International relations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rjensen11
  • 27 comments
  • 1,152 views
rjensen11

rjensen11

Messages
2,732
Is it just me, or does it appear that the people in the Executive Dept. of the US have quit seeking foreign aid since the war's started? I mean, Bush is working with Blaire, but how much has he tried contacting Spain, France(although they're still being stubborn), Italy, Germany, Yugoslavia, Russia, South Africa, Egypt, Brazil, Chili, South Korea, Austria, Belgium, etc? I mean, honestly, I havn't heard much about the actual governments saying things except France still claims the US is making a big mistake. It just seems like Bush should be seeking more support in the latter part of the early stages of the operation. I mean, the coalition will still need a lot more support if they plan on rebuilding Iraq....
 
Bush has sent Secretary of State Colin Powell on a tour of Europe to mend fences and seek post-war aid for Iraq.

Powell has already been to in Turkey, and was due to go to Brussels today.
 
In the mean time the US Congress and Senate are tripping over each other to introduce bills that would deny any US money towards reconstruction to France Germany etc. because of there non support,, its gonna get ugly. Turkeys aid from the US is already in danger of being denied or held up because of their apparent refusal in the begining of the conflict to let US troops stage there. Let the political circus begin.
 
They're all talking. It's just not as exciting as "FOUR MILES FROM BAGHDAD!!!" so you don't hear much about it. Myabe you get sensationalistic news. Try another news source like New York Times, NPR, Jim Lehrer, etc.
 
Originally posted by rjensen11
Is it just me, or does it appear that the people in the Executive Dept. of the US have quit seeking foreign aid since the war's started? I mean, Bush is working with Blaire, but how much has he tried contacting Spain, France(although they're still being stubborn), Italy, Germany, Yugoslavia, Russia, South Africa, Egypt, Brazil, Chili, South Korea, Austria, Belgium, etc? I mean, honestly, I havn't heard much about the actual governments saying things except France still claims the US is making a big mistake. It just seems like Bush should be seeking more support in the latter part of the early stages of the operation. I mean, the coalition will still need a lot more support if they plan on rebuilding Iraq....
Click to expand...

Screw em. Who needs em? Bunch of friggin pansies.:trouble:

Im in one of my moods.
 
The mood around here is " we shoulda bombed France " I don't see it getting any better soon. alot of people especially military families and friends are not in an understanding mood they feel betrayed. Personaly I wouldn't mind seeing France sink to the bottom of the ocean ..I just feel sorry for the fish.
..
 
Originally posted by DGB454
Screw em. Who needs em? Bunch of friggin pansies.:trouble:

Im in one of my moods.
Click to expand...

You need them - a US established regime running a post-war Iraq won't work in the region, and could possibly be overthrown the moment the troops leave.
 
The last time the US decided to " help " govern a country ( Lebanon ) our reward was a slew of blown up Marines.
No way a U S general gets away with "administering " antything in Iraq ..We are asking for a disaster. Let the French try it ..and get blown up..tempting thought..
Seriously the discussions now revolve around using Iraqi dissadents and others from outside the country to form an internim Government much like what they did in Afganistan with the US keeping a low profile and guarantying security...The French bastards and their buddys are trying to derail that, amognst other things.
The UN is working very hard to make itself irrelavent, with the help of France. I hope strongly that this does not happen . In spite of whats been happening the world needs a strong and viable UNITED Nations now more than ever.
No matter what your stance on the war one thing is very clear , the US UK and the rest of the coalition forces have sent a very strong signal with thier blood, to every two bit dictator and potential terrorist, there's no place on earth thats safe for you, is the message. Don't underestimate the power of that perception.
Now that we have established the steel in our words, we need the UN to broker negotiations.
 
Originally posted by ledhed
The mood around here is " we shoulda bombed France " I don't see it getting any better soon. alot of people especially military families and friends are not in an understanding mood they feel betrayed. Personaly I wouldn't mind seeing France sink to the bottom of the ocean ..I just feel sorry for the fish.
..
Click to expand...

What is with this attitude towards France? It seems to me that the USA seems to think that because they helped to liberate France over 50 years ago that France should help and lend support to the US regardless of what the French government and French public believe is right.

