Ummm, I second that... I feel the rift is too far to reach a common ground.

I'm surprised so few . . .

One in three French backs Saddam

Murky Buckets, France. SmileWavy

Humm, well...Its gonna be though to be friends. Oh well, after all, who cares ? I am Swiss too...HEHE. Plus, it is not personal. There are are as many morons in my country as in yours (proportionally). Besides, I give up... http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/sad2.gif

Aurel

Island.. you know were I stand on this.. Do you really want me to start another Shock and Haaaaaa...
Don't get me started.. :D

Also I have to Add... God Bless our Troops and Thank God for bringing Back our Freedom Fighter Jessica Lynch back safe and alive.

Jorge (Targa Dude):cool:

Well, based on the range of opinions on this BBS, I'm guessing about two in three US people would like to see France lose a(nother) war.

Lets imagine us up a different scenario. What if:

- the US and Britain wanted to wait for more evidence of WMD, etc
- France and Germany wanted to invade Iraq now

Accordingly, the US and Britain stand up in the UN and refuse to back France and Germany (and others). France and Germany and their hypothetical "coalition of the willing" invade Iraq.

Where do you stand now? Do you continue to vilify the French? Why?

(edit - No cheap jokes about France's ability to win a war. Consider it beneath you for this discussion).

Cam - if your theater for war is based on WMD, I think the U.S.'s argument against a French-German coalition would be the same as France and Germany's argument against the United States.
The difference in your case is the U.S. might also throw in a healthy dose of trade embargoes and other political-economic pressures. It's a spot where your scenario breaks down.

Also, these days, few industrialized countries (and fewer still who are industrialized and DO NOT depend on trade with the U.S.) would steer against a U.S. "no" to war. Having good relations with the U.S. is far too tempting economically.

Personally, I feel France and Germany would have a legitimate reason to go to war with Iraq because of WMD. After all, the ratio of those whose nationalities have been linked to countries either with WMDs or who aid terrorism is higher than the United States. So with that, if it's purely a threat of WMDs that you're talking about, it might very well be possible the U.S. would back their war efforts. Either way, the end result will be a greater stability to the region (such as Iraq) than what is presently in charge of the country.

Well what's the fun then? ;)

Cam, that is a decent hypothetical. . . though would we assume France had some anthrax attacks. . .and some jokers fly a Concord in to the Eiffel tower, crashing to the ground and killing a few thousand hardworking Frenchmen. . .hardworking Frenchmen!? --crap, the hypothetical brokedown before we got to the 'French warrior' cracks.:D

Haha - that is definitely funny!!!! Ok, so intelligent French jokes are ok ;)

I am simply trying to get you guys to think like the French might be (no cheap jokes!).

I posted it on the other thread - I think it is valid for the French (and any other country) to take a contrary view to the US on the need for war, and I think it is not a valid argument on the US' part to say "well, we're bigger so you have to agree with us".

I ask for you to think of this:-

If the boot was on the other foot (France invade, US against), then the US would be putting that boot up France's arse. Criticising France is a bit hypocritical.

The difference in your case is the U.S. might also throw in a healthy dose of trade embargoes and other political-economic pressures. It's a spot where your scenario breaks down.

This doesn't break down my argument - it confirms it. The US can only get away with what it is doing because of its size and might. That is not something to be proud of.

Again, where's the fun, then?

Okay, seriously; let me turn the hypothetical for you to contemplate:

What if PO'd Brits went over to France, took out the Eiffel tower, then, on their way home blasted the Chunnel as a final F'U salute to the French. Then by the cheerful reaction of the US, France suspects that these little white bio-powder envelopes they are now getting, are likely coming from the US (they have this stuff after all, and the Brits don't). Hmmm, the french think. . . maybe the CIA had something to do with the Eiffel thing too. . . .

So tell me Cam, would you be saying "France you have no case against the US . . .leave them alone; the US controlled UN says so." (?)

No, Cam: it breaks your argument. Here's why? The playing field between the U.S. and a combined French-German effort in your scenario, automatically tilts toward America for more reasons than America itself (read economic stability for the rest of the Western World). So given that, your hypothesis is unrealistic because these two nations know the U.S. is much more powerful than they, even when combined, because the U.S.'s might is not necessarily based on force, but on ability to be a part of every industrialized country's day-to-day functionality.

Given the far-fetched notion F&G wanted to attack Iraq and the U.S. were to act alone in preventing this, we could, for example, 1) hit F&G with economic sanctions, 2) sway UN and worldwide opinion by giving historical references (WWII) that would have every country in the Western Hemisphere hating France and Germany; and 3) if the U.S. wanted to get real down and dirty, we might outline to F&G, "Germany, we kicked your asses once, we'll do it again. France, we saved your asses once, which means we could kick your asses as well."

