thank you france, germany, russia, china, etc

[Vandal-1]

Yes,Thanks nations for approving of the urgent work that will hopefully be done for the good of the many,and not the profits of a fiew.Without regard for any financial motive to our presence we are now committed to either the anihilation or the education of the Arab peoples.To perform this task we must educate ourselves first and not be so arogant that we deny our ignorance. First of all:If not for the influence of western trade to get Arab rulers to comply with common human law,there is little other pressure on them to do so. I believe that the trade in oil is likely to continue and poses a demand that Arab workers alone cannot meet.The UN has in the past used this trade to further peaceful Arab rulers and ineffectively penalize hostile Arab rulers.When Arab States where found complicit with hostile cadres economic (Oil) sanctions were applied
The sanctions had litlle effect on the funding of hostile cadres as both official military and terrorist units generation continued.
While the officail Arab State was unable to fund or recruit such opposition since offiically a trading partner or was sanctioned.
{There fore} Other scources of hostile cadres existed .
They were/ are recruited and trained by some official governments un -officially and by some organizations including churchs.,infuediated sultanates et,al,
1) The Arab ruling class is non-representative(Of some) of" the Arab peoples’ will " in cases.for organizations such as these to be able to recruit and fund cadres.{Shaw of Iran,King Faysul-II, Karmaal,and Possibly Faud}Thus Anti-Western Theocrats and Tribal Sultanates rule paralell to the official government providing covert trade with undeclared nations or organized crime while recruiting members and reaping financial rescources from Black market trade in fuel ,narcotics and weaponry.Please consider what measures need to be taken in this light,and look at it from the perspective that the Arabs coulld prove great allies in a free world.
.

[Vandal-1]

To approve in theory to a idea is far from realizing the truth of it. or is this the WW2 thread

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Cruddy

And then you change the goal posts when it is pointed out that the US did not choose when to fight;-

Come on. They basically made the Japanese attack them and the Germans, being allies of the Japanese were put in a no-win position. You are assuming that if the Japanese had never attacked the US that the US would never have become involved in the war. Your claim is roughly that that particular counterfactual is true. I personally doubt that it is.

Anyway, it was pretty obvious that the Germans were screwed after invading Russia. As soon as he heard that Barbarossa had started Mussolini said, "that's it, we've lost."

Agreed, the US was not selfless. At the time of Pearl Harbour the US Defense department estimated that a Japanese invasion could not be stopped before it reached Chicaco. Hardly self interest.

That the Japanese were held in such esteem is laughable. Are these the same people that said the Japanese would be useless in air combat?

Your implication is that the US took WW2 as a God given gift to impose their will on the world.

That's your implication, not mine. My implication is that they were out for their own interests.

Your implication is that the US govt, Fascism and Communism were the only players. Your implications are in this case quite wrong.

Again, that is your implication, not mine. My implication is that either fascism or communism would have been triumphant in Europe. I don't think that the UK would have been in a position to compete with whoever won out of those two.

"Geostrategically" is a tautological instrument. Strategically covers EXACTLY the same meaning. Why are you using big words when a small one covers the same ground? It impresses you - do you think it impresses other people?

"geostrategic" is a species of the genus "strategic" the former referring explicitly to the largest scale strategic issues. It's simply a more accurate term to use. The genus/species relation is not tautological.

Do you think you are the only thinking person on Apolytnn? Congratulations on stereotyping the whole community.

Again - this is a laughable exercise in creative interpretation. From getting at the mindless Bush lovers I am suddenly getting at everyone on Apolyton. The explicit implication here being that everyone on Apolyton is a mindless Bush lover.

You need to take a logic class.

[Vandal-1]

You don't know that all apolytoners are Buschies,some of us are in damage assesment.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Vandal-1
You don't know that all apolytoners are Buschies,some of us are in damage assesment.

Arrgggh!!!

I'm not claiming they are, nor did anything I said ever imply this. Only Cruddy, who seems to think he has the magical gift of seeing into the minds of others believes this.

I like that - damage assessment.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
1.) Did the French people view this as a "crisis" ?

Sorry Plato, but I'm quite busy these days, so I couldn't answer you as quickly as usual

Like always I can't really know for the "French people" (my knowledge of the French people, when there are no polls is limited to what my family and friends say). But I have seen the popular program Les Guignols de l'Info depicting the "Old Europe" week as a week of diplomatic fighting between the two countries (Chirac fistfighting and losing against Stallone, who represents America in that show).
By the way, the American reaction was a significant issue in the TV and written news. So, maybe it was not considered as a "crisis", but it was sure considered as an important division.

2.) Was Chirac's position Pacifism? I thought that he said he would support military action at "the correct time" ?

Indeed, it was his position all along. But in the mind of the public opinion (more accurately, my perception of it), Chirac was on stopping Bush's aggression. I don't know if many people were interested in Chirac raising the opportunity of going to war in the future or not.

3.) If Anti-Americanism was small scale before the war, then what was the general feeling toward the US then?

I have used a bad wording. What I called "small-scale" antiamericanism meant that French people, unlike many Arabs, have never been into killing Americans, and hate speeches towards America aren't extremely common. "Small-scale Antiamericanism" means that French people are generally defiant towards the US, and criticize everything the US does. We have our few "let's love the USA and do everything at their bidding in gratitude for WW2" nuts, but they are not really mainstream, especially since Gulf War 2.
That's why the opposition to the Iraqi war was way higher than the opposition to the Chechnya campaign. Actually, the public opinion almost doesn't care on Chechnya, despite it being much more bloody than Iraq.