If I understand it correctly the United Nations is a democracy of countries, and each country is entitled in a democracy to vote for what they believe in. Whether it is proved to be right or wrong in the long term is immaterial.

Don't forget that the French have a different perspective on war to the USA, as particularly unpleasant 20th century wars have been conducted in their country. The USA has had only one major military attack since their Civil War, and that was only on one day against a military target. Buildings in France still carry scars of the wars and bodies are still found in their fields from WW1. They know about refugees fleeing from advancing armies and have had cities bombed and cilivilians killed by American and British bombing.

Many people in the USA seem to me to believe that the French have a duty to be allies of the USA and are not attacking a dictator half the world away because of cowardice. I seem to recall a similar situation in 1939 when the roles were reversed. Maybe the French will change their opinions as the USA did back then and maybe they won't.

The current fad of calling the French cowards does irritate me. They stood up to Hitler from the day he moved on Poland, they fought, abandoned by Great Britain until their country was overrun. And then many of them fought as part of the resistance knowing that is was near certain death. Capture for a American or British serviceman meant a spell in prison, but for a resistance fighter it meant torture and execution.
 
Originally posted by Wastegate
What is with this attitude towards France? ......


.....Buildings in France still carry scars of the wars and bodies are still found in their fields from WW1. .......


.......They stood up to Hitler from the day he moved on Poland, they fought.....


......abandoned by Great Britain until their country was overrun......

.....And then many of them fought as part of the resistance knowing that is was near certain death.........
Click to expand...


Right!

[engage rant mode]


The current attitude towards France is because they were the primary voice in the UN (and elsewhere) speaking against military action.

Buildings in France do indeed still carry the scars of WWII, but not Paris and various other Cities because just handed over the keys rather than have fighting in them. Big chunks of London are still missing! And visit Sheffield sometime, most of the lower side of it got rebuilt in the 50's because it got bombed to hell in the war.

Oh yeah right, we abandonded them, never hear of the BEF (British Expeditionary Force?) who the hell did you think we evacuated from Dunkirk? And anyway we cracked on to the Nazi's as soon as Poland got invaded. The French were still hiding behind the Maginot line saying "doesn't involve us". Then the Nazi's took a sharp left through Belgium and straight round the side of the Maginot line.

Yes the resistance was a fine body of men and women who did absolutely stirling work, a complete opposite of the Vichey French who learnt to goose step post haste.

And anyway, Britain has never got on with the French, goes back to 1066. We've had more wars with them than anyone else, apart from the Dutch that is. The French still haven't forgiven us for wars going back to the days of swords and muskets and a little colony known as America.


Grrrr....

[disengage rant mode]
 
Originally posted by Wastegate
What is with this attitude towards France? It seems to me that the USA seems to think that because they helped to liberate France over 50 years ago that France should help and lend support to the US regardless of what the French government and French public believe is right.

If I understand it correctly the United Nations is a democracy of countries, and each country is entitled in a democracy to vote for what they believe in. Whether it is proved to be right or wrong in the long term is immaterial.

Don't forget that the French have a different perspective on war to the USA, as particularly unpleasant 20th century wars have been conducted in their country. The USA has had only one major military attack since their Civil War, and that was only on one day against a military target. Buildings in France still carry scars of the wars and bodies are still found in their fields from WW1. They know about refugees fleeing from advancing armies and have had cities bombed and cilivilians killed by American and British bombing.

Many people in the USA seem to me to believe that the French have a duty to be allies of the USA and are not attacking a dictator half the world away because of cowardice. I seem to recall a similar situation in 1939 when the roles were reversed. Maybe the French will change their opinions as the USA did back then and maybe they won't.

The current fad of calling the French cowards does irritate me. They stood up to Hitler from the day he moved on Poland, they fought, abandoned by Great Britain until their country was overrun. And then many of them fought as part of the resistance knowing that is was near certain death. Capture for a American or British serviceman meant a spell in prison, but for a resistance fighter it meant torture and execution.
Click to expand...


I think we left way to much in on the beach of Normandy. A lot more than they deserved.
 
