France and the War on terror

I felt a reply to this post from another thread warranted a seperate thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Btw, our terror alert seems quite efficient, since we (=France) arrested our own algerian terrorists in the 90's, and avoided many attacks in the last 2 years.

---

From the outside this appears more like a case of France catering to certain Islamic/Arab interests against other developed nations. Perhaps this is incorrect, but that is the perception. The "shoe bomber" flew from France didn't he? It would be an extreme blunder for the terrorists to attack France since they have nothing to gain politically from such an attack. Divide and conquer works better for them. They managed to get Spain to essentially surrender through a terrorist attack, quite an accomplishment. From the terrorist point of view keeping France neutral or even seen as a "collaborator" by the Anglo population would be in their best interest.

---

Firstly, the 9-11 terrorists flew from the USA, remember? ~;)

More importantly, it may have gone somewhat unnoticed by the outside world, but France was the first western country to be hit by a wave of 'islamic' terrorism on it's home soil, dating back to a terrorist wave in 1986. If there are any Anglo-Americans that doubt France's resolve in her fight against terror, who think she is neutral, they're probably unaware of the following:

In 1994, seven years before 9-11, an Air France Flight was hijacked by four islamic terrorists intending to crash the plane on Paris.

They didn't succeed. And why? Because France collaborated? Gah! In Marseille a special operations team of the French military stormed the aircraft and utterly destroyed all hijackers.

In 1996, nine years before London, there was a terrorist attack on the Paris metro (underground, subway, whatever).

Again, we fought back. Not by randomly invading, say, Yemen or Tunisia, but by relentless action against known terrorists, the toughest anti-terrorist laws in Europe, well-funded intelligence and, indeed, an open dialogue with the islamic world.
By trying to befriend the masses, to be able to isolate and destroy the extremists. Estranging them only gives the extremists a breeding ground.

There are a billion peace-loving muslims that did not bomb London yesterday. We need to talk to them. The people that did attack our friends in England need not expect 'neutrality' from France. Only a relentless hunt to bring them to justice. For proud, stubborn, arrogant France has no mercy for those attacking her friends.

Even if they do suck at cooking. ~;)



Here's a great ARTICLE from last week's Washington Post.
Some excerpts and highlights to wet your appetite:

'Ganczarski is among the most important European al Qaeda figures alive, according to U.S. and French law enforcement and intelligence officials. The operation that ensnared him was put together at a top secret center in Paris, code-named Alliance Base, that was set up by the CIA and French intelligence services in 2002, according to U.S. and European intelligence sources. Its existence has not been previously disclosed.'

'even as Rumsfeld was criticizing France in early 2003 for not doing its share in fighting terrorism, his U.S. Special Operations Command was finalizing a secret arrangement to put 200 French special forces under U.S. command in Afghanistan.'

'Alliance Base, headed by a French general assigned to France's equivalent of the CIA -- the General Directorate for External Security (DGSE) -- was described by six U.S. and foreign intelligence specialists with involvement in its activities. The base is unique in the world because it is multinational and actually plans operations instead of sharing information among countries, they said. It has case officers from Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Australia and the United States'

'French intelligence officials like to note dryly that France first realized it had become a target of al Qaeda-style jihadists when a group of Algerian radicals hijacked an airliner with the intent of crashing it into the Eiffel Tower in 1994. They viewed the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as another, if much larger, part of the jihadist campaign against Western civilization.

So it did not surprise many intelligence officers when, in the days after the attacks, President Jacques Chirac issued an edict to French intelligence services to share information about terrorism with the U.S. intelligence agencies "as if they were your own service," according to two officials who read it.

The steady, daily flow of encrypted messages increased. "We saw a quantitative and qualitative difference in the degree of detail in the information," said Alejandro Wolff, the second-in-charge at the U.S. Embassy here, whose portfolio includes fighting terrorism.

One CIA veteran with knowledge of the U.S.-French intelligence work estimates that the French have detained about 60 suspects since the end of 2001, some with the help of the CIA. "They do as much for us as the British and in some ways more -- if you ask them," said a recently retired senior intelligence official who worked closely with France and other European countries.

France was also an early and willing collaborator in other parts of the world, allowing the CIA to fly its top-secret, armed Predator drone, still controversial inside the Pentagon, from France's air base in the former French colony of Djibouti. Its mission was to kill al Qaeda figures on a classified CIA list of "high-value targets." On Nov. 3, 2002, CIA officers operating remote controls from the air base took their first shot, killing Abu Ali al-Harithi, the mastermind of the October 2000 attack on the destroyer USS Cole'

By trying to befriend the masses, to be able to isolate and destroy the extremists. Estranging them only gives the extremists a breeding ground.
Yes its a better approach than they tried with the Pogrom at the startof the '60s , where in their fight against terror they managed to annoy just about every citizen of France who looked slightly Algerian , they even manged to annoy Italy and Spain as their citizens looked a little bit too dark of skin and black of hair . ~;)

Theres no doubt in my mind that Chiraq is more a collaborator then a help to the war on terror.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Efrem

Theres no doubt in my mind that Chiraq is more a collaborator then a help to the war on terror.

---

That I agree with. France's war on terror looks more like a diplomatic war with the U.S., just being French I suppose. I'll never be accused of being a Dubya supporter, but France played right into his hands with Iraq. I used to be a Francophile. No more.

This thread is hilarious.

Way to go, France!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat

I felt a reply to this post from another thread warranted a seperate thread.

Firstly, the 9-11 terrorists flew from the USA, remember? ~;)

In 1994, seven years before 9-11, an Air France Flight was hijacked by four islamic terrorists intending to crash the plane on Paris.

They didn't succeed. And why? Because France collaborated? Gah! In Marseille a special operations team of the French military stormed the aircraft and utterly destroyed all hijackers.

---

Actually, I'm not completely unaware of France's prior troubles with Islamic terrorists. Now, how exactly did those special ops get on the plane in the air...oh, yeah, they didn't. It was on the ground, and the terrorists had already executed some people. The terrorists learned from their mistakes (little things like learning to fly, and dispensing with negotiations, and landing, etc.)

Do you honestly think that France would have foiled a 9/11 type attack under the same basic circumstances? Were the crew and passengers trained to struggle with the attackers, or comply? The flight that didn't hit its target is the one in the U.S. that struggled with the hijackers. You would have been relying on security to prevent men from boarding with no serious weapons (simple box cutters.) Do you think French airport security was that good--yet let the shoe bomber on board a flight after 9/11?

Might I also remind you that the U.S. had much earlier learned how to handle hijackings? Well before the incident you mention. The problem had been largely resolved for the tactics the U.S. had faced. Yet it was this very system that the terrorists manipulated by relying on compliant passengers and crew to conduct their attacks. I was never fond of the ultra passive approach as it is contrary to my nature and I felt it was very vulnerable to the kind of committed homicidal that was at the core of 9/11.

France was lucky that it was no longer in the cross hairs. Had it been, I suspect we would have been outraged by an horrific attack on Paris rather than New York. I won't defend the U.S. screening system, it was weak. However, it was weak for a simple reason: domestic air terrorism was no longer an issue. And even if screening had been far better, it is unlikely that those men would have been stopped. They exploited loopholes that existed at the time. If they were to try the same today their chances would be about nil. Even if they passed through intelligence checks and through security, passengers would have subdued them. U.S. passengers have subdued and even killed unruly/dangerous passengers since 9/11 with regularity (at least three incidents that I've read of, no I don't have links.)

As a French living in England, it is the 2nd time I experience terrorist attack for Muslims Nazi Extremists.

Chiraq (c) is more a collaborator then a help to the war on terror: Well that is your point of view, based on nothing except on basic anti-French feeling. But you can’t hate France and blame her when she refused to follow the orders… :dizzy2:

France's war on terror looks more like a diplomatic war with the U.S: Right, the War against Iraq, it is quiet obvious now, wasn’t part of the war against terror. It was G. W. Bush revenge on a bloody dictator. We can debate about this, but please stop to try to fool people in mixing the two problems. ~D

Let me remind you few facts: I just here copy an article from the Independent, British Newspaper, day after the bombing (8th of July):
“Paris was one of the first Western cities to experience terrorism at the hands of Islamist extremists, when a series of bombs was detonated at Metro stations in 1995. Those believed to be responsible were based in Britain, but the refusal of the British courts to allow the extradition of the man thought to be behind the blasts, currently being held in Belmarsh prison, has angered the French authorities.
The affair has been portrayed in France as a symptom of British laxity towards extremists. French anti-terrorist judges are also said to believe that –pre 11 September- there was a policy in London to turn blind eye to Islamist activity so long as there was no direct threat to Britain”.

