US vs. France

[Anathema]

Dammit Mahdi I wanted to post that.

You forgot Charles Martel, the grandfather of Charlemagne. Without him whole of Europe would have fallen to invading muslims.

@ Ex: let's not forget about Byzanthium. When Rome was gone they were the only militairy power in Europe worth mentioning.

[Caid Ivik]

Early middle ages can't be defined by nation-based states. That's a thing over which I suffer when I play things like Medieval TW. In feudalism, civilised people were all talking latin, who did not at least had some speaker. Nationality was a nonsense, real value was only in feudal titles. Karl Martell (weird I know the german form better...) was a king of Franconian empire, which seized from river Elbe to southern France. Both germanic and romanic folks lived under feudal rule of his dynasty. In fact, we can talk about some prequel of France and Germany only after death of emperor Karl the Great (814), who divided his empire to three parts.

Another thing: Byzantines. What nationality would you give them? Constantinopole and nearby areas were greek, but official language was latin, people called here their nation as "Romaioi", greek-latin mix for "Romans". North of the empire was soon settled by slavonic nations, south by various turcomans and such. And don't forget that, for the hell, this empire held whole Italy for few centuries after Justinianus as well! Well, such as old Rome, empire without nationality.

[Mahdi]

I spoke in terms of the franckish people, not the nation state, as those (in general) didn't truly exist until the mid-late 19th century.

Ex: French and British fought together in Crimean War. And France WAS the first european country to create the standing army. Russian's had actually defeated the Turks, utterly destroying there navy, and captured the principalities they were after.

Earth: Like I said, I was just mentioning a few examples. Post them all this thread would be 30 pages long ;)

[leo]

French’s government is full of anti-Semitic idiots. No matter what, no matter how wrong the Arabs will be they will always support them. France is actually taking away our(Israeli) right to defend ourselves. When we are being bombed, when innocent children and women are being killed in a club, bus or even a kinder garden the French are keeping their mouse shut but when we respond, and by response I mean that we are striking back against the terror groups (not innocent civilians) we are being called murders and human rights violators.

[Acriku]

If a country goes into conflict with another country, the invading country's allies must not internationally belittle the invading country for their own personal reasons. If they will not support their allied country and be supportive, then they aren't allies, and should break off.

From their point of view France is telling the US that they are being stupid for invading Iraq. This is not betraying your ally, it is helping your ally with what they think is good advice.

If you where my friend and you wanted to kill a guy because he raped your sister and I told you that I think that killing that guy is a bad idea, it's not betraying you. If you then call me a traitor and a coward for not helping you killing that guy, then you are the stupid one. A major asshole infact and you would be the one guilty of ending the friendship.

The big difference here, is that America is not killing a rapist, it is fighting an enemy, and France showed no support whatsoever - and there is evidence that France had ties with Iraq concerning a lot of money. So, what kind of an ally is that?

Just as much as the US is placing all the build friendships at risk by continueing their ongoing warmongering, not listining to others and blaming them for not helping the US.

Why should they listen to France, Germany, or Russia? Their motives for disagreeing with the conflict are hazy, and Russia and France if I remember correctly had financial ties with Iraq. And I assure you that Bush has listened, but that doesn't mean he should concede. He still went ahead with it.

[Gobalopper]

babylon people have always made fun of France even before the war. And its not like France doesn't make fun of Americans. It happens on both sides and it happens all over the world. The war may have escalated things for a short period of time but it is nothing new.

[Babylon]

The big difference here, is that America is not killing a rapist, it is fighting an enemy, and France showed no support whatsoever - and there is evidence that France had ties with Iraq concerning a lot of money. So, what kind of an ally is that?

The US also had a lot of ties with Iraq, not only financial. Fighting an enemy? In what way has Iraq attacked the US? EVER? But this isn't about Iraq and the US, it's about the US and France.

Why should they listen to France, Germany, or Russia? Their motives for disagreeing with the conflict are hazy, and Russia and France if I remember correctly had financial ties with Iraq.

They think excactly the same about the US. "US motives for invading Iraq are hazy" So what makes the US right and France, Germany and Russia wrong?

And I assure you that Bush has listened, but that doesn't mean he should concede. He still went ahead with it.

Same thing the other way around, other nations aren't obligated to do everything the US wants.

[Acriku]

The US also had a lot of ties with Iraq, not only financial. Fighting an enemy? In what way has Iraq attacked the US? EVER? But this isn't about Iraq and the US, it's about the US and France.

The US had ties when they were fighting Iran, but those were broken off shortly after-the-fact. France remained to have ties, and still does today. And an enemy does not have to strike to be an enemy, but there is no way you can reason that Iraq was friendly to the United States, as it was quite the contrary. I'm not going to argue the reasons for invading Iraq.

