Posted on 03/13/2003 3:15:43 PM PST by MadIvan
It is not American soil, but it has been appropriated to the U.S. to control and maintain hence forth.
Maybe, but that is a cynical, illegitimate, and despicable thing to do on their part. (The issue, to which France already agreed last calendar year, was supposed to be to disarm Iraq - and Iraq hasn't done so. Why is France focusing on "trying to prevent us" from doing something, rather than the straightforward question of whether Iraq has disarmed?)
And don't get me wrong: they have the "right" to vote however they want. They have the "right" to act like jerkwads. I'm just saying that they shouldn't expect to act like jerkwads without being called jerkwads. There is something called "responsibility", and I hold France responsible for their actions, and it is perfectly right and proper that I do so.
And NO I am not defending their actions. I am just saying the French Government does not represent the true feelings of all the French people, just as Clinton did not reflect the true spirt of all Americans.
I have posted this before... exhuming those soldiers' remains and returning them to American soil is not just something we should contemplate because of France's outrageous behavoir at the U.N., there are other compelling reasons. Remember that those are Christian and Jewish graves in a land that is doing nothing to stem the rising tide of Islam. Those graves will eventually be desecrated; history has too many examples of this behavior to ignore.
Maybe we should put the question to our surviving WWII veterans. There's a big WWII Memorial planned for Washington, D.C. - but perhaps the veterans would prefer a different sort of memorial.
Overly dramatic? Perhaps. But also a very powerful message.
You bring into play an entirely different scenario then that proposed by the Congress woman. I interpreted the Bill as being a gut reaction to the recent public outrage of the decision of the french government to place the French business interests in Iraq over the lives of Americans. Thus I would oppose her bill.
However, if desecration of US graves was in fact occuring,(beyond occassional pranks) and the French government/police were not taking any action to prevent its occurance, then I would support a bill that allowed (and paid) for the exhumation of the remains.
1. We won't be "in violation" of anything. The UN has no authority to forbid us to fight a war against Iraq, even if they passed some kind of "US can't attack Iraq" resolution, which they haven't. The most that could be said is that our attack will not have UN sanction. So frickin' what.
2. And you've proved my point. Earlier you were (seemingly) trying to defend France by saying they were "only" trying to withhold UN authority from our attack, not trying to prevent the attack itself. So I brought up the possibility of our attack without UN approval and now you're trying to lay the groundwork for the idea that for France to whine about it would be ok.
No, it wouldn't. It would make them a bunch of jerkwads, because it would represent an effort by them to prevent us from engaging in national defense. Like I said. Now hopefully you see why I complain: I complain because they are trying to prevent us from doing something we need to do for national security. (The fact that they probably won't succeed in preventing us doesn't make me like them more, understand? It's the effort itself, not whether it's successful, which makes them jerkwads.)
But even if it is, we've never let international law stop us from doing something we wanted to, and it certainly won't here.
I hope not. But I still don't want to have to listen to frickin' whining from France about it. capisce? ;-)
However, if desecration of US graves was in fact occuring,(beyond occassional pranks) and the French government/police were not taking any action to prevent its occurance, then I would support a bill that allowed (and paid) for the exhumation of the remains.
I believe your interpretation is correct - this is a reaction to what the French have been doing of late. It is also a message, especially if it generates some news. That alone might be sufficient - for now.
This idea was first kicked around here on FR around the time of the recent French elections. It was then, and remains fairly clear that France is going to undergo some unpleasant changes, and in the not too distant future. I hope we don't wait for the place to come under Islamic sharia law before we act. The situation there certainly warrants our continued close scrutiny.
Right. And he's emboldening a murderous, psycopathic dictator. He's going to get more of our guys killed in the process.
Americans will not forget.
I must add, however, that the French gardeners have been fastidious about maintaining the graves there. The people of Normandy actually seemed to care and appreciate our efforts.
Mr Blair and President Chirac will meet.
I sure would like to be a "fly on the wall" for that one!
Can you back that up in any way? From what I've heard the French media is gushing over him, comparing him to Charles DeGaulle, Charlemagne, and Nelson Mandela. And the polls show his popularity at about 90%. Remember he is the conservative leader in France, and the socialists are even more anti-American, if that's possible. So if you have any facts to support your wishful argument, let's hear them.
Exactly. Even if this situation with Iraq wasn't happening, I'd still support moving our war dead from France before it becomes majority Muslim and they desecrate the graves.
Point One: That the French press, is as reflective of an indicator of the ideology of the French population as the USA press is an indicator of the ideology of the people of the USA.
Point two: Polls in France are as indicative of French politics as the polls of the USA are as indicative of our politics.
If you do not accept the above points, then there is no need to read further. But if you feel they are valid, then, I hope you will continue.
Can you back that up in any way?
Yes, I will give some specifics and with some leg work, you can confirm my stats.
From what I've heard the French media is gushing over him,
Much as the liberal media has gushed over Bill Clinton?
comparing him to Charles DeGaulle, Charlemagne,
Certainly two very strong Frenchmen in history. But hardly what you would consider to be Socialists or liberals by today's standards.
and Nelson Mandela.
Does he really belong in the same comparison as de Gaulle?
And the polls show his popularity at about 90%.
