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

  • Thread starter Thread starter vanesch
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on whether the US administration should apologize to France for the organized "French bashing" that occurred during the Iraq war decision, largely driven by opposition from French leaders. Participants note that while many countries opposed the war, only France faced targeted hostility from the US, including the infamous renaming of French fries to "freedom fries." Some argue that acknowledging the validity of France's concerns could improve international relations, while others believe that the US should focus on broader apologies for its actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The conversation also touches on the motivations behind France's opposition, including alleged involvement in the Oil-for-Food scandal. Ultimately, the thread highlights the complexities of diplomatic relations and the lasting impact of political rhetoric.

Should the US administration appologize to the French?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 24 53.3%
  • No.

    Votes: 21 46.7%

  • Total voters
    45
  • Poll closed .
  • #181
NewScientist said:
Did you also know the UK has no constitution! Interesting fact I think!

And townsend I would like to ask you - did the Dutch or French have the same government as modern day US? For they were the first settlers, along with the British.

This is old...it has already been hashed out...


What I was talking about, in case anyone still wants to know, is http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=283 ...

Which I was using to justify my position... however I was wrong to say the US has the oldest government in a strict sense.

Ok?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #182
The only bones I would pick with your argument is that, like america, computing began from a simple electronic background that has not changed, wire are still used etc, but they have been improved over time and now the product is a million miles from where it all began. America too has moved on a long way - think of the census part of your laws that state that the population of America shall be determined by adding the whole number of free persons, and three fifths of all other persons (black people and slaves) - is that the correct attitude today, has America not changed?
 
Last edited:
  • #183
NewScientist said:
has America not changed?

The constitution is for the living

My point is that the US government was designed to allow for change to happen and so the fact that it is different means it is still the same. :smile:
 
  • #184
Smurf said:
It doesn't have a written constitution and so parliament can enact any legislation they like which can not be challenged on constitutional grounds which means they never have to have referendi to enable them to change or pass a law.

The only written document which is the one from which parliament originally derived it's powers is the Magna Carta which is viewed as a nice antique these days rather than a legally binding document.

Townsend said:
What I was talking about, in case anyone still wants to know, is http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/da...ay.cfm?HHID=283 ...

Which I was using to justify my position... however I was wrong to say the US has the oldest government in a strict sense.
Yes Britain is not unique there are others as well. In fact were it not for Britain and the US there would be many others :biggrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #185
Cheers Art for clearing that up so well!

i was commenting however, that the bedrock of america, a rebelling society which was the centre for the exploitation of slaves, murder and ethnic cleansing is far different to what it is now - the whole of amercia, from the bottom up has changed. Another analogy I may draw on is that of Christianity, the bible has essentially never changed but the interpretations of it have change drastically.
 
  • #186
Smurf, since you are a minor I will go easy on you

First of all this is a political terrorism, and you won't understand why French invented modern terrorism which was adopted by Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and in modern times the Al Qaeda.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #187
Wrong thread cronx
 
  • #188
cronxeh said:
Smurf, since you are a minor I will go easy on you

First of all this is a political terrorism, and you won't understand why French invented modern terrorism which was adopted by Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and in modern times the Al Qaeda.
Hope you don't mind if I step in but when you say modern terrorism are you arbitrarily setting the clock at the French revolution thus making your statement a self supporting truth?

Political terrorism goes back many years prior to the French revolution. In fact some of the early exponents were the Zealots, Jewish men who would attack Roman and Greek authorities in broad daylight, in front of large groups of spectators, to send a message to the ruling body that they were not wanted there. There were also the Sicari who were also jews who murdered other jews who had fallen from their religious faith.

The term terrorism was indeed coined during the French revolution (Robespierre) but modern terrorism is generally ascribed to the mid 19th century when an Italian revolutionary, Carlo Pisacane theorized that terrorism could deliver a message to an audience and draw attention to and support for a cause.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #189
France invented terrorism? Just what are they teaching in Jr. high these days.

Look, kids, terrorism means using violence or the threat of violence on civilian populations, in order to reach some political outcome.

Examples:

Flying planes into office buildings in order to get foriegn troops out of Saudi Arabia.

Burning down churches in order to keep black people from voting.

Blowing up protestants in order to get foreigners to leave your island.

Terrorism wasn't invented by either the French or the Muslims, regardless of what any Jack Chick tract has to say about it.

It was never invented. It's been around as long as humanity, which is either hundreds of thousands of years, or 6000 years; depending on whether or not you're a Bush supporter.
 
  • #190
TRCSF said:
... or 6000 years; depending on whether or not you're a Bush supporter.

There is such a thing as an agnostic Bush supporter.
 
  • #191
Townsend said:
There is such a thing as an agnostic Bush supporter.

You're either with him or you're against him.

:wink:
 
  • #192
after all your posts guys, look likes France must apologize to the great US of A for something.
 
  • #193
TRCSF said:
You're either with him or you're against him.

:wink:
I think i'll try to get on his side and see what all this hype is all about... i wonder how long i can last?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
39
Views
6K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
6K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
7K