America's 'New' Friend

[onedomino]

Concerning the perception of America, there is a significant difference between the current French leadership and the general population. Nevertheless, relations between France and America have improved. The current relationship is quite a distance from the "Axis of Weasel:" Why do the French hate us? - By Chris Suellentrop - Slate Magazine.

Is France America's New Best Friend?

Complete article: Is France America's new best friend? - Times Online

Tom Baldwin and Charles Bremner in Paris

President Bush heralded a “new era of transatlantic unity” when he arrived in France yesterday, with the location of his speech as significant as its content. By choosing Paris for what White House officials described as “the centrepiece” of his week-long farewell trip to Europe, Mr Bush sought to put the seal on a dramatic transformation in relations with France since President Sarkozy was elected last year.

Britain, which for so long has acted as a sometimes rickety bridge across the Atlantic, no longer has such strategic diplomatic importance. President Bush is spending two nights in Paris, but only one in London tomorrow — when he will have a private dinner with Gordon Brown after seeing the Queen. Much of his trip to Britain will be devoted to the relatively parochial issue of Northern Ireland before he heads home.

While the Prime Minister has shied away from being seen as too close to the American President — the British Embassy in Washington, for instance, operating under strict orders to maintain a low profile — the French President has quite deliberately donned the mantle once worn by Tony Blair, defiantly — even triumphantly — talking up his love for all things American. Yesterday a US diplomat called Mr Sarkozy the “axis on which our relations with Europe will turn”, adding that his “penchant for action rather than reflection” suited Mr Bush’s own temperament.

Laura Bush told reporters on Air Force One yesterday that she appreciated the warmth that Mr Sarkozy displayed towards her country — “I think all Americans do”. She then told how the US Ambassador in Paris had slipped into the back row of a meeting recently and heard Mr Sarkozy say some “very pro-American things” that were not “for his benefit — he didn’t think Sarkozy knew he was there”.

At the conference of international donors for Afghanistan on Wednesday, Britain pledged far more money towards rebuilding the country than France, but it was Mr Sarkozy, the host of the meeting, who seized the spotlight, declaring that he would maintain his commitment to Afghanistan until there was victory, adding: “We cannot give into torturers.”

And, while Britain has been quietly supportive of Mr Bush’s efforts to strengthen sanctions against Iran for defying the UN over its nuclear programme, it is Mr Sarkozy who has been making the noise, delighting Washington by saying the West must choose between “an Iranian bomb and the bombing of Iran”.

Mr Bush recently told The Times: “It’s going to be hard for any nation to trump the United Kingdom as our greatest ally.” Mr Sarkozy, however, is giving it his best shot.

France, which has historically had a love-hate relationship with the US, has not had such an overtly pro-American leader since the First World War. Mr Sarkozy is ready to risk hostility from his own public by becoming Washington’s ally-in-chief, breaking with the Gaullist policy of isolation that Jacques Chirac pursued not least over the invasion of Iraq. “The frost is over,” said an Elysée Palace aide. “We want to show the warmth that now exists between the two countries after the frictions of the recent past.”

 

[editec]

Without FRANCE there would be NO United STATES of America.

Britian invaded this nation twice, folks. Hell! they burnt down our capital in the war of 1812.

I have frankly never understood why America is so full of Francophobes and so full of Anglophiles.

Not that I hate England or the English, especially, but I feel a great affection for the people of France, too.

Likewise, FYI, other nations which worked their magic to help the colonies throw off the yoke of BRITISH OPPRESSION?

Spain, the Netherlands, Imperial Russia, various of the Italian states, various of the GERMAN states, too. All contributed money clandestinely to support our war of independence.

Without that clandestine assistance from many EUROPEAN nations, it is arguable, we would STILL be a colony of Britian (or something like Canada has become).

France refuses to be a puppet to American interests.

They decided to create their own nuclear umbrella, and they partially pulled out of the NATO defence alliance in the mid 1950s.

American government seems to have never forgiven them for NOT accepting the fact that they were also-rans in the AMERICAN hegemony game, post WWII.

That is the only explanation which makes sense to me for why the USA and France don't get along so well.

 

[Gunny]

Without FRANCE there would be NO United STATES of America.

Britian invaded this nation twice, folks. Hell! they burnt down our capital in the war of 1812.

I have frankly never understood why America is so full of Francophobes and so full of Anglophiles.

Not that I hate England or the English, especially, but I feel a great affection for the people of France, too.

