order to preempt the predictable insistance that "Oh, of course Israel has a right to defend itself, but..." I asked the relevant question "what was the last act of defense Israel was not loudly criticised for?" You declined to answer in favor of attacking the wall with specious claims of annexation, which makes my point rather nicely. I won't be so crass as to ignore your question, though - the answer in two parts is

1) The arab nations don't recognize the 1967 borders; they reject even the 1948 borders. It really doesn't matter who else recognizes them when the arabs won't.

2) The wall isn't built beyond Israel's border to "design the borders they want". Perhaps you can show me exactly when Israel annexed those lands? No, of course you can't, that's the thing about spurious arguments. Like the Golan Heights, it's to take away the option of attacking Israel from that land. It establishes a "buffer zone" outside the range of the rockets which are routinely fired toward Israeli cities.

In one area it apparently does go significantly (a few miles, I think) into Palestinian territory to enclose an Israeli settlement - if you constrained your objection to this particular excess, you would have a legitimate criticism. However, it seems to be outside of European character to separate babies and bathwater when it comes to Israel.

The Commission's report will be out on July 28th. I shall come back on the 29th and ask for a formal apology.

For what, exactly? If you can't tell me what bearing the commission might possibly have on anything I've said, I'm going to ask for a formal apology.

Wait, wait - this commision thing is a reference to your cryptic "complex questions" jab, isn't it? Let me put on my psychic hat to try and divine what you couldn't be troubled to communicate: "Saddam did not orchestrate the 9-11 attacks, so therefore Iraq was not a legitimate target in the war on terror".

That's great, but it's refuting an assertion that no one made. Once again, I need to point out that the "war on terror" is not the "war on the perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks". Struggle with that until you grasp it. Let me try math

The war is against set [terror]. [Al Qaeda] is a subset of set [terror]. [9-11 perpetrators] is a subset of [al Qaeda]. Just because [Saddam] is not known, proven, or even suspected to be a member of [9-11 perpetrators] does not exclude him from membership in [terror]. His contributions to [al Qaeda] and other [terror] subsets anchor his membership somewhere within set [terror].

If you still haven't got it, I insist that you never again pretend that logic holds any place in anti-war "reasoning".

Incidentally, I note that you've failed to frame the question you declared complex. My surprise equals the sound of one hand clapping. Tell me - how do you propose to answer questions you cannot even state?

1. [Fish] can swim
2. [Doug] can swim
3. Then [Doug] is a [fish]

That's about the quality of you math.

Two wrongs don't make a right, I'm afraid, and for the 120 billions spent on the Iraq fiasco I am sure the US could have done something to improve justice and democracy (or at least its standing) in the world, rather than increase the number of kids that are willing to blow themselves up for some pointless jihad.

Your math teachers should be punished.