stones in glass houses

[DKSuddeth]

For a long time I've listened to all the anti french propaganda about how they need to be reminded about who saved their collective asses in WW2 and so forth but I have a question for all those who seem to think that this kind of stance is ok.

How do americans feel NOW about what their government did to the native americans after the many times that the native americans saved THEIR collective asses?

 

[jimnyc]

One happened in our lifetime and one hasn't. Wanna guess which one?

 

[DKSuddeth]

most young people weren't alive during WW2 yet it still comes up.

is that how we base our political stances and viewpoints? On who and when we were alive?

It is convenient for alot of people to dismiss the negative things because they weren't alive then, does that mean it didn't happen?

slavery was abolished long before most of us were alive yet we still consider it a black mark on our history (no pun intended) and yet there are still some out there that think WE shouldn't have to be made to pay for our ancestors mistaken paths but isn't that what we are doing to france with the current stance?

If WE don't want to be reminded of our history then why do we remind others?

 

[jimnyc]

Personally, I could care less if people remind me about things that have happened hundreds of years ago, it's inconsequential to me. The issues with France are fairly current.

What happened many, many years ago in the USA was wrong, no denying that. People will tend to gripe about current issues though. I don't think anyone is ignoring our countries past.

 

[DKSuddeth]

so using that ideology, we can assume that those who weren't alive during the vietnam war don't need to concern themselves with things like the pentagon papers or watergate, since it didn't happen in their lifetime?

or do we need to define a period of time where political and governmental history can be discounted because it was 'so long ago'?

If you consider the issues with france as relatively current, are you referring to WW2?

wheres the cutoff, whats the time limit?

 

[jimnyc]

Who discounted anything? I CLEARLY said that people tend to gripe about current issues. That doesn't mean that they don't think things that happened in the past aren't deplorable.

No cutoff, no time limit. Feel free to make posts about things that happened 50+ years ago, I'm sure most would agree if you bring up things that were wrong about our government. You're jumping to conclusions about things that heven't been discussed.

 

[Batamo]

For me, the difference between the French and American examples as DK has outlined is that
I at least am not really asking much from the French, other than a little respect. The fact that they seem to gear their foreign policy on the sole factor of them wanting to disagree with the US is suspect to me. Asking THIS GENERATION to pay native american's for wrongs committed by another is different. Respect doesn't cost much. Millions of dollars... well does.

Not to cross topics with other messageboards, but it seems that people have a hard time swallowing wrongs/deficiencies/mistakes by many parts of the world, yet have no problem highlighting those made by the USA. I can even respect a failure to see any mistakes over the selective observations that many people make (I'm not singling you out DK)

 

[DKSuddeth]

Batamo, no problem. I didn't feel singled out =)

I feel my point is being missed though.

We all are not perfect. The french, the germans, the britans, canadians, and us as well as others. Its been my experience that those currently bashing the french for not supporting us use the example of WW2, WW1, and others yet these very same people will refuse to consider that they don't truly have a leg to stand on because their very own country turned on the natives that supported them against the french and canadians in another war. To me it seems hypocritical to use those examples against another yet disavow that their country is also guilty of it in the past.

 

[jimnyc]

And my point remains the same. I speak out against the French for what transpired at the UN and their stance to veto resolutions before even viewing them. I don't use the past. I don't expect them to make proper decisions based on what we've done in the past. I expect them to make proper decisions, period. They deserve all the heat they are getting for that decision in my opinion, and nothing the USA might have done in the past will change or make a difference in that.

 

[DKSuddeth]

a 'do as i say, not as i do' type of action?

forgive me, but that seems pretty arrogant.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
a 'do as i say, not as i do' type of action?

forgive me, but that seems pretty arrogant.

What the hell are you talking about?

Reviewing the resolutions before vowing they would be vetoed would have been a start.

Refusal to listen to a word I'm saying is arrogant.

 

[DKSuddeth]

why review a resolution for war when no new evidence had been presented to warrant a resolution?

 

[Batamo]

i think its generally agreed upon by everyone (except perhaps saddam) that he was in violation of many of the UN mandates... mandates which provided for military (among other uses of) force if enough time when by without a change in this. That was in the early 90's... so its certainly understandable to be angry at the french for failing to back up their own signature.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
why review a resolution for war when no new evidence had been presented to warrant a resolution?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Batamo
i think its generally agreed upon by everyone (except perhaps saddam) that he was in violation of many of the UN mandates... mandates which provided for military (among other uses of) force if enough time when by without a change in this. That was in the early 90's... so its certainly understandable to be angry at the french for failing to back up their own signature.

Or at least taking the time to work with the UN and review all the facts and submitted resolutions before making a stance.

They looked ignorant for their stance in the UN and now they have no oil contracts with Saddam either. Talk about a backfire.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Or at least taking the time to work with the UN and review all the facts and submitted resolutions before making a stance.

and on that much I can certainly agree with. but doesn't anyone think that maybe we've gone overboard?

 

[eric]

No, not at all. Look I have no problem with dissent, but to actively block us and go behind our backs to pursuade countries not to go along with us is unacceptable. Don't tell me they care that much for the Iraqi people. They had their own selfish motivations.

Personally I think we should have went further. The company I run no longer does ANY business with France and we have no intention of resuming relationships in the future.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by Batamo
For me, the difference between the French and American examples as DK has outlined is that
I at least am not really asking much from the French, other than a little respect. The fact that they seem to gear their foreign policy on the sole factor of them wanting to disagree with the US is suspect to me. Asking THIS GENERATION to pay native american's for wrongs committed by another is different. Respect doesn't cost much. Millions of dollars... well does.

Not to cross topics with other messageboards, but it seems that people have a hard time swallowing wrongs/deficiencies/mistakes by many parts of the world, yet have no problem highlighting those made by the USA. I can even respect a failure to see any mistakes over the selective observations that many people make (I'm not singling you out DK)

The French have behaved terribly with the nuclear testing in the South Pacific and their society needs to go a long way to accept minority groups, especially in the south. But boy, do I ever wish we had listened to them on this one, along with the Germans.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by eric
No, not at all. Look I have no problem with dissent, but to actively block us and go behind our backs to pursuade countries not to go along with us is unacceptable. Don't tell me they care that much for the Iraqi people. They had their own selfish motivations.

Personally I think we should have went further. The company I run no longer does ANY business with France and we have no intention of resuming relationships in the future.

But lobbying other countries is exactly what we do when we want to get our way.

And you'll be happy to know that I made a point of going out and buying only French wine when this all was going on. (I had alterior motives, though, as I was dating a Frenchwoman at the time. Unfortunately I'm not even that good a judge of American wine, let alone French! I did, however, avoid French fries.)

 

[eric]

I did, however, avoid French fries

Smart move, the saturated fats will kill you !

But lobbying other countries is exactly what we do when we want to get our way

Your right we do, and we wanted something in this case. Tell me though what did the French stand to gain by blocking us?

Why not just let us persue what we felt we needed to do ?

This is my real problem.