Likewise, FYI, other nations which worked their magic to help the colonies throw off the yoke of BRITISH OPPRESSION?

Spain, the Netherlands, Imperial Russia, various of the Italian states, various of the GERMAN states, too. All contributed money clandestinely to support our war of independence.

Without that clandestine assistance from many EUROPEAN nations, it is arguable, we would STILL be a colony of Britian (or something like Canada has become).

France refuses to be a puppet to American interests.

They decided to create their own nuclear umbrella, and they partially pulled out of the NATO defence alliance in the mid 1950s.

American government seems to have never forgiven them for NOT accepting the fact that they were also-rans in the AMERICAN hegemony game, post WWII.

That is the only explanation which makes sense to me for why the USA and France don't get along so well.

Without the US, there would be no France. Debt repaid twice over. You could take your argument one step further and say there would be no US at all without Europe since the original settlers were mostly European.

We've taken France away from Germany twice and given it back, as well as liberated most of Western Europe and we were the line of defense for 4-something-years against communist aggression. Then there was that debacle in Vietnam France handed off to us.

Tis not a one-sided affair.

I'm not so sure it's Francophiles so much as Chirac-ophiles. He went beyond being pro-France and was outspokenly anti-US. The Euro's that are anti-American can go pound sand as far as I'm concerned; whether that be individually or collectively.

 

[editec]

Without the US, there would be no France.

To be sure!

Debt repaid twice over.

Yes, and the French people know that just as well as you or I do.

You could take your argument one step further and say there would be no US at all without Europe since the original settlers were mostly European.

I could, but since the question is the relations between France and the USA, why bother?

We've taken France away from Germany twice and given it back, as well as liberated most of Western Europe

True again.

and we were the line of defense for 4-something-years against communist aggression.

The French might disagree with that somewhat. that is exactly why they developed their own nuclear arsenal. But I get your point. France and the USA, despite our policy differences were BOTH allied against Soviet aggression.

Then there was that debacle in Vietnam France handed off to us.

We did not HAVE to take it.

But if you complaint is that France was WRONG to try to take back View Nam, I am in total ageement with you.

And, let's chasten France just a bit more for that mistake, too, shall we?

They were TOTALLY wrong to try to reimpose their lost empire in SE ASIA, and the USA told them NOT to do it. They basically held out before joining NATO to force us to stop objecting to their stupid policy of retaking Viet Nam.

They should have let HO take over that nation, and the USA should have become his ally, just as he asked of us during WWII.

Why on earth we then decided to jump into that briar patch after the French got their asses kicked by Ho, I'll never understand.

Tis not a one-sided affair.

I'm not so sure it's Francophiles so much as Chirac-ophiles. He went beyond being pro-France and was outspokenly anti-US.

Agreed.

The Euro's that are anti-American can go pound sand as far as I'm concerned;

I'll second that emotion, too.

But complaining about our stupid policies is NOT anti-americanism as such.

I complain about some of our foreign policies often enough, and that does not make me anti-American, either.

 

[Diuretic]

A yer all bloody imperialists, the lot of you.

The French aren't anti-American, they're just opposed to Bush's policies.

Sarkozy was elected, not because he was pro/anti-American, but because the French thought that he could fix up their domestic problems. He can't apparently. But that's another issue.

 

[Gunny]

Without the US, there would be no France.

To be sure!



Yes, and the French people know that just as well as you or I do.




I could, but since the question is the relations between France and the USA, why bother?



True again.



The French might disagree with that somewhat. that is exactly why they developed their own nuclear arsenal. But I get your point. France and the USA, despite our policy differences were BOTH allied against Soviet aggression.



We did not HAVE to take it.

But if you complaint is that France was WRONG to try to take back View Nam, I am in total ageement with you.

And, let's chasten France just a bit more for that mistake, too, shall we?

They were TOTALLY wrong to try to reimpose their lost empire in SE ASIA, and the USA told them NOT to do it. They basically held out before joining NATO to force us to stop objecting to their stupid policy of retaking Viet Nam.

They should have let HO take over that nation, and the USA should have become his ally, just as he asked of us during WWII.

Why on earth we then decided to jump into that briar patch after the French got their asses kicked by Ho, I'll never understand.



Agreed.




I'll second that emotion, too.

But complaining about our stupid policies is NOT anti-americanism as such.

I complain about some of our foreign policies often enough, and that does not make me anti-American, either.

I agree. We did not have to take the handoff. IIRC, our involvement began as basically a UN peacekeeping force after the French left. I don't think at that point we had any intention of getting involved any further.