So, until it was just French blood, UK (and also US) considered the Muslim terrorism just as a expression of Freedom of Speech, when the Imams could freely call their followers to put bombs and kill people in France…
The Islamic terrorist network was destroyed in France in 6 months, due to a great Intelligence gathering (well, probably because the French Muslim community provided police officers and Intelligence officers who infiltrated the network, allegedly).
If I understand the Newspaper, the French told the British Authority that a terrorist was free to recruit and to get money in the UK. Because the guy was clearly innocent of what the French accused him, the UK put him in Belmarsh jail after 9/11. That makes sense, isn’t it? :furious3:

Now, the US (not true, some in the US) blame France of the lack of cooperation (even YOU claim that France is accomplice) in the war against terrorism. Where was your help when we were under daily attacks? Don’t remember…

Do you honestly think that France would have foiled a 9/11 type attack: No, I don’t. That was an unexpected move. They created the unexpected, and did what they did…
Now, how exactly did those special ops get on the plane in the air...oh, yeah, they didn't. I don’t see where it was suggested in the thread…

France was lucky that it was no longer in the cross hairs: Amazingly enough, wasn’t a French tanker which was attacked in Yemen not so long time ago?

Honestly, you can dislike or hate France as much you want, publish the anti-French jokes, call us frogs (or whatever other insults or qualifications) as much you like… But there is one thing you can’t is to accuse the French to be pro-Islamic Terrorists. We, French, kicked out Kaddafi out of Chad. Not the US bombing, but the French troops put a halt to his desire of expansion. As the US, we lost soldiers in Lebanon from Amal, Hezbollah and other Muslim Extremist Groups.
And yes, because we learn from History, we know that the fight against terrorism isn’t a military problem, but police problems.
When I say we, I wasn’t personally involved, but sometimes I allow myself a bit of nationalism-patriotism… ~:)

American paranoia in regards to France is taking new proportions. Soon hell will be identified as the French country side.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

American paranoia in regards to France is taking new proportions. Soon hell will be identified as the French country side.......

---

This thread ONE post (now two) by an American...your bias is showing again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Efrem

Theres no doubt in my mind that Chiraq is more a collaborator then a help to the war on terror.

---

That's uncalled for. People who want to blame France for not cooperating in Iraq simply aren't being mature about all of this. I'm no big believer in world government, and I don't always like the way the France forces other countries to delay actions on critical problems, as with the security council.

But I would never ever accuse them of being soft on terrorism, or worse, collaborators. A shitload of our intelligence about who the 9/11 hijackers were and where they came from came from the French intelligence service. They also helped track down where all the cells in Europe that supported them were located (no easy feat). There's also all the instances Meneldil & Brenus bring up.

I won't argue France's agenda and the US's diverged a while back, and our foreign policy goals are different, and for national interest reasons. But how are you going to get pissed at France for doing what it believes is in it's own best self-interst. They SHOULD, as should we (and we do). We sound like children when we bitch and moan that the French are looking to their own interests first and it needs to stop.

Black Ship , if you want to talk about bias , then hows this for a statement from a "newscaster" on a fair and balanced no spin popular American "news" channel ...

"If they had picked France instead of London to hold the Olympics, it would have been the one time we could look forward to where we didn't worry about terrorism. They'd blow up Paris, and who cares?"

So while France is fighting Al-Qaida in Afghanistan , some people get all upset because the French didn' believe all the bullshit yours and other governments were sprouting about Iraq .
So it would be OK if Paris gets bombed insead of London would it ?

But still , he gets well paid to make stupid statements on TV , Efrem made his stupid statement free of charge .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

"If they had picked France instead of London to hold the Olympics, it would have been the one time we could look forward to where we didn't worry about terrorism. They'd blow up Paris, and who cares?"

---

Honestly, what hope do we have of fighting a common enemy when people are throwing mud like this? It saddens me. We Welsh were conquered by the English becasue we would rather fight ourselves than co-operate with each other and stand against the English as one entity.

Yes, I know that was a long time ago, but the parallels are a bit scary.

That some broadcaster can spout such bigotry and not be brought severely to task is a sad endictment of how bad things have become over the political infighting in the wake of the Iraq war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Efrem

Theres no doubt in my mind that Chiraq is more a collaborator then a help to the war on terror.

---

Any chance that you might let us know why there is no doubt in your mind? Seriously, I would be interested to hear what information you have that has allowed to be so sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

That's uncalled for. People who want to blame France for not cooperating in Iraq simply aren't being mature about all of this.

---

No it's not uncalled for. And the post you quoted referred to CHIRAQ, not France. The French and their defenders have been quick to point at him as well. It's a bit hollow though...he may not represent France as a whole, but like Dubya he does appear to represent some sort of majority opinion.

I don't see any lack of maturity at pointing out that France has been a bigger pain in the rear over the past several years than any other Western nation with regards to fighting Islamic extremists. We've got people dying daily in this fight. Where the hell is France? Sniping at us from the rear, that's where. Had they not sent the wrong signals to Saddam, there is a fair chance we wouldn't have had to invade. Yes, I'm downright angry at the French govt over this, just as much as at Dubya.

You are welcome to your opinion but I also have mine, and I'll place blame squarely where I see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

I don't see any lack of maturity at pointing out that France has been a bigger pain in the rear over the past several years than any other Western nation with regards to fighting Islamic extremists. We've got people dying daily in this fight. Where the hell is France? Sniping at us from the rear, that's where. Had they not sent the wrong signals to Saddam, there is a fair chance we wouldn't have had to invade. Yes, I'm downright angry at the French govt over this, just as much as at Dubya.

---

Someone buy this man a beer. Excellently said.

I've been too flustered since post one of this thread (which seemed to imply that if the US did what France does, we'd never have had a 9/11) to engage in rational debate.

Why are you picking on France?

A lot of countries did not go to war with Iraq, why don't you pick on them.

Who said that the thing they didn't like about France was them not invading Iraq? What on earth are you reading that gave you that impression?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Chiraq (c) is more a collaborator then a help to the war on terror: Well that is your point of view, based on nothing except on basic anti-French feeling. But you can’t hate France and blame her when she refused to follow the orders… :dizzy2:

---

My feeling was far from anti-French before the Iraq flare up, so that theory is going down in flames. I actually had a trip to France planned about the time of the start of the war, but cancelled it because of travel concerns and anti-US rhetoric coming out of France. There is a big difference between "following orders" and being an enemy. I don't expect France or any other nation to "follow orders." France's actions leading up the Iraq war were entirely counterproductive to preventing a war. France made every effort to lead an anti-US coalition. That is the source of a great deal of my anger. France gave Saddam some hope that he would not have to let weapons inspectors back in, that sanctions would be lifted, etc. In France's actions I see only a "what's best for France" approach. Some ally. Ironically, their opposition guarranteed that Dubya got his war. I'm willing to listen to criticism of US policy, and agree with some of it. However, I'm also watching other nations actions as well.

Quote:

---

Now, how exactly did those special ops get on the plane in the air...oh, yeah, they didn't. I don’t see where it was suggested in the thread…

---

It was quite clearly suggested in the thread that France was better prepared, yada, yada, yada... What I pointed out was that the partially foiled attack (partial since folks were executed) differed immensely from 9/11.

Quote:

---

France was lucky that it was no longer in the cross hairs: Amazingly enough, wasn’t a French tanker which was attacked in Yemen not so long time ago?

---

The French govt made quite a few efforts to keep it quiet. I heard a number of denials from French officials trying to claim it was not a terrorist attack in the first day or two. At any rate, it was a tanker attack, quite a bit different from the homicide attacks. Appeared to be an effort to cause some disruption of shipping in general rather than a national target. I could be wrong, I haven't studied it in detail, I just recall the reports over several days when it happened.

Quote:

---

Honestly, you can dislike or hate France as much you want, publish the anti-French jokes, call us frogs (or whatever other insults or qualifications) as much you like… But there is one thing you can’t is to accuse the French to be pro-Islamic Terrorists.