They think excactly the same about the US. "US motives for invading Iraq are hazy" So what makes the US right and France, Germany and Russia wrong?

But the key difference is, they are our allies. And the motives were not hazy, since Bush told the world why, and France, Germany, and Russia blindly and immediately opposed it. France wanted their land back after World War II, and the US supported France, and even brought hundreds of thousands of troops over. And France does this back on us? Allies help eachother in the time of conflict, do they not? Even if they disagree on the details, allies have an obligation to support other allies.

Same thing the other way around, other nations aren't obligated to do everything the US wants.

The US wasn't telling the other nations what to do, Bush wanted support and resources to help invade and reconstruct Iraq. Basically, help! And what do the allies do? France, Germany, and Russia turn their backs. The UK helped, Australia helped, even small countries helped out. That is what allies are obligated to do.

[Nyarlathotep]

babylon people have always made fun of France even before the war. And its not like France doesn't make fun of Americans. It happens on both sides and it happens all over the world. The war may have escalated things for a short period of time but it is nothing new.

I think that is the only correct answer to the question asked in the beginning. Currently the discussion seems to turn into another Iraq thread.

babylon, compare Holland and Belgium. There are jokes between our countries. Yo uhave to see it the same way. Only with France and the US, like Gob stated, the war has escalated things. But it works both ways, remember that !

[Caid Ivik]

French’s government is full of anti-Semitic idiots. No matter what, no matter how wrong the Arabs will be they will always support them. France is actually taking away our(Israeli) right to defend ourselves. When we are being bombed, when innocent children and women are being killed in a club, bus or even a kinder garden the French are keeping their mouse shut but when we respond, and by response I mean that we are striking back against the terror groups (not innocent civilians) we are being called murders and human rights violators.

Fact is that terrorists don't look like normal warriors, and they usualy cover themselves by innocents before they strike. But France is fully nationalistic, looking only for nation's will. And it is better trade with many Arabs, then with few Jews. Also France itself is filled by many muslim immigrants, which grow still stronger on influence. And system of France itself, for its jacqueristic past, was always lurking on fascism...

[Nyarlathotep]

French’s government is full of anti-Semitic idiots. No matter what, no matter how wrong the Arabs will be they will always support them. France is actually taking away our(Israeli) right to defend ourselves. When we are being bombed, when innocent children and women are being killed in a club, bus or even a kinder garden the French are keeping their mouse shut but when we respond, and by response I mean that we are striking back against the terror groups (not innocent civilians) we are being called murders and human rights violators.

[off topic]

I do not approve of any killing on neither side. The situation Isreal is in will one that probably will never end. Neither side wants to put down their weapons (and leave them down). As long as both sides take "revench" for their casualties, nothing will be solved an the situation remains as it is.

Sometimes I get the feeling the situation is being kept as it is by the arms dealers.

[/off topic]

[alchemi2]

i get the point about allies but dont agree just cause 1 ally does something stupid does mean all should follow suit, after all UN didnt agree to invasion and were all in that in fact NATO didnt agree to invasion it just came down to old anglo-american accord for the main part. ;)

but you can still dislike the french even when there your allies/not we do. ;D

[Caid Ivik]

When Milosevic sent his troops to Kosovo for driving native Shqiperans out, OSN was also silent. And there was same fight against Clinton, which was just after affair with that aide. Maybe he tried to show that USA are a counterpart to passive UN - don't forget that five months before this attack, Iraq banished UN inspectors, which found a "trace". I would say, Hussain's men did a good work: cleaning it all in 4 years...

[Babylon]

Once again this isn't about Iraq, it's about France and the US.

[Edric O]

But France is fully nationalistic, looking only for nation's will. [...] And system of France itself, for its jacqueristic past, was always lurking on fascism...

*cough* American Patriot Act *cough* ::)

Anyway, this is all very amusing. You seem to be talking about some sort of "honour" and "duty" that a nation has towards its allies. But you should have noticed by now that there's no such thing as honour and duty among capitalist governments.

The USA invaded Iraq because it was in the interest of their government to do so. France opposed the war because it was in the interest of their government to do so. There are no such things as "principles" here, and neither the US nor the French government gives a damn about the Iraqi people. It's American greed vs. French greed. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Acriku]

But France is fully nationalistic, looking only for nation's will. [...] And system of France itself, for its jacqueristic past, was always lurking on fascism...

*cough* American Patriot Act *cough* ::)

Anyway, this is all very amusing. You seem to be talking about some sort of "honour" and "duty" that a nation has towards its allies. But you should have noticed by now that there's no such thing as honour and duty among capitalist governments.

The USA invaded Iraq because it was in the interest of their government to do so. France opposed the war because it was in the interest of their government to do so. There are no such things as "principles" here, and neither the US nor the French government gives a damn about the Iraqi people. It's American greed vs. French greed. Nothing more, nothing less.

