News Does the US administration owe an apology to the French ?

[SOS2008]

What was here only a little more than 200 years ago?

See what I mean? Let me refresh your memory. The French gave the U.S. the Statue of Liberty as a gift... Now perhaps you can remind us all why?

 

[The Smoking Man]

See what I mean? Let me refresh your memory. The French gave the U.S. the Statue of Liberty as a gift... Now perhaps you can remind us all why?

Ummm ... Same reason you have a state named after King Louis of France (Louisiana) and dey speak patoise dere, Eh?

The French helped the USA win their independence and, thanks to people like Ben Frankilin, forged an incredible friendship through advanced conceptual thinking.

.. Strang getting a history lesson from a British/Canadian living in China, isn't it?

(Not aimed at you by the way SOS2008. I know you're making a point and I am just firing over your shoulder )

 

[Townsend]

See what I mean?

I hope no one does because there is no possible way you're making any sense.

Let me refresh your memory. The French gave the U.S. the Statue of Liberty as a gift... Now perhaps you can remind us all why?

I never forgot this and I don't see the point in going into it at all. What does this have to do what anything I have said at all?

Now please answer my question or at least make some kind of attempt at it.

What was here only a little more than 200 years ago?

While it is sad that I have to do this I will explain my question so you don't go off making more assumptions. You said the America is only a little more than 200 hundred years old and so I was just wondering what was here before that. Can you manage to think without making so many assumptions? Hell, I could be agreeing with you and you wouldn't even know it because you already have your mind made up about what I say regardless of what I really say.

 

[Townsend]

.. Strang getting a history lesson from a British/Canadian living in China, isn't it?

Your missing some of the important parts...that is why getting a lesson from the likes of you would be no more than a joke...

 

[vanesch]

The French didn't want to lose the $650 billion. We would have done the same as they did.

I think that needs rephrasing: "We did what we thought the others would also have done in that situation"

But you're still missing the entire point, and it helps to point out that Elf was involved. Elf is a French state oil company which has, since about 5 - 10 years, a lot of legal troubles (in France) ; most of its former managers are in jail or on the run. And the reason was indeed that there were strong links between the former French president Mitterand and his political and other friends, and the managers of Elf, doing a lot of dark business. However, Mitterand was from the french left, and it turned out after his death, he had been a quite corrupt person. All ties between politicians and Elf turned out to be with friends of Mitterand, who used Elf as a kind of cash register to pay the people who did things for them.
Chirac is from the right, and his "natural environment" is more the farmer's world ; he has not much links with the world of Elf.
So I can understand that there were some French who indeed, didn't want France to get involved for "oil" reasons, but again, THEY WERE NOT LINKED TO CHIRAC, who was the guy who took the decision.

Chirac had entirely DIFFERENT reasons, which, for a politician, were much more important. First of all, he had his public opinion VERY STRONGLY AGAINST the war. If ever he was going to be in favor of it, his popularity would plummet strongly, and if he took their view, he would be very popular. And second, also very important, the silly stance of the US made it extremely easy for him to do something he liked personally a lot: play a role on the world theatre. As he KNEW that the US was heading for the wrong solution, ignoring a lot of difficulties, it was a dreamed-of occasion to be the 'wise old man who told you so'. It was a bit as if you are facing 50 nobel laureates who claim that the world is a flat disk with monsters on the border and they want to organize a campaign to go and catch those monsters. That's a dreamed-of occasion to go and tell out loud that these nobel laureates are dead-wrong ; it is so easy to show them wrong (and hence boost your own image: you were right against 50 nobel laureates!) and you simply KNOW that they won't catch the monsters !

So probably Chirac's strategy was, in his mind, a win-win situation concerning image: or Bush would finally concede to him (I think he really thought that in the beginning), so Chirac would have been the "powerful guy who stopped the US from doing something bad" ; or Bush would go ahead anyways, in which case it would take some time but Chirac would have been proven right after the fact (eg, now). The worst thing that could have happened to Chirac (in his mind) was that the US troops, after a short battle, would have been welcomed with children waving american flags - then Chirac would have been the evil old man who tried to stop the good US from liberating a country - something Chirac knew was highly highly unlikely to happen thanks to his superior knowledge of the Arab world.