I also agree in regard to Ho Chi Minh. When you dust off all the crap, he was a Vietnamese Nationalist intent on unifying his nation. If we were going to help anyone, I would say he more embodied our ideals than Diem. That guy was an idiot and his wife and her brother could have taught Himmler a trick or two.

I do not consider complaining about stupid policies anti-American. I consider anti-Americanism anti-American. I can differentiate between the two.

 

[Gunny]

A yer all bloody imperialists, the lot of you.

The French aren't anti-American, they're just opposed to Bush's policies.

Sarkozy was elected, not because he was pro/anti-American, but because the French thought that he could fix up their domestic problems. He can't apparently. But that's another issue.

Stooping to mindless and baseless Bush-bashing? France has been mostly antagonistic toward the US at least since Charles DeGaulle was President. Bush was still shoplifiting M&M's at the local Stop-n-Rob.

Chirac got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, plain and simple. He flat out purchased UN votes against the US on the issue of invading Iraq, and he was selling France's vote to Saddam for promises of some lucrative oil deals if he could gt sanctions against Iraq lifted.

Yet not one peep about that shifty, self-serving twit out of all you Bush-hating tape recorders.

Interesting, that.

 

[Swamp Fox]

Stooping to mindless and baseless Bush-bashing? France has been mostly antagonistic toward the US at least since Charles DeGaulle was President. Bush was still shoplifiting M&M's at the local Stop-n-Rob.

Chirac got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, plain and simple. He flat out purchased UN votes against the US on the issue of invading Iraq, and he was selling France's vote to Saddam for promises of some lucrative oil deals if he could gt sanctions against Iraq lifted.

Yet not one peep about that shifty, self-serving twit out of all you Bush-hating tape recorders.

Interesting, that.

Mindless bashing is all they have because the facts never support their case, unless of course, they've just made them up.

 

[Gungnir]

Without FRANCE there would be NO United STATES of America.

Without Ben Franklin, there would have been no suckered French.

Britian invaded this nation twice, folks. Hell! they burnt down our capital in the war of 1812.

Tit for tat. Taught us a good lesson too. We got off EASY the second time.

I have frankly never understood why America is so full of Francophobes and so full of Anglophiles.

Look at the demographics of the time. Look at the French Revolution, those people were missed by the giant screw driver in the sky (they have a screw loose). Language has a big factor as well.

Not that I hate England or the English, especially, but I feel a great affection for the people of France, too.

Bof!!! You can take the Quasiwar.

Likewise, FYI, other nations which worked their magic to help the colonies throw off the yoke of BRITISH OPPRESSION?

Spain, the Netherlands, Imperial Russia, various of the Italian states, various of the GERMAN states, too. All contributed money clandestinely to support our war of independence.

The Netherlands does not get enough credit. Prime people that I wouldn't mind having in the Union -- after they clear off their current idiocy. Actually, I would fight to free Flanders and return the United Provinces of the Netherlands.

Italy definantly gets a raw deal, we could have solved the Unification Problem and taken care of the nonsense politics that STILL plagues Italy. It would take another big war to fix it now.

The Germans are wierd, deserving of comradeship and condemnation.

Imperial Russia is a mess! They got a fair shake with Alaska -- all debts settled. We, might have been able to turn that mess into something decent had Roosevelt been president instead of Wilson. Not a lot you could do when the Germans so completely torpedoed that mess.

Without that clandestine assistance from many EUROPEAN nations, it is arguable, we would STILL be a colony of Britian (or something like Canada has become).

Quite interesting speculation on the outcome of the West. Probably would have a British colony in California and then a Revolution there.

France refuses to be a puppet to American interests.

They decided to create their own nuclear umbrella, and they partially pulled out of the NATO defence alliance in the mid 1950s.

American government seems to have never forgiven them for NOT accepting the fact that they were also-rans in the AMERICAN hegemony game, post WWII.

Because they played against us and gave credence to this non-aligned rabble. They are historically too unstable to be trusted with power but have miraculously not emploded yet. They may yet. Le Pen is a sheep to what reactionary may arise if they continue down the path of EU oligarchy and immigration replacement. We should have occupied them after World War 2. We probably should have left the Germans in charge after World War 2, but don't tell anyone I said that.

That is the only explanation which makes sense to me for why the USA and France don't get along so well.

Their smell offends us almost as greatly as does their fashion. THEY parcipitated World War 1 because THEY hadn't learned ANY lesson from the last two hundred years.

