US special forces 'inside Iran'

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor

If you repeat it often enough, it might even become true

Well, you could regard withdrawing all troops from NATO into France to be 'helping'. Unfortunately, not many share the appraisal.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Oh, Christ, give up Kosovo, already, will ya?

Save for Kosovo and Afghanistan, when was the last time the US could have used support in a military operation? Ah yes, during the first Gulf War, in which France took part as well.

The French were involved? Big Deal! It was your front yard, after all. Do you want a medal?

No, I want you to stop your crap about France always undermining the US, never supporting its efforts. It is false. It also false for Germany, which allowed itself to send troops in Kosovo despite its constitution. As long as you'll believe something that false, your contribution in threads about International Relations will be nothing more than ignorant spam, which I think doesn't fit you.

I find it difficult to believe that a cynic such as yourself does not recognise that others might place premiums on past actions. You seem to think France will skate? Oh, the folly.

France could skate. Actually, France was close to cooperating with the US on Iraq. In early January 2003, Chirac told his diplomats and his soldiers to be ready for any possibility. In the monthes before that, both the US and France had worked at sorting out their disagreement with a compromise. The reason why France and Germany eventually opposed the US adventure in Iraq with such vehemence, is because they used it in an attempt at grabbing all power in the EU.

We have repeatedly cooperated with the US in the past, and we were undecided about it until showing some opportunism. I don't see why a diplomat would assume that we will never ever cooperate again.

[notyoueither]

Chirac was close to cooperating on Iraq! But only we were diverted by grabbing power in the EU?

I have to give you credit, Spiff, you can hold a line.

[notyoueither]

And squirt the truth out around the edges.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor
No, I want you to stop your crap about France always undermining the US, never supporting its efforts. It is false.

What about over Iraq when you said FU to the Yanks so that you could grab power in the EU?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor
We have repeatedly cooperated with the US in the past, and we were undecided about it until showing some opportunism. I don't see why a diplomat would assume that we will never ever cooperate again.

You really don't have a clue, do you, Spiff?

People who show 'opportunism' are not invited to watch backs. And so, they are not really counted among allies. Maybe this is the fundamental problem the French have faced since 1950? No one trusts you with their backs. Can you blame them?

How long will it be before you bury the Germans in your quest for power in the EU? I'd be careful if I were them.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
What about over Iraq when you said FU to the Yanks so that you could grab power in the EU?

Does it make an always or a never?

I thought "always" or "never" meant there were no exceptions to the pattern.
I can think of three "exceptions" on a pattern of four (times the US would have welcomed our support in a military confrontation since the end of De Gaulle's leadership)

Well, I guess my definition of "always" and "never" is completely off, then. Second languages are always hard to master.

[notyoueither]

Would have welcomed, Spiff? Do you wonder why it was not completely welcomed? Your own way of looking at things should explain why, if that way of looking at things is true of your nation.

[Alexander's Horse]

Military forces snoop around in other countries all the time.

Move along people, nothing to see here.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
People who show 'opportunism' are not invited to watch backs. And so, they are not really counted among allies. Maybe this is the fundamental problem the French have faced since 1950? No one trusts you with their backs.

And the Yanks, when they bomb some country at the other end of the world, are not about inviting their allies top "watch their backs". It's not like the US' survival is at stake in these conflicts.

Since there is little danger in these wars for the continued welfare of the US, and since there is little for other countries to win by swapping sides in mid-war, very little trust is required between allies in this kind of operation.

If the US were dependant on us for their survival, they would be very wrong, because we're no more altruistic or principled than any other country. But if the US saw us as a convenient tool to alleviate their burdens in various operation fields across the world, they would be right. We have done so repeatedly in the past, and to my dismay, we will certainly do so repeatedly in the future.

[notyoueither]

Do you know how the Anglos look at it, Spiff?

We don't always agree with what the Brits or the Yanks are doing. If they are wrong, we stay home. If they are right, we go.

We do not undermine their efforts, no matter what we think of what they are up to, and we sure as hell do not try to up our status with Mexico by undermining US policy.

IOW, we are friends. If they are being idiots we tell them, not everyone else. If they are right, we help them. If they are wrong, we shrug and let them go without us, but we always have their backs.

I doubt anyone could look at France that way.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Would have welcomed, Spiff? Do you wonder why it was not completely welcomed?

Because in the only situation that confirms your pattern (that we "always" undermine the US), we did not offer military help.

Again, that may be my bad grasp of the English language showing, but how can the Yanks welcome something they are not offered? (yes, this is a semantics distinction, but you asked me a semantics question)

[Ned]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie



CNN anti-American???? The American voice in the world?

I said "slightly." Overall, they try not to be overtly partisan, but the majority of their reporters do seem to be on the left which gives them an inherent bias to report the news with an modest anti-American twist.

In contrast, FOX news is overtly pro-American. While it has a sprinkle of liberal reporters/commentators, most of the reporters are conservative and are unabashedly so. FOX is the real voice of America.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor

And the Yanks, when they bomb some country at the other end of the world, are not about inviting their allies top "watch their backs". It's not like the US' survival is at stake in these conflicts.

Since there is little danger in these wars for the continued welfare of the US, and since there is little for other countries to win by swapping sides in mid-war, very little trust is required between allies in this kind of operation.

If the US were dependant on us for their survival, they would be very wrong, because we're no more altruistic or principled than any other country. But if the US saw us as a convenient tool to alleviate their burdens in various operation fields across the world, they would be right. We have done so repeatedly in the past, and to my dismay, we will certainly do so repeatedly in the future.

Actually, there was the continued welfare of the US, and the rest of the West, including France, bound up in those wars. That's one of the reasons that French actions in withdrawing militarily from NATO, and now later day examples, show me how useless your country has been since 1917.

[Ned]

BTW, Spiffor, I think you are right. Both sides of the Atlantic seem to want to move towards better relations. I think Bush will definitely let the French, British and Germans take the lead on Iran and will not seek to push them asside if there is not immediate agreement on strategy. Condi Rice said as much during her confirmation hearings.