Why do Americans not like France today?

[dilloduck]

or why do the French not like us today.

 

[padisha emperor]

France doesn't like Bush...like Europe and european population...

But France doesn't hate USA for themselves...only for Bush.


You don't like France for her arrogance....French don't like USA for the same reason.
But for myself, I have no problem with US citizen. except when they are dumb, but it the same for all the people, even the french.

 

[dilloduck]

I dedicate this thread to dish who wants to talk about CURRENT tensions between France and the US.

 

[dilloduck]

I think Americans are angry at France because France did all it could to prevent a large coalition joining the US in it's attempt to force Saddam from power WITHOUT WAR!

 

[padisha emperor]

WITHOUT WAR!

can you explain yourself ?

 

[onedomino]

I think Americans are angry at France because France did all it could to prevent a large coalition joining the US in it's attempt to force Saddam from power WITHOUT WAR!

I agree with this statement. Moreover, when the US tried to obtain an UNSC resolution authorizing military force if Iraq did not comply with previously agreed UNSC resolutions, then France actively campaigned to prevent such a resolution. This was not merely the behavior of dissent. Rather it was the behavior of an active enemy of America. It is one thing to voice disagreement (whining is expected from France); quite another to actively organize opposition to the military enforcement of previous UNSC resolutions.

 

[Comrade]

or why do the French not like us today.

There's always a reason!

France has always walked the fence since it's Vichy affair.

It took no time in leaving Nato, and always had the largest communist party in West Europe after WWII. Reagan got all kinds of flak from the French for putting nukes in Europe while they armed themselves. Clinton got far less than Bush Sr. did out of France, barely nothing at all to help the US in Somalia, Yugoslavia, etc.

Under Bubba Iraq festered and UN secured payoffs from Saddam.

Genocide in Rwanda and the UN debated.

Osama runs around, embassies bombed, Somalia a disaster, all hell breaking loose in even Europe and France was content not to do a thing to help.
With Bush the games were over and from day one the state ran Euro media geared up for what is far more anti-American propaganda than I've seen yet.

And that was before 9-11.

Opposing Bush and supporting the regime of Saddam is not acceptable, not from an ally.

Europeans who oppose the U.S. in the Iraqi war are not sounding like they want to give dvice in the hopes of our victory. They sound bitter and vindictive against not just Bush but the gullible American idiots who support him. And they sound smugly certain of our defeat under Bush.

With that kind of singular smug contribution in the effort from France they might as well call themselve neutral at least.

 

[NATO AIR]

Genocide in Rwanda and the UN debated.

ah, but did you know the French armed, supported and covered (at the UN and in the press) for the Hutu Power regime that slaughtered over 800,000 tutsis and moderate Hutus?

they even "intervened" under cover of a UN operation to help the Hutu Power forces keep part of the country from the Rwandan rebels who were trying to stop the genocide and free the nation.

 

[Annie]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/19/1063625211956.html?from=storyrhs

It is tragic for Iraq that France has decided not to help America in reconstruction, writes Thomas L. Friedman.

It's time Americans came to terms with something: France is not just their annoying ally. It is not just their jealous rival. France is becoming America's enemy.

this article was written in 2003, I'd argue that by now, France is an enemy.

If you add up how France behaved in the lead-up to the Iraq war (making it impossible for the United Nations Security Council to put a real ultimatum to Saddam Hussein that might have avoided a war), and if you look at how France behaved during the war (when its Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin, refused to answer the question of whether he wanted Saddam or America to win in Iraq), and if you watch how France is behaving today (demanding some kind of loopy symbolic transfer of Iraqi sovereignty to some kind of hastily thrown together Iraqi provisional government, with the rest of Iraq's transition to democracy to be overseen more by a divided UN than by America), then there is only one conclusion one can draw: France wants America to fail in Iraq.

Yep, France put a cabash on any chance of avoiding violence. Then had the balls to demand a piece of the pie. With denial, it got worse...

France wants America to sink in a quagmire there in the crazy hope that a weakened United States will pave the way for France to assume its "rightful" place as America's equal, if not superior, in shaping world affairs.