Oh, that's why America is paying billions to reconstruct Iraq, and stabilize the government. That's why we are still there making sure things go smoothly, knowingly in the scene of danger, and training Iraqi citizens for police work. It all makes sense now, Edric, ::)

[Edric O]

Oh, that's why America is paying billions to reconstruct Iraq, and stabilize the government. That's why we are still there making sure things go smoothly, knowingly in the scene of danger, and training Iraqi citizens for police work. It all makes sense now, Edric, ::)

It's called investement, Acriku. The government is using billions of dollars of your tax money to make Iraq a business-friendly place, so that they can later draw huge profits from it.

Either that, or they're just doing all of this out of the kindness of their hearts. Yeah, right...

[SurlyPIG]

Edric, the business potential in Iraq is absolutely miniscule compared to the amount of money they've spent there. Aside from a large but not amazing amount of oil, Iraq is essentially a poverty-stricken hole in the sand. The US has already spent billions upon billions and it's going to be supporting Iraq for a long, long time. You could argue that it's about ego, that it's about revenge, or that it's about victory, but your anti-capitalist rhetoric just isn't going to fly here. Anybody can make a broad, illogical, sweeping claim, but your argument is worthless unless you can somehow show us how the Iraq's business potential is somehow worth more than the billions directly invested in the war, and the economic fallout the state of war has caused.

[Edric O]

Call me a cynic, but I'll never believe that a government (ANY government) would EVER spend 70 billion dollars (not to mention countless human lives) just because they felt like saving the citizens of another country from a corrupt dictator.

Add to that the fact that this exact same government has shown utter contempt for the poor and the homeless in its own country, and your theory becomes even more insane.

Edit: And by the way, keep in mind that the money they've spent in Iraq is taxpayers' money. Even if the business potential is "minuscule" as you claim, they'll still make a huge profit, because they've only spent other people's money.

[SurlyPIG]

The taxpayer's money IS their money. The economy goes down, so does their taxdollars.

What exactly do you think my 'theory' is, exactly, as to the roots of their actions, because you seem to be more of an expert on it than I am. For once would you argue against something other than your assumed strawman.

[Edric O]

I'm sorry, but this strawman is one you've built for yourself.

From what I understand, you're arguing that the US government just wanted to free the Iraqi people out of the kindness of their hearts. Is that correct?

[SurlyPIG]

Hell no. The US attacked Iraq for several reasons, but not that. They are, in order of their importance.

1. To reduce terrorism (and Saddam has been proven to support terrorism)

2. A demonstration of power to discourage dissident dictatorships (isn't it a 'funny coincidence' how countries like Iran, Syria, and North Korea were suddenly more cooperative). Right after 9/11 they came straight out and said that harbouring terrorists would be viewed as the same thing as practicing terrorism.

Now, as far as #1 goes, they did that mostly in Afghanistan, but the Taliban was weak and scarce compared to others, and that really wasn't enough to accomplish either goal. Plus, Al Qaeda isn't the strongest or most active terrorist groups. Which are? The anti-Israeli groups. So why Iraq? Why Saddam? Well, a) to finish him off from both Bush Sr.'s and Clinton's military action, b) because Saddam is a supporter of those anti-Israeli terrorist groups and c) because Saddam was a figure of power and defiance in the Middle East.

The fact that they freed 25 million people is essentially just a side-effect of these things. It's like people who take Asprin for chronic pain, but also to decrease the risk of heart attack.

[Edric O]

Ah, now we understand each other. Believe it or not, I completely agree with everything you just said. But I'd also like to add reason #3:

3. To secure the Iraqi oil fields for American companies.

This is an objective which will pay off in the long term. Especially since the situation in Saudi Arabia is getting more and more unstable, and the USA needs another strong ally and oil supplier in the region.

[Acriku]

The blind eye does not see itself in the mirror, eh Edric?

[SurlyPIG]

"Believe it or not, I completely agree with everything you just said."

:O

...feels like an out of body experience...

As for #3, I really don't think the oil is worth it. If you calculate the economic potential of the oil in 5-10 years when Iraq is stable, compared to the price and supply of oil like the Saudis have, factor in the probability that the practicality of oil is declining and may be reduced or even replaced soon, couple it with the fact that there's no natural gas in oil sands, where other kinds of oil sites usually offer an oil/gas combo, and weigh the result of this against the direct costs of the war in taxdollars, estimate the cost of economic fallout caused by the war and include this, it's just a plain, bad decision. Especially long-term. And then there's the lives lost, and the decline in international relations, which are important but harder to measure. Oil is and has been a juggernaut but it's fall is near. My dad has worked in the oil industry for most of his carreer, and he has advised me against doing the same because of the trends he's seen in his various jobs over the years. Alternative energies are quickly gaining interest and importance.