Originally posted by Wastegate
...I seem to recall a similar situation in 1939 when the roles were reversed....
Click to expand...
Um, not really. During WW2, the US was an isolationist nation, kind of like Die Schweiz. They weren't going "Oh, no, no war!", but were like "Hey, it's not my problem, I'm not getting into it," so the American men that really wanted to help fight against the Axis went through Canada and were taken up by the British and served that way. The US as a nation still supplied both sides of the war with weapons, even after the naval blockades.

Originally posted by Wastegate
France stood up to Hitler from the day he moved on Poland....
Click to expand...

Also, not completely true. Sure, they did stand up against the Axis, but do you know how much land they gave to the Axis empire through diplomacy? A ****load, all in hopes that they wouldn't fight again, but guess what, it didn't work.

I'm not here to bash the French or French History, but it just seems odd if you know more about that era.

And about the League of Nations around that time, the US decided not to join because the people in Congress feared losing their power of declaring war and refraining from having the nation be in a state of war. Because the largest chunk of the League decided not to join, GB decided not to as well because they didn't like France, as shown throughout history as well and they didn't want to be forced into any wars at all either. WW2 could have been avoided most likely if France had been less strict on Germany during the Interwar Years, but who can blame them since they didn't know any better? After all, they saw this as their opportunity to get something out of the aftermath, but what they got was hostility....
 
Don't forget, the US population voted a president in on the basis of his promise of not getting involved in WW2, so don't come it with the nonsense about the US people being keen to dive right in and help France. It took a lot of convincing, and a lot of European deaths, for that one to come about.

France as a nation is a lovely place, although a lot of it is quite underdeveloped by the standards of other nations such as the US, Canada, UK, Germany etc. This is mainly because there is a significant emphasis on primary industries like farming, and also because there is little consolidation of smallholdings. If you want to see this in action, simply go to Burgundy, which is a lovely place, but all the winemakers make about 3,000 bottles per year, and you get the feeling that there would be a lot of profit (if huge loss of soul) in amalgamation. I think it's for this reason that New World wines (with their contract grape growing) are killing the French table wine industry.

The French are a difficult people to understand until you actually go there. Try it, it's well worth it.

Oh, and Slip, on a matter of geography, the Germans would have taken a right into Belgium to avoid the Maginot Line, not a left! :)
 
I've personally experienced both french and french/canadian anit-americanism,... my animossity towards them has very little to do with past political discrepancies. This latest action only adds to it because it directly effects me and my country during the present time.....
 
The US never supplied the axis powers with weapons. The US did indeed go against nuetrality laws by providing great Britain with arms under lend lease. The French could have stoped WW II dead by moving against Germany when they occupied the Rhineland, again when they began to rearm in defiance of Versaille , again when appeasement did not work and they invaded Chezchloslovokia , They along with Great Britain were forced to fight the war at a time of Hitlers choosing because they thought the dictator would stop at Prague. Not only did the French fight against the allies in north africa but when a group of soldiers escaped the Japanese in Bataan and made their way to Hanoi the French turned them over to Japanese authoritys...but enough of WW II. Today the French government says they are against war in Iraq. The forein minister also says that Saddam must not be removed from power, for the sake of stability in the region. France is also one of Iraqs arms suppliers. They supplied Iraq with a Reactor and fissionable material. ( the Isrealis blew it up ) France has alot more economic intersest in Iraq than any other european country. The reasons France is against the US range from purely economic to downright power politics. The US has every right to be pissed at France , the little country that still thinks they are back in the age of empires.
As far as samples go heres one from a columnist at the NY times editorials..more info is available in the archives of both the NY times and ABC news .com and the BBC I also pulled alot from Arabic times .com
This week, when asked to state clearly who he wants to win this war, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin offered what amounted to a verbal shrug, refusing to give an answer. After all, that is a complicated question. Side with the two democracies that twice saved and rebuilt your crippled nation and helped defend you from the Soviets or side with the barbaric tyranny which uses rapes the way the IRS uses audits. That is a toughie.

What's even tougher, though, is peeling through the incoherence of France's broader position. In his speech to the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, Villepin also explained that during the current "war phase" when Americans and Brits are fighting and dying, "it is clear that the countries that have taken the lead on the ground may have a special responsibility." But during the "reconstruction phase," "The U.N. [Translation: France] must be at the heart of the reconstruction and administration of Iraq….The legitimacy of our action depends on it. We must come together to build peace together in a region rife with a sense of insecurity and deep fault lines."