Nevertheless, the point of this thread was not who was right and who was wrong concering the decisions taken ; it was about the hate campaign against all things french that was, at least partly, organized by the US administration.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

1441, November 8th, 2002. Essentially, a 'cooperate, or else' resolution. Iraq didn't cooperate, but the French (and others) didn't hold up their end of the deal.

Not going to try and argue with this twisted logic with you, just a note to everyone else that, contrary to Russ' earlier post, UN resolution 1441 does not identify Iraq as a security threat but identifies it as breaching earlier UN resolutions. The resolution actually refers back to earlier ones recalling that Saddam's possession of WMDs represented a security threat. Resolution 1441 does not reaffirm this, nor does it state that Iraq, at the time (2002), possessed such weapons or posed a security risk (the reason for which we now all understand, except maybe those people still spouting on about how Saddam must have gotten his WMDs out of the country just in time for us to not find them).

Nor does this resolution require it's member states to join any military campaign, unilateral or otherwise. A UN resolution requiring its member states to join in on a non-UN backed campaign would be absurd to say the least. All the resolution actually requests is that all UN member states disclose full information on prohibited weapons programmes in Iraq, recommending particular sites in Iraq to be investigated and the means of investigation. This is precisely why Blair pushed so hard for a second resolution, since no existing UN resolution led to military action per se.

Also note that the resolution demands UN member states' commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq. Soveriegnty, of course, includes complete and independant self-government. By overthrowing Saddam and placing an interim, US-selected head of state, the only people it seems that have breached UN resolution 1441 are... the coalition, since they impeded weapons inspections in Iraq and comprimised its sovereignty.

It seems Bush, Blair and co ARE required to apologise to France after all, along with every other UN member state not involved in the coalition.

 

[vanesch]

Not going to try and argue with this twisted logic with you, just a note to everyone else that, contrary to Russ' earlier post, UN resolution 1441 does not identify Iraq as a security threat but identifies it as breaching earlier UN resolutions. The resolution actually refers back to earlier ones recalling that Saddam's possession of WMDs represented a security threat. Resolution 1441 does not reaffirm this, nor does it state that Iraq, at the time (2002), possessed such weapons or posed a security risk (the reason for which we now all understand, except maybe those people still spouting on about how Saddam must have gotten his WMDs out of the country just in time for us to not find them).

Nor does this resolution require it's member states to join any military campaign, unilateral or otherwise.

The text can be found here:
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm

 

[Lisa!]

There's no doubt about what you're saying but the problem is that if US administration wants to apology other countries, they find no time to do anythig else like threatening other countries, interfering in everything and stuff like that.

 

[vanesch]

There's no doubt about what you're saying but the problem is that if US administration wants to apology other countries, they find no time to do anythig else like threatening other countries, interfering in everything and stuff like that.

Ah ! I see. So some other countries should start bullying around, removing some of the work the US administration has to do, so that finally they'd find some time to appologize

 

[Skyhunter]

Now please answer my question or at least make some kind of attempt at it.

While it is sad that I have to do this I will explain my question so you don't go off making more assumptions. You said the America is only a little more than 200 hundred years old and so I was just wondering what was here before that. Can you manage to think without making so many assumptions? Hell, I could be agreeing with you and you wouldn't even know it because you already have your mind made up about what I say regardless of what I really say.

I am still trying to figure out what you are driving at.

Do you mean the colonists?
The natives?
The continent?

Could you be more specific?

 

[BobG]

I am still trying to figure out what you are driving at.

Do you mean the colonists?
The natives?
The continent?

Could you be more specific?

