You're saying the "freedom fries" thing was just a coincidence? No, there was a huge backlash against France, IMO motivated by the conservative/neocon propoganda machine that was in full effect at the time.
Of course there was a back lash. France's refusal to behave as an ally was pretty blunt and in our face. But do you think this was a brand new development? This friction between France and our government was something invented in 2002? Like I said, it was the straw that broke the camel's back. Without "Freedom Fries," we have always had to deal with this issue.
And I'm pretty sure that even your hatred for "neocons" won't remove the feelings all Americans were feeling about this. Even protestors of the war didn't appreciate France's stance on it or their bahavior against us.
It is a matter of record that France was prepared to send troops to Iraq in 2003, just as they had in 1991, and just as they did in Kosovo and Afghanistan. They just wanted to give the inspections more time to determine whether Iraq in fact had WMDs, because after months of searching in the places our "intellegence" said the WMDs were, nothing was found.
But Bush and the neocons knew the same things, that the inspectors were finding nothing, and that if they waited they might lose their excuse for their long held desire to take out Iraq. So Bush arrogantly told the French to **** off.
Turns out the French were right, the neocons were wrong, and we've been eating freedom fries and hearing jokes bashing French soldiers ever since.
BS. The "WMDs" in Iraq was as much an insignificant factor to the American government as it was to the French government from the very beginning. Our focus on WMD as an excuse gave them there excuse to stall. Our critics are in error when they accuse us of going in because of oil. The fact is that France didn't want us going in because of the instability it would cause to oil production. Our mistake was selling the removal of the worst brute in the Middle East who had attacked two neighboring countries, bought terrorist bombers, and enforced the Middle Eastern fear that resinates throughout, over WMDs. And the French were released from the responsibility of service to their fellow man.
Why, because they didn't join in the "mistake" of attacking Iraq?
Your asking me if the De Gualle syndrom that has had a grip on French politics abroad since the 50s is attributed to our invasion into Iraq? With or without Iraq, De Gaulle politics exist. You see, you are the only one on this site who keeps trying to contribute this friction between France and America solely over Iraq with complete denial of our political histories. Iraq is merely the latest and most publicly displayed.
And individuals of moral code would label the "mistake" as being how we ignored what needed to happen after the tyrant was removed. Not in removing him at all.
And French soldier fought with our in the first Gulf war, in Kosovo and in Afghanistan. In the case of Afghanistan, they French had no reason to send troops there. Given their large Muslim population it was not in their interest to do so. They did it because of solidarity and friendship with us.
Why they would, given the attitude you and others express about them, I have no idea.
Why they would? Because it enables them their free ride of claiming to be with us. Do you know how many French soldiers have actually fought? Any idea how many pulled their triggers in the Gulf War, Kosovo, or Afghanistan? The Japanese were with us in Iraq also. Care to call them a contributor also? They send the bare minimum and insist on lagging behind like the rest of them. Most of the fighting in Afghanistan is being conducted by Americans and Brits. Most all other NATO contributors have done very little and do so under our air support (you think they rent our missiles and bombs?). They are commended for bravery for "fighting" with us in Afghsniatsn due to their large angry Muslim crowd, but not cowering over not attacking Saddam Hussein due to their large angry Muslim crowd? I got news for them, attempting to preserve Saddam Hussein and his minority of Sunni will not give them a free ticket in the end.
So, the French haven't "fought" beside us at all. And this is exactly what I mean when I challenge people to think about what they have actually ever done for us. The last time the French ever fought along side of us was when they had to liberate their own country.
And you have no idea, because you choose to pretend that all of this friction came in 2002, despite an overwhelming documentation resource pool to pull from from American and European writers over the last thirty years.
Wrong. France was prepared to send its troops. See above.