---

I don't "hate France", nor am I interested in calling the French frogs. And I wouldn't call the French terrorists--have no idea where you got that... :dizzy2: (I do admit to enjoying well crafted French jokes more so than I did in the past.) However, it will take some time and deeds before I can seriously consider France an ally again. More like a semi-hostile neutral similar to Russia. France alligned herself against the U.S. and has led an anti-US diplomatic coalition. I won't soon forget that.

As for Libya. Reagan shut up Qaddaffi. Bombing his house got the message through fairly clearly--rein it in or you could be next. And it has been awhile since I studied the warfare in Chad, but I clearly recall an article about how the anti-Libyan forces were using light four wheel drive trucks to run circles around the Libyan heavies. They cut the Libyans to pieces in sand storms and the like. It has been a long time...but I don't remember it being French forces doing the fighting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinus

Why are you picking on France?

A lot of countries did not go to war with Iraq, why don't you pick on them.

---

It was France leading the anti-US faction, that's why. I'm not "picking on them." France went far beyond not joining the fight. France's actions were dubious, especially since France, Russia and others were working to get sanctions dropped and make business in roads with Saddam. Meanwhile, the US was stuck there enforcing the sanctions, no-fly, etc. The US found itself in a position where action became increasingly necessary (I still think it could have waited, and WMD was not really needed, but there was no practical way to withdraw leaving a defiant and dangerous Saddam in power.)

While I don't connect Iraq and terrorism, I don't have any trouble seeing France's moves on Iraq as a self serving gesture to less savory elements while stabbing the US in the back.

Erm, yes, and i won´t soon forget that the US and GB didn´t help us in WW2, Hitler wanted them to join us, but instead they made an impression of being enemies... :dizzy2: Now I´m confused and I hate them all, because they didn´t help us conquer the world and establish a superior race. :dizzy2: :help:

If you go into a shop to steal something and I say I won´t help and stay outside, don´t wonder to be imprisoned alone. If you go to make war in Iraq and we say we don´t want to, don´t wonder to be the only to lose soldiers.

I´m not french, but Germany didn´t go to Iraq as well, together with France. And I don´t see any problems with france giving Saddam any hope, hope couldn´t save him.

Quote:

---

I´m not french, but Germany didn´t go to Iraq as well, together with France. And I don´t see any problems with france giving Saddam any hope, hope couldn´t save him.

---

I dont want to bash France here, every country does whats in its own best interests, and having Saddam in power was in their best interest as far as business goes.

But, both France and Germany should have recognized what it meant to live under a Stalin-esce dictator and at least passively support his removal.

Even if they didnt like president Bush, they should have thought in terms of their own history and recognized that the Iraq war was a good opportunity to remove the same kind of dictator that they lived under.

Thats just my opinion though, im about to go camping so I dont want to leave anyone offended.. ~D

Though i dont agree with France's stance on some things, i dont think it is fair to attack them or anybody for not going to war with iraq.

From day 1 i thought it would be a bad idea. It has lead forces away from the real problem and a stable democracy in Iraq is hopeful at best. Iraq reminds me alot of vietnam.


Finally, i dont think anybody should decide what type of government another country has. If some Iraqies had started some kind of uprising trying to make a democratic government then i would have fully supported the war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Honestly, you can dislike or hate France as much you want, publish the anti-French jokes, call us frogs (or whatever other insults or qualifications) as much you like… But there is one thing you can’t is to accuse the French to be pro-Islamic Terrorists. We, French, kicked out Kaddafi out of Chad. Not the US bombing, but the French troops put a halt to his desire of expansion. As the US, we lost soldiers in Lebanon from Amal, Hezbollah and other Muslim Extremist Groups.
And yes, because we learn from History, we know that the fight against terrorism isn’t a military problem, but police problems.
When I say we, I wasn’t personally involved, but sometimes I allow myself a bit of nationalism-patriotism… ~:)

---

Actually the Americans helped in Chad as well. The United States sent three military advisors to help the government of Chad. They were sent to help in training with 25 Redeye I-Sam's though the batteries apparently didn't work so they were never used. The Americans also sent some aircraft to Sudan (8 F-15's). It was perceived by the Americans that Libya's objective was the ultimate penetration of Sudan, thus threatening the southern border of Egypt.

The Libyan military threat was seen as substantial, including approximately 3000 tanks, 550+ modern combat aircraft, 30+ armed helicopters, 20 tank battalions, and 55,000 men.

Operation Manta, the French contribution, began on August 10, when elements of the 8th R.P.I.Ma. (Régiment Parachutiste d'Infanterie de Marine), crossed the Chari River into Ndjamena from their base in Kousseri, Cameroon, where they had been stationed some weeks previously to be able to assist in the evacuation of foreigners from Ndjamena should the need arise. As the French had done in march of 1980, evacuating 400 westerner's from the capital by French military aircraft, including West Germans, Dutch, French, Lebanese, and all the members of the American embassy staff, including the American ambassador.

This is the same unit BTW, that would be involved in the parachute drop into Kosovo in october of 2004. Additional reinforcements from the same regiment and from the 1st R.I.Ma. (Régiment d'Infanterie de Marine) also arrived that same day. The operation was described by the French as a training execise, and soon French Transal C.160 transport planes began to arrive in Ndjamena with forces, food, supplies, and weapons. Those forces, and others which began arriving in Chad at that time, were equipped with individual weapons, anti-tank missiles (HOT, Milan), rocket launchers (STRIM 89,SARPAC), mortars, tactical vehicles (VAB, AML, AMX 10), and the Olifant radar system, which is a ground surveillance radar. The force soon grew to to involve some three thousand French troops, as well as Mirage jets and Jaguar strike aircraft.

EDIT; BTW, if you want to know how looney things have gotten in the US, someone phoned into the Larry King Show and suggested it wasn't Al Qaeda that bombed London but the French in retaliation for not getting the 2012 Olympics!

Please stop bashing us sometime;

Can I remind you terrorism exist before 9/11 ? No? Yes it is true!
correct me if i am wrong, but terrorism is born with indepedence wars. France have learned thet in east asia and north africa first. UK know that still michael Collins in Ireland and USA began to learn in vietnam.
In 30 last years europa was most attack than never. red terrorists supported by Ussr in the 70th mainly in Germany and Italy. during the eighties in France even by an Armenian liberation army ?? (ASALA) yes it is true stop laughing,
just like a jersey liberation army in UK or a hawai lib. one in USA.
In lebanon French soldiers are dead the same nigth as US soldiers, you are never blame us for that? Why you don't do it. just because we are with you.??
If you are not with me, you are against me?? strange way to have friends!
No guys! stop to be black or white. OK guys, it was good times when it's red or dead. But now times have change

in the 90' France was attack to; but now it was a islamic terrorism. And US GI based in Germany aslo targeted. Someone remind?

What does it means, first terrorism is an act of war for the poor when is happen in an independance war.
second, it's an act for struggle and frighten countries when it's coming from "terrorist stzates" or organisations like Al qedia.

Yes France will not follow orders in anyway(surely an insurrectionnal tradition). Chirac is an Idiot TRUE.
But please remenber, bombs are divided family rather before the 9/11.
Some French collaborate with nazis TRUE, but when I read we can collaboratte with fanatic muslims GAHHHH. :furious3:
Men you're out of space! we're bad rules but nor stupid! go to hell!!

Sorry i'am nervous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by william the bastard

Please stop bashing us sometime;

Can I remind you terrorism exist before 9/11 ? No? Yes it is true!
correct me if i am wrong, but terrorism is born with indepedence wars. France have learned thet in east asia and north africa first. UK know that still michael Collins in Ireland and USA began to learn in vietnam.
In 30 last years europa was most attack than never. red terrorists supported by Ussr in the 70th mainly in Germany and Italy. during the eighties in France even by an Armenian liberation army ?? (ASALA) yes it is true stop laughing,
just like a jersey liberation army in UK or a hawai lib. one in USA.
In lebanon French soldiers are dead the same nigth as US soldiers, you are never blame us for that? Why you don't do it. just because we are with you.??
If you are not with me, you are against me?? strange way to have friends!
No guys! stop to be black or white. OK guys, it was good times when it's red or dead. But now times have change

in the 90' France was attack to; but now it was a islamic terrorism. And US GI based in Germany aslo targeted. Someone remind?