The people that became the US have been here longer than 200 years, even if they were individual colonies of Great Britain. There wasn't some great cultural divide between being an independent country and being colonies of Great Britain. Becoming an independent country was just a natural step along the way.

(Of course, this would tend to emphasize SOS's point, since for most people, American history didn't start until July 4, 1776.)

 

[Lisa!]

Ah ! I see. So some other countries should start bullying around, removing some of the work the US administration has to do, so that finally they'd find some time to appologize

I don't think we could find any country like that. All countries prefer to develope their own country instead of preventing other countries from developing.

 

[Townsend]

I am still trying to figure out what you are driving at.

Do you mean the colonists?
The natives?
The continent?

Could you be more specific?

What I am getting at is that SOS2008 seems to think America is only a bit older than 200 years old...that is fine if she is talking about the government of the United States of America but America is a land mass and is much older. Now if she is in fact talking about the US government and saying that we need to realize that we are very young in comparison to other countries then I would invite her to point to any single form of government that currently exist that is older than the government of the US.

In other words not matter how you slice it, her statement

Here's my theory...Since the U.S. is only a little more than 200 years old, Americans have really short memories.

doesn't make any sense. I could understand her theory if what she meant is that since the US is so old, older than any other government today, than we might have forgotten but that is practically the opposite of what she is said.

It really is no big deal, just a nit. But since so many people seem to be unable to understand a simple and clear question it has turned into this ugly thing. Very sad...

 

[Skyhunter]

What I am getting at is that SOS2008 seems to think America is only a bit older than 200 years old...that is fine if she is talking about the government of the United States of America but America is a land mass and is much older. Now if she is in fact talking about the US government and saying that we need to realize that we are very young in comparison to other countries then I would invite her to point to any single form of government that currently exist that is older than the government of the US.

In other words not matter how you slice it, her statement

Here's my theory...Since the U.S. is only a little more than 200 years old, Americans have really short memories.

doesn't make any sense. I could understand her theory if what she meant is that since the US is so old, older than any other government today, than we might have forgotten but that is practically the opposite of what she is said.

It really is no big deal, just a nit. But since so many people seem to be unable to understand a simple and clear question it has turned into this ugly thing. Very sad...

She didn't say America, she said "the U.S.", and the United States has existed for 229 years. I don't see what is so confusing about that.

If you disagree with her theory, that because we are a young nation we have short memories, then say so. Don't resort to hyperbole, it doesn't help the dialogue. And in this case created even more confusion.

You are the one who turned it ugly, so don't try and put it off on the rest of us.

 

[Townsend]

She didn't say America, she said "the U.S.", and the United States has existed for 229 years. I don't see what is so confusing about that.

Nothing...what makes you think I am confused?

If you disagree with her theory, that because we are a young nation we have short memories, then say so.

I was trying but for some reason a direct simple question is too complicated.

Don't resort to hyperbole, it doesn't help the dialogue. And in this case created even more confusion.

All I asked is what was here before that. Where is the hyperbole?

You are the one who turned it ugly, so don't try and put it off on the rest of us.

Right, and the fact that people started assuming that I was talking about the Statue of Liberty had nothing to with it...


What the heck does this have to do with you anyways? Or anyone else...I was asking her a very simple question, nothing more. If you and anyone else would let her answer the question and let me respond to it then things would kept be clean and tidy.

 

[vanesch]

What I am getting at is that SOS2008 seems to think America is only a bit older than 200 years old...that is fine if she is talking about the government of the United States of America but America is a land mass and is much older.

I think that what she was pointing out is that there has been a strong link between France and the US at its origin ; that the French even helped to create the US. Given the fact that this happened less than 200 years ago, if it is completely forgotten, then that's because its inhabitants have short (historical) memories.

 

[Townsend]

I think that what she was pointing out is that there has been a strong link between France and the US at its origin ; that the French even helped to create the US. Given the fact that this happened less than 200 years ago, if it is completely forgotten, then that's because its inhabitants have short (historical) memories.