Wait a second. "The countries that have taken the lead on the ground"? The countries that have taken the lead on the ground? "Our actions?" Did he really say these things?

Get Monsieur Villepin to his fainting couch for I believe he must have had some bad snails. What the hell is he talking about? It almost sounds like Mr. Villepin thinks he represents a country that has "taken the lead" in something other than being a proctological nuisance of cosmic proportions to "the countries that have taken the lead on the ground." President Chirac told East European nations to "shut up" and behave like good little Epcot Center countries if they wanted to join Europe. He lobbied the African nations on the Security Council to vote against us. And now there are reports that the French and the Germans warned Turkey that if they helped the United States open a northern front, they could forget about joining the EU. And, last week, at the EU summit in Brussels, Jacques Chirac argued that France would veto any U.N. resolution which would "legitimize" U.S. and British war efforts. If France's leadership off the ground continues, they'll end up giving Saddam the bomb and a permanent seat on the Security Council.

From the NY Times....
 
Many thanks for the above post ledhed this well-argued and informative post is exactly the kind of think I was hoping to provoke with my earlier post. I'm afraid I'm guilty of deliberately talking up 20th Century French history in order to get something more than the quotes like "we should be bombing the French" I have seen posted elsewhere.

IMO, the French actually hastened the start of this war by their stance in refusing to even discuss it, and to block any moves by the USA and UK to table resolutions at the UN which might have acheived many of the objectives without the full-scale war we now have. They have forced Bush and Blair into action when Blair in particular would probably have preferred to use the weight of the UN to bully Iraq into complying with world opinion.

Apologies too to slip2rock for unintentionally getting a fellow Brit's hackles up, though there are some points I would disagree with him on. The BEF only moved as far as France when Germany invaded Poland, then did nothing more than the French army. It's subsequent defeats and retreat from Dunkirk along with the removal of the RAF is what abandoned France, though it must be said that the British also rescued a lot of French troops too.

I have to agree that France seems to be out of synch with their current position in the world. They are no longer a major colonial, economic or military power. It's been quite a while since French was the international language of diplomacy.
 
France is still pissed of at the way DeGaulle was treated during WW II, IMO.
That and they want to head the European Union and form an economic block to counter the US. Most of what they are doing now is all about their perception of French prestige and where they think Frances place in the worlfd should be , NOT were it is.
 
The French and Russians are owed 300 billion dollars by Iraq's regime , its part of Iraqs national debt and it looks very much like it won't be paid. Call me a cynic but could that be 300 billion reasons that the French and Russians are against the war to remove Saddam ?
For the details go to www.cnnnews.com the article is on the world bank and Iraqs national debt.
 
Yeah - most of us already had some idea about that. Prediction - even though we could pay it back with Iraq's oil money, we won't because of their lack of support.
 
You mean the Iraqi's won't ..once we give them back their country. Maybe they'll use that money to pay us back ...of course only a cynic would think that, or not ?
 
Originally posted by ledhed
You mean the Iraqi's won't ..once we give them back their country. Maybe they'll use that money to pay us back ...of course only a cynic would think that, or not ?
Click to expand...

We're going to take control of the oil. Or, appoint a puppet oil government in which we stand offstage pulling the strings.
 
I honestly do not beleive that but I guess it depends on what your definition of a puppet is. I think the Iraqi's are sophisticated enough to know when someone is not acting in their best interest and will accomadate the US only when both countrys interest coincide. Just like Quatar , Saudi Arabia..hell every other country that depends on the US for protection. Another thing now that we skunked the boogie man who are we protecting them from ?
 
Originally posted by ledhed
Another thing now that we skunked the boogie man who are we protecting them from ?
Click to expand...

Each other. No offense to them, but because their government was knocked down, it will be a while until they have an organized government that the people will accept. Until then, coalition forces will stay in Iraq to give some sence of order and peace, hopefully reducing the number of people taking all the goods they can.
 
I was thinking more in the long term. For the last 20 years or so Saddam was the prevalent threat in the region. He seems to have been fired. So who's the bad guy on the block now ? Aside from the obviouse in the Arabs eyes its US and Isreal. So who emerges as the new bully ?
 

Latest Posts

Back