What does it means, first terrorism is an act of war for the poor when is happen in an independance war.
second, it's an act for struggle and frighten countries when it's coming from "terrorist stzates" or organisations like Al qedia.

Yes France will not follow orders in anyway(surely an insurrectionnal tradition). Chirac is an Idiot TRUE.
But please remenber, bombs are divided family rather before the 9/11.
Some French collaborate with nazis TRUE, but when I read we can collaboratte with fanatic muslims GAHHHH. :furious3:
Men you're out of space! we're bad rules but nor stupid! go to hell!!

Sorry i'am nervous

---

Its obvious that English isn't your first language, but you make some excellent points.

Good to see someone with a little passion stand up for themselves in here.

Well done william ~:cheers:

ichi :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Someone buy this man a beer. Excellently said.

I've been too flustered since post one of this thread (which seemed to imply that if the US did what France does, we'd never have had a 9/11) to engage in rational debate.

---

Don't buy the man a beer. His comments bespeak a "US central" attitude that frankly Prol, yours do too.

Look, if France thinks cozying up with Saddam is in their best interest, they have every right to keep him in power. It's what we would do. Your anger stems from a sense of betrayal at what you believe an ally should and should not do.

The United States and the Republic of France are two Western 'democracies' on friendly terms. That is it. Any sense of allegiance we feel for them or they feel for us is misguided and wrong. And it's where these hurt and angry outbursts come from. Much like China, France has to find it's way in the world in the way that is best for France. As do we. We need to stop looking at France and saying "Why didn't you do what we wanted you to" because I can tell you the answer to that, and I'm as pro-America as they come "It's not good for France".

An alliance implies each side will take it's knocks and do their best to help the others within the alliance. France has made it more than clear they do not view us as an ally anymore, and we need to stop treating them as one. Friendly, similar (but not same) cultural references, sure. But our paths have split. Quit whining. Deal with it. They're not asking for us, don't ask for anything from them. They are free to do as they see fit, as are we.

Fine, we're not allies anymore, so next time Germany invades you're on your own. ~;)

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Fine, we're not allies anymore, so next time Germany invades you're on your own. ~;)

Crazed Rabbit

---

Unless we AGAIN decide it's in our best interest to fight Germany, you're absolutely right. Because make no mistake about it, that's why we did it both times we chose to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King of Atlantis

Though i dont agree with France's stance on some things, i dont think it is fair to attack them or anybody for not going to war with iraq.

Finally, i dont think anybody should decide what type of government another country has. If some Iraqies had started some kind of uprising trying to make a democratic government then i would have fully supported the war.

---

You and others seem to be totally missing the point. It is not the fact that France did not participate. (That I have no problem with.) It was their anti-US fight that really has me and other US citizens angry at them. It is one thing to be neutral. It is another to actively work against your ally. I remember France bullying and threatening other nations who were seeking EU membership, all in an effort to undercut us.

Let me make this more clear. It is one thing for someone to tell you they are not going to help you do a job. It is quite another for that person to hide your tools, trip you, etc. to prevent you from doing the job. See the difference? If a friend does that to me, he is no longer a friend.

Your final paragraph has huge problems both in logic and history: the people of Iraq had zero opportunity to choose any other govt without outside intervention. They actually tried an uprising after the 1st Gulf War, but Bush Sr. failed to do anything to support them, and they were crushed. Bush would have had to go out on a limb to do it. The reason Saddam was left in place was because of the irrational fear many at home and abroad had of a destabilized Iraq. His neighbors wanted a weakened Saddam and protection from him, but did not want to risk the unrest. It was folly, Saddam had already created the conditions so the destabilization was inevitable. Any rational person could see he couldn't be left in place, but international politics made doing anything about the real problem nearly impossible. It isn't that the concerns were unrealistic, it is that the problem was not going to go away through inaction. Better to address a problem sooner than later.

Red,
You're a reasonable guy. Read my lips. They are not our ally. They stopped being such in the early 1960's when DeGaulle told us to get the "F" out. End of story. They have their version of events, we have ours. But stop whining about it, they are not our allies, and we should not be theirs.

If the Republic of France has decided that Saddam Hussein makes sense as the leader of Iraq from their policy standpoint, shouldn't they take action to prevent us from taking him out?

If they decide that they need to start selling weapons systems to China to bolster Thales and their other defense contractors, do they not have that right? Of course they do!

What has you, Proletariat, Panzer, and other Americans upset is you don't realize the equation has changed. NATO is long gone, and France was never really a part of it to begin with. They are more than free to pursue their policy goals, without regard to our welfare, as we are to pursue our own without regard to theirs. Any sort of informal alliance we ever had with them is long gone. Allow them to do what is best for them and allow us to do what is best for us.

Quote:

---

Unless we AGAIN decide it's in our best interest to fight Germany, you're absolutely right. Because make no mistake about it, that's why we did it both times we chose to.

---

But was that the right decision? ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

An alliance implies each side will take it's knocks and do their best to help the others within the alliance. France has made it more than clear they do not view us as an ally anymore, and we need to stop treating them as one. Friendly, similar (but not same) cultural references, sure. But our paths have split. Quit whining. Deal with it. They're not asking for us, don't ask for anything from them. They are free to do as they see fit, as are we.

---

You just said much of what I said about the matter, yet you disagree? :dizzy2: It's not whining to point it out. I don't see discussing it as whining. France screwed us royally. They screwed the Iraqi's too. I'll call it for what it is, rather than keep silent when the matter comes up. Nothing wrong with that.

I snipped out your portion about national self interest. That is an area where we definitely depart. I do not believe civilized/developed/democratic nations should do only what they perceive as being in their own self interest. The sort of view you suggest is a rather ruthless one that only leads to bigger problems down the road. I almost hear Gordon Gecko's voice, "Greed is good" emanating from that...

Well, chief, I hate to break it to you, GREED IS GOOD! Where do you think capitalism comes from? Oliver Stone can make as much Socialist propaganda as he wants to: ambition is always good, corruption never is. We all must draw a line.

I don't want you to think I have a cash register for a heart or something like that, because I do not view cash flow exclusively as a metric of success. But let's take a pet cause. Let's take Africa, that's very popular right now, no?

Africa is dominated by socialist governments across it's political sphere. Looks good to the Left, just pump more cash in, and the problems will be solved. Well, watch how Africa, treated as a nation, watched it's foreign aid as a percentage of GDP grow from 0.02% to 15% from 1985 to 2005, yet, they're in worse shape then ever. Sir Bob Geldof is telling us, we need to send 1% (or at the very least 0.1%) of our GDP off to the UN, no questions asked, and yet, most African economists are begging us to stop doing that.

Feel good measures do not work. Results oriented targeted programming works. In other words, America watches where it's dollar goes and puts them where it thinks they ought to be, not where Kofi Annan & Bob Geldof and Jacques Chirac tell us to put them. Reasonable?

Well, Don, the greedy ones I've been around were also corrupt. So no, greed is not good. A sense of fair play and ambition to earn a buck fairly is good. But greed is not good. A simple example from recent discussions...slavery was driven by greed.

That is where we depart. The purely self centered approach (speaking of nations here) provides short term gain, and long term pain.

Okay, you're going to take the noble position that money & affluence hold no value to you. Fair enough. Explain to me why you're wasting money on a computer and a connection to debate my vile desire for affluence with me instead of selling it and spreading the money gained from the sale to the needy? Because deep down inside, you agree with me.

Instead of demonizing me, how about you listen to what I'm saying. Maybe instead of running AID agencies as charities, we start running them as not-for-profit corporations? We put together a marketing plan, we point out the benefits to be recognized by the contributors, we go with a results oriented approach, and we quit throwing our cash at Kofi and the boys and hope they do the right thing? I think you'd be amazed by the results.

But oh yeah, because I want the farmer to do better, and not the international government community, I'm the bad guy. Sorry, forgot that.

I'm not demonizing you. You are going off on a tangent about something else. I'm not talking about international aid or any of that, you are.

I disagree with the idea of purely self centered (self = nation, not you personally) approach to all policies. I don't think we need to get in the middle of everything, but there are times we can and should help or at least cooperate.