I know...and to end that I would completely agree and I would have said nothing at all...

It was no big deal really, like I said it was just a nit...

 

[The Smoking Man]

I know...and to end that I would completely agree and I would have said nothing at all...

It was no big deal really, like I said it was just a nit...

Very good ... Given the statement above, I guess the reaction to:

Ummm ... Same reason you have a state named after King Louis of France (Louisiana) and dey speak patoise dere, Eh?

The French helped the USA win their independence and, thanks to people like Ben Frankilin, forged an incredible friendship through advanced conceptual thinking.

to wit

Your missing some of the important parts...that is why getting a lesson from the likes of you would be no more than a joke...

due to it's lack of detail and 'important parts' would reduce you to the level of the 'nit'?

If you do agree with the concept, then perhaps you are right, you should have said nothing at all ... again ... see ad hominem.

 

[SOS2008]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanesch
I think that what she was pointing out is that there has been a strong link between France and the US at its origin ; that the French even helped to create the US. Given the fact that this happened less than 200 years ago, if it is completely forgotten, then that's because its inhabitants have short (historical) memories.

I know...and to end that I would completely agree and I would have said nothing at all...

It was no big deal really, like I said it was just a nit...

Several members have addressed the matter nicely, but yes, vanesch's summary is what I was saying. To me it is ironic, thus my attempt at a bit of humor.

If you look at other countries, for example China, these cultures have existed for thousands of years. Perhaps this is why the Chinese have long-term thinking, and as a result they are not embroiled in unnecessary wars of attrition in an attempt to police the world, and instead are our debtors.

In the meantime, Americans should stop casting stones unless they too are without sin, and in the case of France and long-time allies, realize the importance of preserving these relationships, and that loyalties are earned and reciprocal.

 

[Townsend]

Very good ... Given the statement above, I guess the reaction to:to witdue to it's lack of detail and 'important parts' would reduce you to the level of the 'nit'?

Are you speaking in chinese? What you just said make no sense at all...

If you do agree with the concept, then perhaps you are right, you should have said nothing at all ... again ... see ad hominem.

It was a nit (meaning I just wanted to point out to HER, that the US is not a young country but in fact the oldest country in the world).

In other words it was just something I felt was important to point out...there was not an single argument made by me so please do tell me how a logical fallacy would apply here? You seem to lack some basic language skills dude...

 

[Townsend]

Several members have addressed the matter nicely, but yes, vanesch's summary is what I was saying. To me it is ironic, thus my attempt at a bit of humor.

I know what you meant and I do agree but the way you said made it sound like your implying that the US in a young country which is in fact not true.

If you look at other countries, for example China, these cultures have existed for thousands of years. Perhaps this is why the Chinese have long-term thinking, and as a result they are not embroiled in unnecessary wars of attrition in an attempt to police the world, and instead are our debtors.

I guess I missed the part where you were talking about the US culture...The US culture is as old as the cultures it is composed of. There really isn't a US culture that I have noticed...I came to that conclusion after traveling the world twice over and visiting for at least a week and often much more often every state west of the Mississippi and many on the east coast as well. The US is melting pot of cultures...all of them.

In the meantime, Americans should stop casting stones unless they too are without sin,

Well put...

and in the case of France and long-time allies, realize the importance of preserving these relationships, and that loyalties are earned and reciprocal.

Americas issues with France started a long time ago and this war was just another excuse for America to lash out at one it's oldest allies/enemies...

I don't agree with it but it is hardly just about this war...but that has nothing to do with what I was saying...

Stop trying to draw me into these retarded debates...I just want to make short simple comments that don't have two sides...

I swear you people will do anything to suck me into your little arguments...

And I think SOS2008 should at least be acknowledging she was making some very wrong assumptions about what I was saying...

 

[Smurf]

It was a nit (meaning I just wanted to point out to HER, that the US is not a young country but in fact the oldest country in the world).

How do you justify that?

 

[Townsend]

How do you justify that?