Why your argument breaks down is you are not accounting for the histories of France and Germany - beds they've slept in and now have to atone for. Both countries are acutely afraid of the wrongs they've committed in their earlier age, and would rather not be associated with those errors. Besides which, there could also be a scenario where the U.S. would not even care if France and Germany attacked Iraq. Better they deal with the rest of the Middle East hatred than the United States.

One way or the other, I personally can't see how your idea would work. Too many other factors like histories, dependency on the U.S. and the embedded Arab population in France and Germany would have to change. Even with regard to Arab population in their "attack" on Iraq, France and Germany could wind up committing a circuitous genocide on itself, i.e. terrorist attacks within their borders as retribution for attacking Iraq.

They're too smart (and afraid) to let that happen. Not to mention too geographically close to the Middle East.

Or again, Cam, the U.S. might not even care if F&G attacks Iraq. We get most of our oil from Venezuela. It's closer.

So tell me Cam, would you be saying "France you have no case against the US . . .leave them alone; the US controlled UN says so." (?)

Yes. They need to prove it.

dd74 - I realise it would never happen. I'll try to put it a different way:

In the current situation, the US has attacked Iraq. France would not sanction beginning a war now, and many people blame the UNs lack of sanction for the war on France's position (ie the veto, plus the coalition of the unwilling).

As a result there is a huge amount of France-bashing going on.

I simply contend that the position of France in not sanctioning the war (at this time - I believe they would have sanctioned it if the right sort of evidence was provided) is entirely justifiable. The French are (quite rightly) concerned that the US does not respect them or the UN, and basically tested this by vetoing the UN resolution.

The US has proved those fears of France (and others) by invading Iraq without UN permission. Personally I think this alone justifies France's stance in opposing the US.

The fact that the US can get away with doing this through its size and strength does not give anyone the right to call the French names.

dd74 - my point is that if France had the same international muscle as the US (eg sanctions, thinly veiled threats) then the US/British invasion wouldn't have happened. I guess I approached describing this from the wrong angle.

I also tried to ask you guys to ask yourselves if you approve of this war because:

(a) - of the facts; or
(b) - the position of the US (as invader).

Hence the crap about France invading. If your answer is (a) and (b), ask yourself what if:

- only (a) applied (eg that France invaded and the US opposed)
- only (b) applied - in which case, you actually agree with the French, but jingoistically still hate them for opposing your country

Island

I've had another think about your question. We're getting a bit silly on the hypotheticals here, but lets imagine those Brits did those things.

... and it couldn't be proved. France KNOWS it happened, and wants to attack the US. The US says, wait - lets find evidence.

Is it now ok for the French to hate the US?

Well, yeah! Besides, the French have hated the US for a lot less.
Sheesh, french slop-shops will deny serving Americans some salted snails, if not properly requested.

get something straight; One in three French backs Saddam !

If One in three French backs Saddam, how many Saddam cronies backs binLaden? . . .. oh right, the US hasn't PROVED a direct connection. . . .No one can say Saddam backs binLaden. Peh-lease!

That surprises me - I freely admit. I really am at a loss to describe why the French public has so much animosity to the US.

The French government is worried too:

http://www.lemonde.fr/article/0,5987,3462--315208-,00.html
Translated link

Run it throught google's translator:

http://www.google.co.nz/language_tools?hl=en

Want a good laugh? Le Monde has an "opinion" which turns around the US concept of "we saved your butts in WWII".

http://www.lemonde.fr/article/0,5987,3232--315180-,00.html
Translated link

The French say "We saved your butts in the Civil War"!!!

Now lads, a little tolerance please...

WWII aside .. .
The French rolled out a red carpet with the UN reolution 1441. . . and then gave it a good yank when the US/British troops where positioned.

That is why I'm personally PO'd at the French.

Okay, Cam...now that you've rephrased it, your question is very thought-provoking. This reminds me of an international relations class I took in college, where scenarios like this were continually brought up, though coupled with 1st strike, 2nd strike nuclear capabilities.

Anyway, I'll say this much:

1) France should be soverign enough to act on its own accord;

2) I believe that if its actions are such that it doesn't impede directly with the U.S., Americans would feel less inclined to hate France if it were to attack Iraq in the instance that you describe;

3) I for one have no ill-feeling toward France, or if France were to carry out an attack to protect itself against a country with WMD.

4) IMO a lot of the French-bashing was based directly on how the WTC bombing could be linked through bin Laden and Saddam, and how with that link mostly established (i.e. "mostly" being through the media and the Bush Administration and again, emotion - we were attacked after all), we saw the French (and Germans) as standing in our way to defend ourselves. I won't say it was a correct perception, but it was a credible one in the eyes of our country being attacked.

5) I don't think Americans would otherwise hate France for the hell of it, unless they don't like eating fish with the heads still attached. Some might think that's just simply barbaric!