Unfortunately, I've seen quite too much of greed and corruption in the business world in the past several years--some at a personal level. I confronted some of it in my own job and that didn't go well...but I wasn't naive about where it was headed when I dug in my heels and refused to go along. I think we ought to run some of the greedy bastards up on pikes for the harm they are causing to companies, shareholders, and their employees for their own self interest.

I'd just like to clarify my earlier statement, though Red Harvest has already done a brilliant job.

I have no problem with france, and no problem with france no going to iraq, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

Who brought up Iraq anyway????? Wtf has it got to do with anything???



Anyway...

My problem is with Chiraq and his constant verbal attacks on Britain and America. I don't believe he has ever said a nice thing about the war on terror apart of from the occasional post terrorist attack lip service.

However he has attacked the war on terror on multiple occasion, hence he is more of a collaborater than a help. I can't see how you could argue that he is a help and his constant attacks push him in the direction of collaborator. He isn't a collaberater, just closer to that than being a help.

It is the job of governments to look after their citizens best interests, how is it frances best interests for the western civilisation to fall and be replaced by muslim extremism???????

Looking at most popularity polls it would seem most french people agree with me. (bloody frogs the lot of them ~;) )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

What has you, Proletariat, Panzer, and other Americans upset is you don't realize the equation has changed.

---

Que!

I understand this. I am not trying to deny France's right to do right by France.

It is the same as when you're angry at the Israeli's for their dealings with China. I'm not living in a naive reality of alliances from ages ago, I'm calling a spade a spade.

Their duplicitous dealings with the Iraqi people are despicable, especially when it's being used as some sort moral high ground.

Quote:

---

What has you, Proletariat, Panzer, and other Americans upset is you don't realize the equation has changed.

---

I made my point earlier.

If Germany and France payed any attention to their own history, they should have jumped at the chance to aid - or at least not oppose - removing a brutal dictatorship.

“Fine, we're not allies anymore, so next time Germany invades you're on your own”: Hitler declared war against US. You (or your ancestors) hadn’t any choice in it… ~:)

“Even if they didn’t like President Bush, they should have thought in terms of their own history and recognized that the Iraq war was a good opportunity to remove the same kind of dictator that they lived under.” I don’t know why we should go through our history, but I agree with that. I had a friend killed by Saddam. ~:cheers:
But again, if you ask me money to pay the school for your kids and in fact want to go to Las Vegas and gamble, that is a lie…
To ask people to go to war for an immediate fear of WMD and terrorist links was a lie. ~D

“It was their anti-US fight”: Which one? Is you call a Anti-US fight when somebody (not only the French) wanted better proof than a pill of (alleged) anthrax, a picture of a lorry and vague satellite pictures of houses allegedly a chemical complex a anti-US fight, there you are… :dizzy2:
Now, I wasn’t in France the last 10 years, but it wasn’t in France that a hysterical campaign against one country took place… ~D

“France was never really a part of it to begin with”: France, as you state, isn’t part of NATO. France is part of an integrated Command. De Gaulle did it to have an independent Nuclear Force. ~:)

“Kofi Annan & Bob Geldof and Jacques Chirac tell us to put them”: Actually Tony Blair (UK) and Gordon Brown (UK) asked for it. Do you read the same newspapers than me? Do I receive a different CNN and Fox? ~:)

I joined the French Army during five years and I was ready to fight for, like it is said nowadays, “the supreme interests of my country”. If it should have been a real fight against terrorism, I should have been ready (too old now, it is metaphoric) for it. But the lies were too obvious.
But, not only this war did nothing against terrorism, it increases terrorism.
After the Army, I went for humanitarian help. Guess where? Iraq, Kurdish zone…
That was the model to implement, to forced Saddam to democracy, and like in the Eastern Country, he would have fallen and finish in front of the International War Crime Tribunal in the Hague, institution not recognised by the US.

I have no idea if Chirac was or not friend of Saddam, but according the vast majority of democratic countries, the US’ case smelt fish.
Your problem is Germany, France, Belgium, the English, Spanish and Italian populations and a lot of others didn’t buy it. The leaders or these countries, smelling the profit and avoiding to sent troops (except the UK, I recognised that for Blair) went for the plunder.
If you want to call that a liberation, be free. ~:cheers:

When the Allies liberated France, some French Vichiists were still fighting on French soil. They didn’t hold two months, because the French population was really convinced and supported their liberators (which a quiet large part was made by Free French). Where were the Free Iraqis? ~D

And if YOU think I will forget “France will be punished”, you are totally wrong. :furious3:

I hope I wasn’t anti-US because I disagree with what you said. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

And if YOU think I will forget “France will be punished”, you are totally wrong. :furious3:

---

I've not forgotten it either, but I happen to agree with the sentiment. It is likely that France will eventually reap what it has sown with its betrayal. ~;)

Quote:

---

I hope I wasn’t anti-US because I disagree with what you said. ~D

---

Disagreeing is fine and healthy.

”I've not forgotten it either, but I happen to agree with the sentiment. It is likely that France will eventually reap what it has sown with its betrayal”: Did France promised to go to war for the US or with the US and failed to deliver? So, what you feel as a betrayal is France should have blindly committed her own soldiers for what happened to be lies and disinformation pure Soviet style? So, you don’t want allies but sycophants and laps dogs… ~:)
So, my US friend, we agree to disagree. Like the G8 ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

I've not forgotten it either, but I happen to agree with the sentiment. It is likely that France will eventually reap what it has sown with its betrayal. ~;)

---

What betrayal would that be? They, along with the population of the entire planet did not want to invade Iraq on fabricated evidence.

Some governments went against the wishes of there own people in supporting that invasion, but I fail to see how it is a betrayal of the alliance, that France did not choose to ignore the will of their own people. They wanted hard evidence in regards to what your government was claiming and voted against a rush to war. Your government had no hard evidence for what it was claiming, only supposition, faulty intelligence, and fabricated evidence. Your government couldn't wait for the hard evidence, because given time, the falseness of what they were claiming would become self evident.

The French were not alone in any of this. They were just the most effective, and I suspect this is the real crux of the so-called betrayal. The fact that the French are doing there part in the war on terror is meaningless, because this has nothing to do with that. The fact that they fought alongside the Americans in the First Gulf War is also meaningless, because this has nothing to do with their contribution in that regard either. Their crime, the unforgivable sin, is that they weren't gullible enough, to be taken in by the so-called evidence regarding Iraq.

The United States is the one who is reaping what they have sown. They put forward the "Iraqi soldiers removing babies from incubators and leaving them to die on the cold hospital floors" or the Pentagon officials claiming that satellite images showed up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening Saudi Arabia. The St. Petersburg Times in Florida acquired two commercial Soviet satellite images of the same area, taken at the same time, no Iraqi troops were visible near the Saudi border – just empty desert. Much of the same sort of thing went on during the Kosovo crisis.

I supported, and still support the First Gulf War, but using lies and slanted half truth's to drum up support for war has long term consequences. Your government has lied so often in cases like this, that even your friends are unsure of what to believe. When you ask them to send their young to die in a war, on your word alone, they balk at doing so.

My suggestion; Start telling the truth!

NZ also didn't support the starting of the Iraq war. However, our compassion for the people of Iraq prompted our country to send engineers to help with the re-construction efforts. Also our SAS have recently been called to action in Afghanistan on a special mission. So while we do not support the starting of the war against Iraq, we do support the war on Terror and I am sure France and other opponents of the "Iraq War" feel the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

”I've not forgotten it either, but I happen to agree with the sentiment. It is likely that France will eventually reap what it has sown with its betrayal”: Did France promised to go to war for the US or with the US and failed to deliver? So, what you feel as a betrayal is France should have blindly committed her own soldiers for what happened to be lies and disinformation pure Soviet style? So, you don’t want allies but sycophants and laps dogs… ~:)

---

There is no nice way to disagree with your above statement, because in light of my others posts you should know that what you just wrote is an intentional misrepresentation, equivalent to a lie. It is not what I have said and I've pointed this out. I've made it quite clear that for me this has little to do with France committing her own soldiers, it has to do with French diplomatic attacks on the US and what it has produced. What you claimed isn't the issue for me and most others who have the same view of France now. As former defense deputy undersecretary Jed Babbin said in 2003, "you know frankly, going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. You just leave a lot of useless noisy baggage behind."