But if you complaint is that France was WRONG to try to take back View Nam, I am in total ageement with you.

And, let's chasten France just a bit more for that mistake, too, shall we?

They were TOTALLY wrong to try to reimpose their lost empire in SE ASIA, and the USA told them NOT to do it. They basically held out before joining NATO to force us to stop objecting to their stupid policy of retaking Viet Nam.

They should have let HO take over that nation, and the USA should have become his ally, just as he asked of us during WWII.

Why on earth we then decided to jump into that briar patch after the French got their asses kicked by Ho, I'll never understand.

Hell, Ho came durring the League of Nations to get help. We could have put an END to that Communist crap right there and started Indochina on a road to Independence. Again, France should have been smashed and TR president. Oh well -- the Japs would have been fit to be tied.

If we had them occupied this wouldn't have happened.

 

[Diuretic]

Stooping to mindless and baseless Bush-bashing? France has been mostly antagonistic toward the US at least since Charles DeGaulle was President. Bush was still shoplifiting M&M's at the local Stop-n-Rob.

Chirac got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, plain and simple. He flat out purchased UN votes against the US on the issue of invading Iraq, and he was selling France's vote to Saddam for promises of some lucrative oil deals if he could gt sanctions against Iraq lifted.

Yet not one peep about that shifty, self-serving twit out of all you Bush-hating tape recorders.

Interesting, that.

Nothing mindless about it. Just an observation. Sorry if it hurts but them's the breaks.

De Gaulle was opposed to everyone except France, he kept Britain out of the old Common Market for years. Chirac was a Gaullist, he held interests of France before any other country. I suppose the average French person would see no problem in that. Sarkozy, while he is repairing the damage done before him, would do well to not get too buddy buddy with George, but then I suppose Sarkozy is preparing the way for better relations with his successor.

 

[Gunny]

Nothing mindless about it. Just an observation. Sorry if it hurts but them's the breaks.

De Gaulle was opposed to everyone except France, he kept Britain out of the old Common Market for years. Chirac was a Gaullist, he held interests of France before any other country. I suppose the average French person would see no problem in that. Sarkozy, while he is repairing the damage done before him, would do well to not get too buddy buddy with George, but then I suppose Sarkozy is preparing the way for better relations with his successor.

Doesn't hurt me a bit. Just making an observation.

Sarkozy can only sit and watch and be prepared to shoulder the pack of being the guy with the balls if Obama is elected.

 

[BrianH]

Without the US, there would be no France.

To be sure!



Yes, and the French people know that just as well as you or I do.




I could, but since the question is the relations between France and the USA, why bother?



True again.



The French might disagree with that somewhat. that is exactly why they developed their own nuclear arsenal. But I get your point. France and the USA, despite our policy differences were BOTH allied against Soviet aggression.



We did not HAVE to take it.

But if you complaint is that France was WRONG to try to take back View Nam, I am in total ageement with you.

And, let's chasten France just a bit more for that mistake, too, shall we?

They were TOTALLY wrong to try to reimpose their lost empire in SE ASIA, and the USA told them NOT to do it. They basically held out before joining NATO to force us to stop objecting to their stupid policy of retaking Viet Nam.

They should have let HO take over that nation, and the USA should have become his ally, just as he asked of us during WWII.

Why on earth we then decided to jump into that briar patch after the French got their asses kicked by Ho, I'll never understand.



Agreed.




I'll second that emotion, too.

But complaining about our stupid policies is NOT anti-americanism as such.

I complain about some of our foreign policies often enough, and that does not make me anti-American, either.

Well, to be techinical, we were allied with Ho Chi Mihn also. France just happened to be a bigger and more powerful ally. France should be glad we decided to back them instead of NV. It's kind of sad what we did to them. We were at Vietnam's independence day right at the end of WWII and encouraged them to declare independence, then turned around to help the French take control...

 

[Stefan]

France and the USA weren't on good terms the whole 5th republic, AFAIK. Charles de Gaulle started that tradition, but I don't know enough of the guy to really tell why. It is some pride thing of some sort with the French. They still haven't overcome that they are not a world power anymore. That's why they clinch on their nuclear arsenal, their force de frappe.
Sarkozy is a conservative, and the European conservatives have supported the USA since WWII, it's the same in Germany. Puts the opposition in the other direction, naturally. Merkel is a better friend of the US government than Schröder was, and Sarkozy is a better friend than Chiraq was, who was a friend of Schröder's.