Yes, the Bush team's arrogance has sharpened French hostility. Had President George Bush and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld not been so full of themselves right after America's military victory in Iraq - and instead used that moment, when the French were feeling that maybe they should have taken part, to magnanimously reach out to Paris to join in reconstruction - it might have softened French attitudes.

But even that I have doubts about.

What I have no doubts about, though, is that there is no coherent, legitimate Iraqi authority able to assume power in the near term, and trying to force one now would lead to a dangerous internal struggle and delay the building of the democratic institutions that Iraq so badly needs.

If America is defeated in Iraq by a coalition of Saddamists and Islamists, radical Muslim groups will all be energised. Iraqis know this. France knows this, which is why its original proposal (which it now seems to be backtracking on a bit) could only be malicious.

What is so amazing to me about the French campaign - "Operation America Must Fail" - is that France seems to have given no thought as to how this would affect France.

Let me spell it out in simple English: if America is defeated in Iraq by a coalition of Saddamists and Islamists, radical Muslim groups - from Baghdad to the Muslim slums of Paris - will all be energised, and the forces of modernism and tolerance within these Muslim communities will be on the run.

To think that France, with its large Muslim minority, where radicals are already gaining strength, would not see its own social fabric affected by this is fanciful.

If France were serious, it would be using its influence within the European Union to assemble an army of 25,000 Eurotroops, and a $US5 billion reconstruction package, and then saying to the Bush team: here, we're sincere about helping to rebuild Iraq, but now we want a real seat at the management table.

Instead, the French have put out an ill-conceived proposal, just to show that they can be different, without any promise that even if America said yes Paris would make a meaningful contribution.

But then France has never been interested in promoting democracy in the modern Arab world, which is why its pose as the new protector of Iraqi representative government - after being so content with Saddam's one-man rule - is so patently cynical.

Clearly, not all EU countries are comfortable with this French mischief, yet many are going along for the ride.

It's stunning to me that the EU, misled by France, could let itself be written out of the most important political development project in modern Middle East history.

The whole tone and direction of the Arab-Muslim world, which is right on Europe's doorstep, will be affected by the outcome in Iraq. It would be as if America said it did not care what happened in Mexico because it was mad at Spain.

Says John Chipman, director of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies: "What the Europeans are saying about Iraq is that this is our backyard, we're not going to let you meddle in it, but we're not going to tend it ourselves."

But what's most sad is that France is right - America will not be as effective or legitimate in its efforts to rebuild Iraq without French help. Having France working with the US in Iraq, rather than against the US in the world, would be so beneficial for both nations and for the Arabs' future.

Too bad this French Government has other priorities.

Three-time Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas L. Friedman is the foreign affairs columnist for The New York Times, where this article first appeared.

 

[Annie]

http://rogerlsimon.com/archives/00000552.htm

12/18/2003: BEHIND "ENEMY" LINES (I'm back)
I have visited Paris frequently in my life—between 1990-1992 alone at least a half a dozen times, ranging in length from a few days to a few weeks—but it had been ten years before this visit and the City of Light seemed different…. Perhaps it was the odd lack of Christmas ornamentation in the streets (compared to New York and London) or the empty tables at the temples of gastronomy (I didn’t go anyway). Or that I listened to too many stories of decline from people like longtime (twenty-five year) resident American writer Nidra Poller….

Or perhaps it was because I was there in the midst of the capture of Saddam… but the storied anti-Americanism now seemed almost the pathetic gesture of a failed state. To see the downcast newscaster on TV3 searching for something reassuringly cynical to say about the arrest of the Iraqi mass murderer was comical (she implied Saddam had been—unfairly?—impoverished and his capture didn’t mean much because he “only” had $750,000 in cash in the hole with him).

Bloggers Merde in France and the Dissident Frogman are correct (Yes, I met them and they are real—great guys!). France is in bad shape. Strange as this sounds, it reminded me in a way of some of my visits to the Soviet Union in the late eighties. The range of opinion in the press is about as extensive as the difference used to be between Pravda and Izvestia. Of course, that’s an exaggeration, but I had the sense more than ever of a society ruled by a nomenklatura (who more Politburo-like than Chirac and de Villepin) with, in this case, a populace of semi-employed drudges whiling away hours smoking, drinking watery espresso and debating Derrida in grimy cafes.