Wrong. They were never going to commit, because we allowed them their argument of WMD as the sole reason to take out Saddam Hussein and they knew it. Some how the world convinced itself that allowing him to return to Iraq after the Gulf War was "right," but taking him out later had to involve WMD. This is pathetic. We may as well have attacked up to the German border and sent Hitler back to Berlin. Something like this wouldn't do in Europe though would it? Attacking Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do once we got rid of the international laws that protected him...even after he invaded two neighboring countries. But America, with the help of intellectual habit and ignorant critics, got the stigma of attacking for oil. But where is the oil? It would have been cheaper to buy it. Where's the stigma that should be bestowed on France for wanting to protect the stability of oil by continuing to allow the tyrant to fester? This was the real reason they wanted him unmolested.
Good question. What did the US do other than stand by in 1939-40 when France stood up to Germany for invading Poland, and the German forces were on the French border?
This is not the same thing at all, because we were not established "allies" then. I would think that committing our blood and treasure shortly after, despite the fact that we were fighting our threat all by our lonesome in our back yard since '41, would have been an apology. I would have thought that all the treasure and sweat we gave them during the entire Cold War in and out of their region would have been a sort of ammends. America has gone way beyond the scope of any nation in history when it comes to protecting and preserving the security of it's "friends." Something we have never and will never see a return on. But we will receive more than our fair share of criticism and betrayal won't we?
But didn't Europe seek to keep the world from its violent affairs through the pathetic League of Nations anyway? Aren't we criticized for intervening by the same friends who accuse us of not coming to the party until dark? In the end, you know it's true that a 9/11 scenario on French soil would have seen a swift American retaliation before the French even figured out who hit them. And they would want to do something to prevent another. And they would turn to us. We would not deny them or seek to dictate what they should or should not do, especially in front of the world for their entertainment. We would aid them largely because even they see what we see, which is that th eindividual Arab terrorist is not the true threat. They just don't have the courage or conviction to do the necessary and seek to do what they always do - the bare minimum, when they have to, while we receive the black eye of hatred.
But maybe we should have only sent enough troops to guard the southern Italian peninsula. That way we could have declard that we "fought" along side them for the credit.
Sure. Just like we rushed over to help them in 1939. Like Canada did.
I guess they paid us back then, right? Everything we have done since 1944 just isn't going to make up for it at all in your book is it? The fact that we were busy with our own problems come 1941 didn't deter us from eventually getting involved in their instigated war doesn't sooth your criticism at all? Like Europeans, you define the Second World War by identifying what occurred in Europe alone. The center of the universe ceased being France and Germany a long time ago.
Why would you seek to hold our refusal to get involved in the European theater-after no real history of ally building-in the same category as their refusal to at least show up to kick a well known and established tyrant's *** after fifty plus years of "friendship?" Justifying their betrayal today by invoking a period before our established friendships long ago just doesn't work.
We people having atittudes like you, we don't deserve an ally like France.
Oh? We don't
deserve an ally like France? Is this because they are so powerful and so active in our mission to guide the free world? It is of such great influence in the world that it is something to deserve? You have it backwards. France has not done for us in the twentieth century. We have done for them. It's they who have never really deserved us as an ally. All we have ever gotten in return was snobbish criticism and De Gaulle ambition. Hell, they were even robbing our troops of their wallets during the 50s in the streets of Paris. We don't deserve them? Give me a break.
LOL -- You don't remember Bush's comments about "Old Europe" eh?
"Old Europe" is a term used long before Bush by authors who knew all about the European mood. Fifty years of being the "better man" is defined by a Bush statement? Like I stated..."How many times can you remember when the American government ever publicly aired its opinions about France?" How many Presidents and institutions ever looked for reasons to report to the world where France was wrong? All the activity in Africa by French troops in their former colonies have gone without American criticism by our politicians and intellectual institutions. This is not what we see coming out of France for anything America does. I knew you would default to something Bush said. It allows you to keep pretending that France and America were life long friends before Iraq.
And you know what is pathetic? For two nations that are supposed to stand for freedom, democracy, and human rights, they sure have a difference of opinion about a tyrant like Saddam Hussein. Yugoslavia was a purely internal issue, but because it was in Europe, we absolutely had to do something. We absolutely had to bomb, deploy, kill, and enforce our rules. Too bad Iraq isn't bordering France, eh? We would have heard a different tune all together about Saddam Hussein. America is acting more in line with its preachings over the last century than France is, yet you choose to defend France?