4.) How do the French people think Chirac's policy of multi-polarism worked?

From what I've seen in the news, it seems the media is severely criticizing Chirac for his diplomatic mistakes, especially in the light of American resentment. I haven't seen any comments over his arrogance within Europe.
But there have been both critics from the left (always on a lookout for easy shots against Chirac), and from the right who thought a rift in the atlantic friendship was an unaffordable price.
My friends studying polsci agree with me on supporting his stance towards Iraq and vomiting his stance towards other European countries, but they are not at all a reflection of the French public opinion.

5.) Is the new consensus on the UNSC seen as a defeat of Chirac by the French people?

From what I've seen in the media, it is considered as a defeat. It sure was considered as a victory back when all people opposing war were supporting France's position

[Kidlicious]

btw, France is gettting better press in the US now. I saw a segment on the news about how the French tourism industry loves Americans so much, and how Americans in Paris were having so much fun, and that the French are so nice to them.

[Dinner]

Fox is still urging people to boycott French products and to avoid visiting France. They're the only one's I can think of though. Maybe a few talk radio programs.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Fox is still urging people to boycott French products and to avoid visiting France.

I'm eagerly waiting for Lancer to tell me that Fox is "fair and balanced"

More seriously, I wouldn't have thought that the boycott would actually be supported by the mainstream media in the US. It appears the rise of antiamericanism in France doesn't match at all the counterpart in the US. Even our most antamerican mainstream show has never called for boycott of Yank products, as far as I'm aware.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Agathon


Only Cruddy, who seems to think he has the magical gift of seeing into the minds of others believes this...

You've been reading my mind, haven't you?

Originally posted by Agathon
Come on. They basically made the Japanese attack them and the Germans, being allies of the Japanese were put in a no-win position

Not strictly speaking true. Germany was obliged under the Tri-Partite (?) Pact to support Japan if it was attacked... It was not obliged to support Japan in any aggressive action.
Hitler's personality made it a VIRTUAL certainty - but a change of leaders at that point would have locked the US out of the European side of the war.

Originally posted by Agathon

You can flap on all you like, but this war was waged on fake pretexts partly to make sure that people of limited political awareness, like yourself, would vote for little George in the upcoming election. And you ALL
bought it.


Originally posted by Agathon

Again - this is a laughable exercise in creative interpretation. From getting at the mindless Bush lovers I am suddenly getting at everyone on Apolyton. The explicit implication here being that everyone on Apolyton is a mindless Bush lover.

A literal reading of the first quote leads quite logically to the 2nd and 3rd sentence of the 2nd quote being true. No creative interpretation needed. You dissed us ALL with that statement. Hoist by your own petard.

Originally posted by Agathon
My implication is that either fascism or communism would have been triumphant in Europe. I don't think that the UK would have been in a position to compete with whoever won out of those two.

But the UK was ALLIED to Stalin, wasn't it? And how would Stalin have fought the UK? He'd have needed to build a blue water navy first, wouldn't he? Something he showed no inclination for - which would indicate no inclination for overseas adventures.

[PLATO]

Thanks Spiffor. Don't worry about time lag. I am usually much worse than you by a long shot.

I am pleased to see the beginnings of a healing process in Franco-American relations. I have to admit that I was pretty pi$$ed off myself. I hope that the criticism that Chirac has received will turn him away from multi-polarism. Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting that France should be a US lapdog. I just think that there is a far better way to handle these disputes. Both governments should work together to try and sponsor better feelings among their populaces. I am looking to the G-8 summit coming up to provide some clarity to how the relationship will proceed.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I'm eagerly waiting for Lancer to tell me that Fox is "fair and balanced"

I heard someone say today that fox is balanced between the right and the far right.

I do enjoy their programming however. They do have a lot of liberal guests on so you can at least hear part of their side. (In between them being belittled by a fox anchor)

[Dinner]

To be fair Fox does a good job reporting the news but its editorials are very far to the right. They do clearly label which section is an editorial and which section is news though and that is better then I can say about CBS.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Both governments should work together to try and sponsor better feelings among their populaces. I am looking to the G-8 summit coming up to provide some clarity to how the relationship will proceed.

Me too. I suppose the G8 meeting will be the place where both countries will force themselves to agree on everything, in order to give a buddy-buddy image to the world and to their public opinion (at least from Chirac - I doubt Bush will want to publicize the renewed friendship too much).
I think the French news have stopped displaying the little antiamericanism they displayed during the diplomatic barking (I'm talking about the news, not about info-related entertainment), even though the American sanctions towards us is shown from time to time. I assume they have been 'advised' to do so by the Foreign ministry after the end of the war and the first concessions.
Besides, our media is now too busy writing about the Raffarin government and his plans about reforming the retirement system, as well as the important strikes that are occuring.

[Dinner]

Henry Kissenger came up with the idea of the G7 as a way for the industrialized countries to coordinate their responses to the Arab oil embargo and it served that purpose well. Unfortunately, for the last 20 years the G7 (now G8) has degenerated into little more then flowery statements which get little or no follow through from its members.

I know many conservatives are beginning to wonder if the whole exccersize isn't a waste of time. It's to bad they can't actually get everyone to do what they say they intend to do.