The WMD stuff was quite wrong, it wasn't obvious from the outside that there was a problem until the paucity of evidence was submitted. (And Saddam had done is best to keep up appearances, his neighbors thought he still had the weapons.) Let's not forget that Saddam had already used chemical weapons both in war and against his own people. Let's also not forget that France was agitating in favor of Saddam to end the sanctions BEFORE an invasion was proposed. This was one reason we had to act eventually. You can thank both Saddam and France for forcing us to act.

I don't think the WMD pretense was needed anyway, I've always thought that was a mistake, even when there was reason to believe Saddam was hiding them. The fact that the US was stuck enforcing compliance, was having its forces shot at regulalry, and Iraq was not fully complying was more than reason enough to respond militarily to remove Saddam. UN and France be damned, if someone is unrepentantly shooting at our military in such a circumstance, we can and should kick the crap out of them. That is not your decision to make, nor is it the UN's. It is not illegal either. Like it or not, we had sufficient justification to topple Saddam, with or without the WMD threat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

I've not forgotten it either, but I happen to agree with the sentiment. It is likely that France will eventually reap what it has sown with its betrayal. ~;)

---

Funny thread overall....

The initial betrayal was Suez 1956. From then on, there were no expectation that the US would help the French in any way, and so we parted. It's quite sad to see how underestimated this event is in modern history. Note that France went out of NATO and start research on atomic bomb at a fast pace AFTER Suez. It's also interesting to see UK attitude after Suez.

Who betrayed who?

Knowing that the US is not a reliable partner for France and vice versa now is not a reason not to have friendly relation and cooperation in areas where... we can expect each other to be reliable.

And as far as war on terror goes... What does that have to do with Iraq? As far as terrorist are concerned, we got our share and our tragic experience, thank you, and even if you shall not expect any French soldier in Iraq (given i has no relation whatsover with terror...), you can expect French help where we really fight terrorism, in Afghanistan, spec ops and police cooperation. Not only can you expect us to help... But we're already there...

Louis,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

What betrayal would that be? They, along with the population of the entire planet did not want to invade Iraq on fabricated evidence.

My suggestion; Start telling the truth!

---

You should take your own advice. Your intentional misrepresentation has been used by others. It is a lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

And as far as war on terror goes... What does that have to do with Iraq?

---

Louis has a very good point here. French opposition to the war in Iraq is not opposition to the war on terror, which is what this thread is about. It is opposition to a war that has nothing to do with terror, and France is perfectly justified to oppose it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

You should take your own advice. Your intentional misrepresentation has been used by others. It is a lie.

---

You will have to be more specific than that. What "intentional misrepresentation"?

Yet again I ask, why are we talking about iraq??

"When the Allies liberated France, some French Vichiists were still fighting on French soil. They didn’t hold two months, because the French population was really convinced and supported their liberators (which a quiet large part was made by Free French). Where were the Free Iraqis? "

1) France was under a foreign rule, iraq was not, so it isn't a valid comparision.

2)I did a report on it once, Free France DID ABSOLUTLY NOTHING. The french resistance itself is a degaullian myth designed to give the french back thier dignity and wipe away the past of nazi collusion. (I may be confused and your not talking about the resistance forces, if so my bad)

3)In 1991 most of souther Iraq went into rebellion hoping for the Americans to follow through, Americans didn't they got massarcred. Not only proves there was a "free iraq" but that they were more real than "free french" and explains why there was no great uprising this time round.

4)The kurds basically owned thier own autonomous state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

You will have to be more specific than that. What "intentional misrepresentation"?

---

Perhaps it is reading comprehension. I quoted the relevant parts and I've discussed them more than I care already. If you don't see it, then let's just drop it, because I don't think there is anyway for us to have a discussion if you can't see the point.

I'll add one final kicker, more for thought than discussion as I'm through with this thread. Had there been WMD *STILL* in Saddam's possession, would France's vehement opposition have been acceptable? Clearly not. While Saddam was not part of religious terrorism, he did use terror tactics against Iran, Kuwait, his own people and Israel among others (those Scuds fired into Israel during the first war.)

France had no way to be certain one way or the other either...many of Saddam's own people thought he still had stuff hidden away as did his neighbors. He had used chemical weapons on several occasions. Saddam was still unreformed as far as amibition and tactics, he just lacked some of the weapons. Ironically, his own sloppy record keeping and efforts at deception, duplicity, and cat and mouse with the inspectors backfired, making proof of destruction impossible.

Dubya's justification was wrong and willfully so in ways, and I believe he should be impeached for the way he directed the various services to trump up what he had, but only if he can be connected to some sort of damning paper trail/evidence that will demonstrate what many of us believe was willful intent to deceive--otherwise the excercise is doomed to failure and serves no purpose.

Regardless of WMD, the invasion of Iraq was inevitable unless Saddam changed his ultra-aggressive ways. Perhaps this is the point, as quite a few folks in Europe didn't understand that the U.S. was not going to just cut and run without attempting to resolve the matter. Turning your back on a wounded dangerous beast is not a good idea. There was quite a bit of noise in Europe/Russia about ending the sanctions and pulling out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

I've not forgotten it either, but I happen to agree with the sentiment. It is likely that France will eventually reap what it has sown with its betrayal.

---

This is ridiculous.

You see the world very much in black and white, don't you...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

I dont want to bash France here, every country does whats in its own best interests, and having Saddam in power was in their best interest as far as business goes.

But, both France and Germany should have recognized what it meant to live under a Stalin-esce dictator and at least passively support his removal.

Even if they didnt like president Bush, they should have thought in terms of their own history and recognized that the Iraq war was a good opportunity to remove the same kind of dictator that they lived under.

Thats just my opinion though, im about to go camping so I dont want to leave anyone offended.. ~D

---

Hope you enjoyed your holidays. ~:cool:
I did not want to argue about the Iraq war anymore. But after your friendly and diplomatic post I have to. ~:)
Fighting Saddam was not a bad idea. But Bush did it the wrong way and - what is more important - at the wrong time. First getting Bin Ladn and destrying AQ, then dealing with Saddam, that is what I mean.
Germany has very bad experience fighting two-front war.
Thats just my opinion though ~:cheers:

This discussion is rediculous! Can the US really turn a friend down. I thought they were fighting terrorism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

You can thank both Saddam and France for forcing us to act.

---

France forced you to invade Iraq? Oh, please!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Perhaps it is reading comprehension. I quoted the relevant parts and I've discussed them more than I care already. If you don't see it, then let's just drop it, because I don't think there is anyway for us to have a discussion if you can't see the point.

---

Well, perhaps it is reading comprehension! Let me see if I understand this.

This is not about the lies from the First Gulf War.

This is not about the lies from the Kosovo crisis.

So this is not about the false claims that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium in Africa for its nuclear weapons program.

This is not about the forgeries involved in the so-called Niger connection in Africa, which Condoleezza Rice stated were forgeries.

This is not about the false claims about mobile labs capable of producing biological weapons.

This is not about the administration claiming to have actually found these same mobile labs when they knew perfectly well that was a fabrication.

This is not about the fact that German intelligence told the Americans that the source for the mobile labs was not to be trusted, which the administration ignored.

This is not about the false claims about Iraq running an active chemical weapons program.

This is not about the false claims that Iraq possessed unmanned aircraft that could deliver biological and chemical weapons.

This is not about the administration ignoring DIA, CIA, FBI, and european intelligence sources, and cherry-picking evidence as it suited their purpose.

This is not about the present administrations brazen disregard for the truth.

This is not about the WMD, and terror connection which the adminstration tried to sell the UN as a "Casus belli".

This is not about Donald Rumsfeld running off at the mouth about "old Europe" and other derisive comments.

This is not about Rumsfeld comparing Germany to Cuba, and Libya.

This is not about the American adminstration dissolving the links that bind the US with its closest allies.

This is not about the President clever little comments like, "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."

This is not about the Bush administration which has shown a breathtaking ignorance of the real world, and it's stance that disagreement is betrayal, and dissent is treason.

No, this about France, and how they betrayed America (perhaps by making you invade Iraq) for reasons that remain obscure, but must have been terrible indeed if you cannot bring yourself to talk about them.