Meanwhile, they have made a devilish compact with the burgeoning immigrant population from the proche-orient (yes, I was escorted to the notorious suburbs where I was told, for my own safety, not to speak English—I didn’t. I also didn’t take pictures, for obvious reasons). After all, everyone wants his or her rémission—the one thousand euros a month (almost 1300 hundred dollars at present) minimum guaranteed each resident of France with many escalators for children, etc. and a (believe it on not) Xmas bonus (despite the state’s militant secularity) for the unemployed. No wonder the Islamic world is descending on them en masse. Talk about deficit spending! Who’s going to pay for that and how? No one says, but the implications are ominous with approximately a third of the population under sixteen already Moslem.

The reconquista could occur without a shot being fired. How could they allow this to happen? It's not just passivity. The brilliant poet, journalist and blogger Nelson Ascher (presently the Paris correspondent for Sao Paulo’s leading paper) explained to me that France is not really a democracy but a bureaucratic state in which, instead of voting for change, interest groups take to the streets to make themselves heard on various issues.

With Merde en France (back to camera), I visited the scene of one such protest, the infamous MacDonald’s, which has been occupied for some time by antiglobal anarchists in the sway of the renowned “man-of-the-people peasant farmer” Jose Bove (whose background is actually from Berkeley CA). Our esteemed blogger colleague may have mistaken the location for the last pissoir in Paris. But whatever the case, the French, leaders in hypocrisy since Moliere, now have their own fast food hamburger chain obviously cloned from MacDo, with branches everywhere including the symbol of the French Revolution itself, the Bastille, called Quick. No one seemed to be protesting them, although I can’t speak for their burgers. I didn’t try them. I’m an In ‘N Out guy myself.

As for the research subject of my trip—the rising anti-Semitism, which the French government does its best to deny—I will save that for my novel. But a look at this photograph I took of a Jewish school tells you a lot.

you have to go to link to see photo.

Despite its almost block-length size there is no sign or name on the building, certainly no Hebrew letters or Jewish words of any kind to identify it as if it were a secret government installation or think tank. You would have no idea what it was except for a simple “College” written by one of the doors. When I stopped to take this picture, a barrel-chested man who looked like an expert in karate or krav maga, obviously a security guard, rushed out the door in seconds to see who I was, demanding to know what I was doing there. I had to repeat for him several times that I was Jew from California before he relaxed and asked me to please put away my camera. On second thought I’m not going to post the picture. Instead I will post this—the graffiti in the sidewalk all over the 13th Arrondisment where this school was located.

The French Jewish culture, which gave our world, among so many others, Modigliani, Soutine, Chagall, Proust, Bergson and Serge Gainsbourg may soon be gone.

UPDATE: I will share something with everyone. While I was away, I considered scaling back this blog (my paid output as a novelist and screenwriter has gone down--you only have so much time and so many ideas). But when I read the amazing comments on here, I have to admit that I am moved. One thing is clear to me: in these extraordinary times blogs are the most political form of writing we have, possibly the most significant in terms of changing people's minds. I won't pull back. I'll do my professional work, spend time with my family (most important!) and keep blogging. Who needs sleep?

SECOND UPDATE: Several posters have stated that my figure of 1000 Euros per month for the RMI was inaccurate. If that is so, I was misinformed and apologize. On the subject of the Orthodox Jewish School in the 13th, I beg to differ. It's complete anonymity is definitely not typical for French schools. Only the day before I had visited the Lyceé Montaigne near the Luxembourg, the site of an alleged anti-Semitic attack, and that school is quite clearly marked on several sides. It's identity would be obvious to anyone unless they were blind or illiterate.

 

[Annie]

http://www.laststory.com/France Americas Enemy.htm

When World War II reached its bloody climax, the whole of Europe choked in a sea of blood and tears, with barbarism and genocide blackening the collective conscious. And when the final gun sounded, the continent that gave rise to the renaissance, the Magna Carta, and the reformation found itself trapped in collapsed buildings and a nonexistent infrastructure. Europe was a wasteland—and among the most devastated countries was France—a nation that toppled embarrassingly fast to the Nazi onslaught and produced more parts and weapons for Hitler’s military than any other occupied territory.