Bush I's numbers were in the same stratosphere after the Gulf War. So much for polls.
Remember he is the conservative leader in France,
Actually he is the middle position, not the right.
and the socialists are even more anti-American, if that's possible.
see stats below.
So if you have any facts to support your wishful argument,
your accusatory tone will be ignored. I speak not in defense of France, but more from a logical perspective. One which allows for differences of opinions. I also fully acknowledge that France is far more leftist, then we are in the states.
let's hear them.
Well since you asked:
In April of 2002 Fance held round one of their elections. Their methodolgy differs from ours in that all candidates run and then only the top two have a run-off. The results were:
Chirac (middle) - 20% (I am rounding off)
Le Pen (right)- 17%
Jospin (left)- 16%
Bayrou (?)- 7%
Laguiller(communist) -6%
Chevenement(?) - 5%
Namere (green)- 5%
Other Leftists - 7%
So in may they had round two and Chirac garnered 80% of the vote. Why?
Because the Communist/socialist press of France did a Blitzkrieg against le Pen.
Suggestion: do a google search on Le Pen and count how many times "facist" is mentioned with him.
If you really believe that Chirac represents the French 100% then you also must believe that that the NY Times and Bill Clinton represented the American people in 1998.
So Le Pen finished a very close second to Chirac, the the leftists mobilized behind Chirac after the press Blitz and Chirac kicked ass. I see Le Pen's strong performance (and when combined with other indicators) that Europe in general is shifting to the right, not the left. This shift is slow, but it is also real ( Netherlands being another example).
Le Pen scared the hell out of the French Liberal Press (much more liberal then ours) and thay did everything they could to defeat him ( as ours would if, it was reversed)
Chirac is between a hard place (The USA Position) and a Rock (Iraq/the leftists). He owes his power to the leftists and thus is pandering to them.
Hugin, this fight, like all fights, is not between the French people and the American people, it is between our governments, which are susceptable to the politics of the moment.
I would no more choose to hate a Frenchman, for the actions of Chirac, then I would expect a Frenchmen to hate me for the actions of Bill Clinton.
I disagree. Since the French in general are much more leftist than Americans, they French public opinion is much more in line with their media.
Point two: Polls in France are as indicative of French politics as the polls of the USA are as indicative of our politics.
I have never doubted that polls are generally correct. IMHO those who said that in the Clinton years were merely engaging in wishful thinking. None the less, I will still take up your specifics.
Much as the liberal media has gushed over Bill Clinton?
That's irrelevant. As you acknowledge, the French public is much more to the left of Americans, and therefore you cannot compare the two situations. In America there is a big divide between the liberals in the coastal media centers and the folks in "flyover country". There is no evidence of such a divide in France.
Bush I's numbers were in the same stratosphere after the Gulf War. So much for polls.
Yes, because the American people supported his conduct of the war at that time. Just as the French people support Chirac's anti-Americanism now. The fact that other issues may be more important later hardly disproves the French anti-Americanism.
Actually he is the middle position, not the right.
For decades the Gaulist party was the only major conservative party in France, and they are still the largest. Since the rise of Le Pen they now share the right with the nationalists. The Gaulists are the equivelent of the moderate wing of the Republican party in as much as any comparison is valid between the two countries.
Now if you look at your stats, lets say that Chirac and everybody to the left share his anti-Americanism. That leaves the 20% that voted for Le Pen. Is there any indication that they are more pro-American than the rest? You cannot assume that just because someone is a "rightist" in France that they are pro-American. The right in France has it's roots in statism going back to the monarchies. In America their has never been such a tradition since the American Revolution. Our conservative tradtion actually embraces and defends the classic liberalism of our founding fathers. That is a distinction most people overlook, but it's escencial to understand when comparing the "left" and "right" in Europe and America.
Hugin, this fight, like all fights, is not between the French people and the American people, it is between our governments, which are susceptable to the politics of the moment. I would no more choose to hate a Frenchman, for the actions of Chirac, then I would expect a Frenchmen to hate me for the actions of Bill Clinton.
Again, the analogy to Clinton is flawed. Clinton never received 80% of the American vote as Chirac did, and never had the approval ratings that Chirac does. As for choosing "hate a Frenchman", who said any such thing? I do hold the French as a country in contempt for their long history of anti-Americanism going back at least 40 years. Ditto for those who back that policy, which all evidence shows is the majority. I also find much of French culture smug, condescending and annoying. But I do not hate every French person. There may even be 10-20% who are OK.
Hmm. That would be good news. If it happens, Ivan, I hope you'll explain a little more about it us.
So does everyone else, including myself. As I stated, it was not my intention to defend the french governments policies, but rather instead to voice that there does exist a significant portion of France that does recognize what we have done to help them. It is indeed a shame that there voices are silent. But this has not played out yet, and I am witholding full condemnation until such time as it has played out.
I do note today that Chirac has extended overtures towards Blair, so time will tell. But I think uprooting thousands of graves and bringing the remains back to the USA is an overreaction.
Regarding French Culture, they do make some damn fine wines, and no, I am not ready to pour out my three cases of 2000 Bordeaux's.
Of course not. I just wouldn't buy any more.
Besides California wines are better anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.