Well if you want to believe that Uganda, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Macedonia, Rwanda, Slovakia, and Vanuata are going to replace "old europe" you might consider the contribution that "old europe" has made to the fight on terror. While you are doing that count the combined effort that the above mentioned countries have made before you come to any hasty decisions about who is and who is not an ally.

Why is America so hurt by France's "betrayal" or unwillingness to tow the line? For what reason does France owe the US its alliegance?

Also, would it be reasonable statement that of the 5 major world powers, France is the weakest? Yet I do not believe that of US relationships with these nations, theirs is not the weakest.
Why do the American administration not look towards improving the very shaky relations they have with China, who represent a far more significant threat to American national security? China did not support the war in Iraq either. Neither did Russia.

Supported War In Iraq: USA, UK
Did not support war in Iraq: China, Russia, France

Quote:

---

It is the job of governments to look after their citizens best interests, how is it frances best interests for the western civilisation to fall and be replaced by muslim extremism???????

---

Oh, now France is looking for Muslim extremists to take over the western world ? Another funny new idea :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

2)I did a report on it once, Free France DID ABSOLUTLY NOTHING. The french resistance itself is a degaullian myth designed to give the french back thier dignity and wipe away the past of nazi collusion. (I may be confused and your not talking about the resistance forces, if so my bad)

---

Just as people saying that France was freed thanks to the Resistance are somewhat stupid, people saying that Resistance did not play a major role in the Liberation are equally stupid. The Allies (Americans, Brits, Canadians, French and Poles) wouldn't have conquered France so easily without the partisans' help (who basically blown up all railroad, bridge and all things that could have helped the germans). They also liberated many cities, Paris included (though they received the help of allies soldiers).

Quote:

---

Regardless of WMD, the invasion of Iraq was inevitable unless Saddam changed his ultra-aggressive ways.

---

This is the main problem with the war in Irak, and I think, one of the reason europeans did not want to follow the US : the war in Irak was not a top priority. There are about 100 rulers who are worst than Saddam (many of them are allied of the western world) and who are much more agressive than him (North Korea or Iran anyone ?). There was still troubles in Afghanistan, yet Bush invaded another country, by using false reasons (WMD - Terrorism - I don't like him), and caused a real disaster. Why didn't he invade Pakistan or Saudi Arabia ? Or even better, why didn't he help the creation of a Palestinian state ? That would have helped solving the terrorism problem, unlike invading Irak, and Europeans would have more or less agreed with that.

This whole thread started out of frustration over the accusation after last week's attack on London that France is a collaborator in the war on terror. Which is all the more painful since the images from London bore a spooky resemblance to the ones from the terrorist attack on the Paris metro ten years ago.

The point is that the international jihad against the west didn't start last week in London, nor in Madrid, nor on 9-11, but in several waves of terrorist attacks on France in the eighties and nineties. France has had to deal with more islamic terrorism, for a longer period of time, than any other western country. We are neither neutral nor collaborators. We are in the frontline, at a great cost of human lives and resources.
And in this war between the free world and the forces of evil, France wasn't defeated yet when the Americans decided to finally join the fight. ~;)

Yes, there have been some quarrels between France and the 'Anglo-Americans' in recent years. France is always assertive about her interests, and thinks some multi-polarity in Western Civilisation might be in order. Deal with it. Frankly, those who think less in a lapdog-enemy dichotomy might see that plurality between befriended nations, just like plurality within nations, is a source of strenght. To disagree is not the same as to be unreliable.

This is the crucial part: think of France what you must though- and to be perfectly honest, I can see where a lot of resentment is coming from - but the last thing you can call us is an untrustworthy partner in the war on terror. Hence the French frustration in this thread.
France does consider the US and the UK as befriended nations to her core. We have, we are, and we will go out of our way to protect the lives of their citizens and to avenge those who were killed. Get some less news from Fox, and more from the quality press and you know this to be true.

Again, Chirac may be an arse, but he still represents the French Republic. His standing right behind Blair last week was more than an empty gesture. Forget about the Olympics, the British rebate and what not. If Britain needs anything from France right now, they only need to ask. We granted every request by the Americans in their struggle too and got the facts to prove it.

Allthough, what we will not grant is a silly request like 'bring democracy to Cuba to stop Castro's threat' or the like.
Then we will, er, 'betray' Britain, yes.

A few points:

Quote:

---

There are about 100 rulers who are worse than Saddam (many of them are allied to the western world) and who are much more agressive than him (North Korea or Iran anyone ?). There were still troubles in Afghanistan, yet Bush invaded another country, by using false reasons (WMD - Terrorism - I don't like him), and caused a real disaster. Why didn't he invade Pakistan or Saudi Arabia ? Or even better, why didn't he help the creation of a Palestinian state ? That would have helped solving the terrorism problem, unlike invading Irak, and Europeans would have more or less agreed with that.

---

Hey Meneldil, your English improves when you are not nervous... ~;)
Anyway, thanks for your passionate replies!
~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sharrukin

No, this about France, and how they betrayed America (perhaps by making you invade Iraq) for reasons that remain obscure, but must have been terrible indeed if you cannot bring yourself to talk about them.
Well if you want to believe that Uganda, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Macedonia, Rwanda, Slovakia, and Vanuata are going to replace "old europe" you might consider the contribution that "old europe" has made to the fight on terror. While you are doing that count the combined effort that the above mentioned countries have made before you come to any hasty decisions about who is and who is not an ally.

---

:smitten:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

I've been too flustered since post one of this thread (which seemed to imply that if the US did what France does, we'd never have had a 9/11) to engage in rational debate.

---

No, Proletariat, that was not what I was implying.

I meant French forces storming the plane as opposed to France being soft on terror, even collaborating with jihadists. Not French forces storming the plane that was meant to be crashed on Paris in 1994 as opposed to the US not acting on 9-11 or whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

The initial betrayal was Suez 1956. From then on, there were no expectation that the US would help the French in any way, and so we parted. It's quite sad to see how underestimated this event is in modern history. Note that France went out of NATO and start research on atomic bomb at a fast pace AFTER Suez. It's also interesting to see UK attitude after Suez.

Who betrayed who?

---

You can thank the Soviets for that one. They had just invaded Hungary and declared martial law. They threatened to overrun Germany and march on into France if you guys didn't quit screwing around over there. We knew we didn't have the resources in place to stop them. Go read about it on Wikipedia. And God knows, you had all the dead Americans you wanted over in Dien Bien Phu.

Your point (though correct) lost all validity on the use of that statement:

Quote:

---

Go read about it on Wikipedia.

---

Do not try to learn about history from Wikipedia. If you would insist on doing that, may I recommend you learn about the Wars of England from the films of Mel Gibson. ~D He he joking.

Khrushchev himself confessed later however, that the Soviet Union was not prepared to risk nuclear war over Egypt. Since a land invasion of Paris would have required the USSR to have moved through Germany first, this would have meant engaging US troops along the way, which would have given the US grounds for a pre-emptive strike that many in the Eisenhower administration wanted. Though the USSR was a nuclear power at this point in history, its delivery systems were inadaquete to deliver a serious blow to the US, while the US could have eliminated the USSR as a serious military threat.

The REAL reason the US couldn't support the invasion was that it could not expect to be taken seriously in international politics if it criticised the USSR intervening in Hungary, while at the same time endorsing its allies did the exact same thing (albiet the allies were intervening for the right reasons). A fairly minor issue in comparison to what would have been achieved by a success in the Suez, but it just goes to show how willing the US is prepared to screw over its allies to protect its own interests.

The same way any country should really.

“you had all the dead Americans you wanted over in Dien Bien Phu”: can you comments this? American in DBP. The only one where the private company mad by Claire Chenault… No US soldiers in DBP, but French Soldiers in Korea… :book: Back to the debate please… ~D

Do you suppose the animosity from the Hundred Years War (that is what we call it, I don't know what the French call it) has carried over to now? Or maybe it was Napoleon? Hell, France helped win the battle of Yorktown. Can just one man (De Gaulle [what a great name]) really ruin nations relationships?

I'm just curious where the animosity comes from. And I don't buy arrogance or pride either.

Azi

I didn't say dead soldiers, I said dead Americans. For Christ's sake, talk about being ungrateful....The fact is, I seriously doubt your commanders at the time would have allowed actual dogtag wearing American GI's on the ground anyway. Let's not forget who these 'commercial' pilots were... this was Air America's first major operation.