Another country in ruin was the Pearl of the Orient, Japan. After deciding that the United States of America stood in its way of controlling the East, Japan launched a deadly sneak attack on American troops in Pearl Harbor, killing thousands of unsuspecting men and women. But as the American war machine awoke, Japan soon found itself subjected to mass bombings from the skies and nuclear detonations before surrendering unconditionally. And the once proud nation of Japan was reduced to rubble, forced to face a shameful legacy of military atrocities—including the kidnapping and raping of women, as well as the savage mistreatment of prisoners of war.

Peace was finally declared and the United States of America reached into her pockets and paid for both countries’ reconstruction—for the future of civilization depended upon the wealthy using their resources to strengthen the disadvantaged.

At this point, everyone loves the US. We PAID FOR these countries, former enemies, to become our competitors, cognizant of what we were doing. We did so, to avoid future wars. Now France, one of the conquered, then liberated, by the US, has the gaul, no pun intended, to act like we are war mongers.

Flash-forward 60 years: A brutal dictator who used chemical weapons against his own people and attempted genocide against the Kurdish minority was toppled in Iraq by the allied forces of the United States, England, Australia, Poland, and several other countries. With Saddam’s regime at long last dethroned, the United States of America once again paid the lion’s share of the rebuilding cost, but also asked the wealthier nations of the world to help as well—because just like before, civilization depends upon freedom and hope supplanting despotic tyranny in dangerous parts of the globe. Japan, a nation that remembers firsthand America’s postwar generosity and the importance of hasty rebuilding, offered Iraq $1.5 billion in grants and $3.5 billion in loans.

France refused to pledge a single cent.

More disturbing are claims by former Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz and Iraqi military leaders. Speaking to American interrogators, Aziz leveled the mind-blowing accusation that Saddam Hussein didn’t take America’s threat of war seriously because French contacts assured the Iraqi dictator that he could survive an invasion. Aziz additionally claimed that French intermediaries reassured Hussein during late 2002 and early 2003 that the French would block any American initiatives through delays and vetoes at the U.N. Security Council. In fact, Major General Walid Mohammed Taiee—the chief of army logistics as the war approached—told the Washington Post that “promises [Saddam] had received from the French” convinced Hussein that France would eventually use its diplomatic clout to broker a peace that leaves Saddam in power.

If Aziz and the others are telling the truth, the backstabbing French did more than simply disagree with another nation’s assessment of current events and course of foreign policy; they actively conspired with an enemy prewar, colluding and encouraging a chain of events that directly lead to dead Americans and British. In moral terms, this is wickedly duplicitous; in legal terms it’s traitorous; in diplomatic terms it’s tantamount to being our enemy.

Why would we believe Aziz? Well, what did he have to lose? It fit with the franco actions.

Remember President Bush’s famous line: “Either you’re with us or you’re with the enemy”? France is certainly not with us.

In fact, almost all of France’s supposed objections to forcibly removing Saddam Hussein turned out to be a lie. For America, United Nations’ approval is required before waging war—yet when France exercises near-monthly military excursions into the Ivory Coast and other parts of Africa, U.N. authorization is no longer a direct prerequisite. For America, any military action without explicit United Nations’ authorization is unlawful—yet when NATO bombed Yugoslavia without U.N. approval (since Russia would’ve vetoed the declaration), France shrugged with indifference. For America, war cannot be waged unless an “imminent threat” is unveiled to France’s satisfaction—and we’re still wondering what the “imminent threat” was in Bosnia. For America, more time was needed to allow Saddam to comply—yet high ranking Iraqi officials and military leaders assert that France actively sought to encourage Saddam to remain resolute, “promising” that they’d eventually undermine America’s attempt to remove him from power.

Perhaps the most salient reason that Americans now view France as the enemy, hypocrisy unbound!

The last and final objection France issued—that forcibly removing Saddam from power would disadvantage the Iraqi civilians—is offensive and prima facia untrue. The 300,000 dead Iraqis in Saddam-ordered mass graves renders this claim laughable—and France’s decision to not donate a single penny to the Iraqi civilians makes it indisputably clear that helping the Iraqi civilians isn’t anywhere near a priority for the French government.