What currently existing government is older than the US government? To my understanding there is none...so unless I am incorrect (which I could be and would appreciate being properly informed if that is in fact the case) then in so far as a country is its government the United States of America is the oldest country in the world.

Of course we are young if you are to consider a country the same country even though they may have drastically different governments. To me once a government is abolished that country is dead and from whatever government forms at that point, it becomes a new nation. France may have the same name as it did 200 years ago but it is not the same country where as the US has had the same government since westners populated this land.

 

[SOS2008]

And I think SOS2008 should at least be acknowledging she was making some very wrong assumptions about what I was saying...

To be candid, I think you are trying to make a case that is erroneous. You are welcome to your opinion, but most people consider countries to be a country/nation regardless of changes of governmental systems that may occur though it's history. If you believe the U.S. is an older country than China, or Iran, for example, please make your case with evidence from reliable sources.

 

[pi-r8]

If you look at other countries, for example China, these cultures have existed for thousands of years. Perhaps this is why the Chinese have long-term thinking, and as a result they are not embroiled in unnecessary wars of attrition in an attempt to police the world, and instead are our debtors.

I think this summarized the attitude of the America bashers (aka, the liberals) very nicely. Insulting America, praising the Chinese. Never mind the fact that the average GNI per capita in China is about $900, or that they have no concept whatsoever of human rights, or that America has made more scientific and technological progress than any other country in the world during the last century- China must be a superior culture because it's older! Or is it because their government embodies left wing goals so very well?

 

[Townsend]

To be candid, I think you are trying to make a case that is erroneous. You are welcome to your opinion, but most people consider countries to be a country/nation regardless of changes of governmental systems that may occur though it's history.

Is that so? So then the wouldn't every country be just as old as the next? I mean, before the United States government was established on the American land mass there was in fact different governments that existed within the Native American tribes...So this country is still arguably as old as most other countries by your own standards. As you seem to think it has nothing to do with what government exist at any given point in time.

If you believe the U.S. is an older country than China, or Iran, for example, please make your case with evidence from reliable sources.

I would love to give you a link but seriously don't understand what its purpose would be. Here is a link for you www.google.com. From there you can find most whatever information you want. So now what has that done? Hummm...nothing, as expected.

You said yourself that you believe that most people consider a country a country regardless of the different governments that existed within boarders of that region, do you have a link to support your opinion on that? I doubt you could find one but even if you did it would change nothing at all. Unless your link provided proof of your assertion it is meaningless. I doubt you would ever find such evidence and the search is not even worth while.


Now if you want me to show you that the US as a nation has the oldest national government in the world then that is rather simple.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=283

Now if you want me to show you a link that says a nation is a particular nation only as long as its particular government exist then I cannot find you one. However I doubt you could find one to refute my claim...

So where does that leave us? Oh dear, we might have to think and reason for our selves without relying on someone else's opinion...Oh whatever shall we do?

 

[TRCSF]

Now if you want me to show you a link that says a nation is a particular nation only as long as its particular government exist then I cannot find you one. However I doubt you could find one to refute my claim...

If by "particular government" you mean a system of government that hasn't changed due to foreign invasion or internal political revolution then, if you remember your history, Britain has had the same government since the mid 17th century. That was before the U.S. was ever dreamt of.

I'm willing to bet there's a number of others.

Now, if you're like most people, you consider a country to be a certain sovereign geographic area that contains a group or groups of people with a distinct culture, language, etc. and is still essentially the same country even if they endure a few years of occupation (France was still France in 1938 and in 1945) or some sort of coup (Spain was still Spain after the Spanish Revolution.)

By every standard that's important, the U.S. is a pretty young country.

 

[Townsend]

By every standard that's important, the U.S. is a pretty young country.

Important to who?

 

[vanesch]

What currently existing government is older than the US government? To my understanding there is none...

Ok, then... the Vatican ?

 

[Townsend]

Ok, then... the Vatican ?

You got me...but do we at least come in second place?