Louis Ferte implied that any bad blood is our fault, because we didn't support you in the Suez. I explained why I thought we had to do that, and offered Dien Biem Phu, which was only 18 months before that, as evidence that we actually were doing what we could, when we could to help you guys out.

Never mind, Brenus, you're right. In the entire history of our nation, we've never done a damn thing for France. Back to the topic... Oops, I forgot, a smiley makes everything I say okay. ~D Now, back to the topic...

Al Khalifah, I think you're sadly mistaken if you believe the hype that the US was trying to bait the USSR into a conventional war. At that particular point, we would have lost, and lost badly, possibly encouraging the USSR to overrun all of Europe. We had our hands full fighting the North Koreans & the Chinese on the Korean peninsula. We eventually fought them to a draw, but it was pretty costly for us. Eisenhower may have been making some rousing speeches, but he knew better than anybody we were in no position to take on the Soviet Union in a conventional war.

Edit: And no, I don't rely on Wikipedia as my sole source for history (though thanks for the vote of confidence :inquisitive:). It does have a nice brief summary of the events though. If you want a few additional sources:
Global Security's take

Charles Stuart University

And finally, Ehistory's view

The French call it La Guerre de Cent Ans which the exact translation. And no, I don’t think it ruins the Franco-English relations.
France and England built their national Identity against each other, with wars during hundred years. The truth is both King could have claim the throne of the other country, and it happened. Until John Lackland, all the “English” Kings were buried in France. ~D
The last battle English/Belgium/Prussian vs French was Waterloo 1815. One century after, it was English-French vs Germany…
There are actually a huge French population in England, and a lot of English go to France and buy houses, work and live. I will go in two weeks shopping in Calais… ~:)

I don’t think animosity is the good world. Both countries are proud of their history, our common history, even if it was against each other. It is more competition and kind of folklore than something really nasty.

“In the entire history of our nation, we've never done a damn thing for France”: Did I say that? No. The US came during WW1 and WW2 to fight against the German’s invasion, and the last time they even were a great help to liberate France. But YOU have to recognise that until the start of the Korean War, the US was helping the Vietminh against the French (anti-colonialism), that the US constantly support the movement of liberation against the French/British Empires. And I don’t blame them for that.

I don’t think I have to be grateful for the initiative of a private man and his pilots (American) who, against the will of his own government, helped in parachuting foods and ammunition.
I also perfectly aware that the US financed the Indochina war in the frame of the Anti-communist crusade (after the visit of the Gal De Lattre de Tassigny in the USA) and that Nixon offered the A-bomb (Operation Vulture) when the fall of DBP was obvious. Don’t give me grief about what I am NOT saying.

In term to be ungrateful, no country can give lessons to others.

“you're right”: I am sorry to be. ~:)

Now, yes, go back to the debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azi Tohak

Do you suppose the animosity from the Hundred Years War (that is what we call it, I don't know what the French call it) has carried over to now? Or maybe it was Napoleon? Hell, France helped win the battle of Yorktown. Can just one man (De Gaulle [what a great name]) really ruin nations relationships?

I'm just curious where the animosity comes from. And I don't buy arrogance or pride either.

---

It's called 'La Guerre de Cent Ans' in French. Which literally translates as, suprise, 'the Hundred Years War'.
[edit: crap, I overlooked Brenus' post]

But that was in prehistoric times. Some stereotypes may have survived to this day, but it's not really a source of frustration at either side of the Channel, is it? You've got Agincourt, we've got Jeanne d'Arc. :duel:

(On a funny side-note: French nobility thought it unfair to use longbows, and threatened to cut of the index and middle finger of anybody caught using one. In typical English fashion, the average longbowmen's reply was the 'up yours' gesture made by these two fingers that is still in use in Britain today...)

Napoleon was brought down by the Eastern despots and the Russian winter. Waterloo only came after his major defeats, and is not really a source of any frustration either.

About De Gaulle I don't know, he seems to be very unpopular with the Anglo-Americans. As I'm not a Gaullist, I'm not too fond of him either. Though he does have his redeeming qualities: he gave France a sense of pride after WWII, he ended that stupid war in Algeria, and he seems to be very unpopular with the Anglo-Americans.

But seriously. Animosity? Nah, not really. Not with Great Britain at least. They're not really viewed as any particular arch-rival or anything. As long as we keep beating the crap out of the English at football they are welcome to bankrupt themselves with the Olympics in 2012.
What animosity there is, is allthogether less frustrated, less vile than with America.

With the US the situation has got a bit out of hand. Though I think it is more a matter of conservative America freaking out over France in the last few years, and of the extreme-left and extreme-right in France being all too critical of the US, to the point of paranoia. (The US the biggest threat to world-peace? Get real!). And to which in all fairness I should add that both extremes make up quite a sizeable amount of France. :embarassed:

"he gave France a sense of pride after WWII,"


A false sense of pride too be picky.

And at what cost? The hate of the Anglo World? Was it really worth it?

That's a bit unfair. I don't think many of us "hate France." I put France at roughly the same level as Russia now--prideful, jealous, dangerous, and sometimes friendly. I keep in mind this comment (quote?) I picked up somewhere, "France, they are there when they need you."

I've been considering a trip to a remote part of Russia for some research when I can swing it, but France has fallen off my travel itenerary (a pity, since I spent some years studying French, but never Russian.) I've also found some nice substitutes for French champagnes at a fraction of the cost, but this is primarily an economic consideration as the French champagnes are greatly over priced for the problems I've had with variability of the quality of one bottle to the next. I've had so many "corked" French champagnes that I've largely given up on them. Too bad, because when they are good they are unbeatable.

If any country collaberated it is england, we don't call it Londonistan for nothing. Englands policy on islamic terrorism was basicly 'leave us alone' and you can use London as a base.

This discussion is really amazing to me. Having heard all the argues I can imagine that France will soon be the leader against terror.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Al Khalifah, I think you're sadly mistaken if you believe the hype that the US was trying to bait the USSR into a conventional war.

---

Guess I'm not sadly mistaken then, since I don't believe that. The US did not want any sort of war with the USSR at this point. Some in the Eisenhower administration and even as late as the Kennedy administration wanted pre-emptive nuclear strikes against the Soviet Union, because the Soviets didn't actually have the delivery systems necessary to inflict a crushing blow on the continental United States, but they believed the Russians soon would.
The Russians didn't want any sort of war with the Americans at this point either and they knew that a nuclear strike against London or Paris would have provoked this. A conventional war against France or England would have required the Russians to go through American troops as well, which also would have provoked a war with the US.

That is what I was saying.

First, even if that's true, I don't think the Eisenhower administration knew the Soviets weren't scrapping for a fight. But I don't think it is. They took a huge gamble by invading Hungary and earlier, by shutting down traffic to East Berlin. They made no bones about the fact that they considered all of Europe their domain and that we were meddling where we didn't belong. I think you're being a bit naive if you think they wouldn't have attacked Germany or France if they thought they had the upper hand.

I completely agree, the Soviets would have attacked Germany or France without a second's thought during the cold war, if they had the upper hand.
But they never did. Such a move meant attacking America and at that stage in the Cold War America had the advantage. The Soviets had nothing to gain from such a move.
The Soviets never had the upper hand in the Cold War in such a way that would have allowed them to eliminate America while only taking moderate damage themselves. America did have this advantage but only for a while at the beginning of the war. Therefore neither side could openly attack the other, because of the threat of mutually assured destruction.

The Eisenhower administration didn't know the Soviets weren't scrapping for a fight. In all likelyhood they thought they were which is why they acted in the way they did, but the Soviets weren't. They were not prepared to risk the destruction of their homeland for the sake of Egypt, however, their threats were enough as was so often the case in the Cold War. It was too big a bluff for the US to call.

England and France...two countries that are inhabited by some of the most arrogant people in the world, and they exist cheek by jowl....nuff said.

btw the French got lucky in the 100 years war ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

England and France...two countries that are inhabited by some of the most arrogant people in the world, and they exist cheek by jowl....nuff said.

btw the French got lucky in the 100 years war ~D

---

Errrrmmm.....you mean we gave ourselves a huge handicap by suiciding our best knights at Azincourt before repelling you with inferior troops? ~D

At least it didn't take a chick to sort our armies out.