Why, then, did France so passionately and aggressively attempt to undermine the United States of America after sitting so passively as the war planes hovered above Yugoslavia? Because France wants us weakened and France strengthened. If France got what it wanted, Saddam would still be in power and capable of dispersing dangerous weapons—and the technology to replicate these weapons—to terrorist entities hostile to the United States without any military reprisal. Through this precedent, America would no longer be allowed to use its military to provide teeth to its foreign policy without France’s direct approval, via France’s position on the U.N. Security Council. And France hoped to pursue such an agenda while America is still waging war against al-Qaeda and hoping to use American influence to encourage other countries to battle Islamic terrorists.

France wants us weakened at a time when our greatest asset is our strength.

All countries act out of self-interest. When groups of countries—typically because of shared values and concerns—share the same interests, they become allies and friends. When the self-interest of countries diverges, moving instead in opposite directions, they become enemies. In our current context, the United States of America wants to strengthen its position of strength so it can better battle terrorists, change the climate in the Middle East, and encourage other nations to devote their full resources to the war against al-Qaeda. France wants us weakened. The magnitude of the divergence—and the scope of the peril—is clear.

France is an enemy of America and should be acknowledged as such.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10454 There are reasons that France acts as it does.

 

[padisha emperor]

There's always a reason!

France has always walked the fence since it's Vichy affair.

It took no time in leaving Nato, and always had the largest communist party in West Europe after WWII. Reagan got all kinds of flak from the French for putting nukes in Europe while they armed themselves. Clinton got far less than Bush Sr. did out of France, barely nothing at all to help the US in Somalia, Yugoslavia, etc.

France leave the NATO military division, because we didn't want to become a vassal of USA.
France wanted to have only FRENCH soldiers on her soil. not from US, or any other nation.
Not US bases. (what will say USA if several french bases would be in teir soil ? )

For the Vichy affair, you are uncredibly strupid ! what are you - users - always atlking about Vichy ? did I spaek more than 2 times of Pinochet ? Are you proud of it ? If you want, I will talk of it ! and Ali could spaek of UAS's weapons trade. what are you thinking about ?

for the France help to US : in Iraq, we refused. Kosovo : french army was the 2nd. Rwanda, Somalia, Haiti, Ivory Coast, in all the crisis zones.
IN Kosovo, US did bombardments, but is there still US troops in Kosovo ?

For the communist importance, you know why ? During the WWII, the french reistance had lots of communists memeber, who fought really courageously against German. So, they had a good repuation. The communist party was important into the French Resistance. Afetr the war, the resistant party were also politic party. So, th communist got lots of voices....

France was not particularly more thah other for Stalin and his goulags.

Think before you speak.

 

[dilloduck]

France leave the NATO military division, because we didn't want to become a vassal of USA.
France wanted to have only FRENCH soldiers on her soil. not from US, or any other nation.
Not US bases. (what will say USA if several french bases would be in teir soil ? )

For the Vichy affair, you are uncredibly strupid ! what are you - users - always atlking about Vichy ? did I spaek more than 2 times of Pinochet ? Are you proud of it ? If you want, I will talk of it ! and Ali could spaek of UAS's weapons trade. what are you thinking about ?

for the France help to US : in Iraq, we refused. Kosovo : french army was the 2nd. Rwanda, Somalia, Haiti, Ivory Coast, in all the crisis zones.
IN Kosovo, US did bombardments, but is there still US troops in Kosovo ?

For the communist importance, you know why ? During the WWII, the french reistance had lots of communists memeber, who fought really courageously against German. So, they had a good repuation. The communist party was important into the French Resistance. Afetr the war, the resistant party were also politic party. So, th communist got lots of voices....

France was not particularly more thah other for Stalin and his goulags.

Think before you speak.

If France wants to go it alone and stabilize the world I'm all for it. Problem is that I don't see France doing anything but trying to hinder the allied effort against rogue governments or terrorism. What is the French plan for dealing with N.Korea?

 

[padisha emperor]

No, dillo : Comrade said that France didn't interventions, or barely.
I show it was wrong.

During all the 90's, France had soldiers in Yougolsavia.
France has still soldiers here.
France give to the UN troops in Yougoslavia lots of blue helmets. I even believe that French blue helmets were the most numerous.
So......

 

[dilloduck]

No, dillo : Comrade said that France didn't interventions, or barely.
I show it was wrong.

During all the 90's, France had soldiers in Yougolsavia.
France has still soldiers here.
France give to the UN troops in Yougoslavia lots of blue helmets. I even believe that French blue helmets were the most numerous.
So......

What does France plan to do about N.Korea?

 

[Annie]

No, dillo : Comrade said that France didn't interventions, or barely.
I show it was wrong.

During all the 90's, France had soldiers in Yougolsavia.
France has still soldiers here.
France give to the UN troops in Yougoslavia lots of blue helmets. I even believe that French blue helmets were the most numerous.
So......

Ah, think before YOU speak. The Euros had this big problem in Yugoslavia, couldn't deal with it. Dumb. Inept. Finally they get BJ Clinton to send our troops, we get hassled even then, for don't want to be under UN control. Note, we were not. Now we are still stuck over there, but not for long. BRING OUR TROOPS OUT OF EUROPE!

If your countries cannot handle problems in your own backyards, why don't you concentrate on building an army that can?

 

[padisha emperor]

Cooool Kathianne...

I didn't atack the uS troops here !

I only wxanted to show that France sent troops in several countries.
I speak above all of Youg. because France has lot of soldiers here...

I could speak of Haiti - with US -, Ivory Coast,......

Don't believe that I attack you always..sometimes, yes, but sometimes not. sometimes, it is only explanation.

If your countries cannot handle problems in your own backyards, why don't you concentrate on building an army that can?

Balkans were always a problem for Europe. I don't remember who, but somebody said : "Blakans are the powder-magazine of Europe" (translation from french"). I believe it was Winston Churchill.
When the Austro-Hungary empire rules about them, there were already problems.
Afetr the WWI, it was worse.
Now, it os the hell.

Same as Israel/palestinia, maybe worse.

 

[Annie]

Cooool Kathianne...

I didn't atack the uS troops here !

I only wxanted to show that France sent troops in several countries.
I speak above all of Youg. because France has lot of soldiers here...

I could speak of Haiti - with US -, Ivory Coast,......

Don't believe that I attack you always..sometimes, yes, but sometimes not. sometimes, it is only explanation.


Balkans were always a problem for Europe. I don't remember who, but somebody said : "Blakans are the powder-magazine of Europe" (translation from french"). I believe it was Winston Churchill.
When the Austro-Hungary empire rules about them, there were already problems.
Afetr the WWI, it was worse.
Now, it os the hell.

Same as Israel/palestinia, maybe worse.

On Yugoslavia, you are correct. It's always been a problem. Location you know. The only 'peace' was under Tito, which tells us all something. Still it is a European problem, the US should never have entered it.

 

[dilloduck]

Cooool Kathianne...

I didn't atack the uS troops here !

I only wxanted to show that France sent troops in several countries.
I speak above all of Youg. because France has lot of soldiers here...

I could speak of Haiti - with US -, Ivory Coast,......

Don't believe that I attack you always..sometimes, yes, but sometimes not. sometimes, it is only explanation.


Balkans were always a problem for Europe. I don't remember who, but somebody said : "Blakans are the powder-magazine of Europe" (translation from french"). I believe it was Winston Churchill.
When the Austro-Hungary empire rules about them, there were already problems.
Afetr the WWI, it was worse.
Now, it os the hell.

Same as Israel/palestinia, maybe worse.

The US would love to get outta there but Europe would allow the slaughter to begin again------. You won't even protect people in your ow backyard!!!
Send the US home and bloody your own hands!

 

[NightTrain]

The clincher for me was when it came to light after we took Baghdad that during the run-up to invading Iraq diplomatic exchanges between Iraq and France were found detailing confidential communications between the USA and France.

Bush was giving Saddam ultimatums to get out of Iraq peacefully, all the while France was assuring Saddam that he didn't have to worry, that France would veto any UNSC resolution (which they effectively killed before it was tabled).

So, the USA ended up having to invade anyway.

France showed America exactly how they are a 'good friend' and 'ally'. Bullshit, Chirac and the rest of his double crossing toadies stabbed us in the back repeatedly and they can all go to hell.