The French jealous & resentful

by JH 22 Replies latest jw friends

  • JH
    JH

    Wednesday, March 5, 2003



    Why the French behave as they do

    Posted: March 5, 2003
    1:00 a.m. Eastern

    By Patrick J. Buchanan


    © 2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

    Having rescued France in two world wars, Americans are puzzled. Why are they organizing the Security Council against us? Why are they sabotaging the president's plan to bring democracy to Iraq, as we restored democracy to France? Why are they doing this?

    What the French are up to, however, is not unreasonable, if one can see the world from the perspective of Paris.

    To understand what France is about, and perhaps deal with our French problem with more maturity than dumping champagne in the gutter, let us go back five centuries.

    In 1500, there was born in Ghent a future king who would come to dominate the world as we do today. At six, the death of his father Philip of Hapsburg gave Charles the crown of the Netherlands. At 16, the death of his grandfather Ferdinand made him Charles I of Spain and of all its dependencies in Italy and America. At 19, the death of his grandfather Maximilian brought Charles all the hereditary lands of the Hapsburgs and the expectation of being elected Holy Roman Emperor.

    In 1519, that title had been in the Hapsburg family four generations. Yet it remained an elective office. And two young and ambitious rulers challenged Charles for that title: Henry VIII of England and Francis I of France. Francis was by far the more formidable.

    He set about bribing the electors. But Charles had access to the Medicis and the Fugger bank of Jacob the Rich, the strongest in Europe. Charles bought up more electors and was chosen Charles V, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.

    France was surrounded. Charles ruled almost all of what is today's Spain, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Germany, Hungary and Italy, except for the Papal States. What did Francis, seething with resentment, do? Exactly what balance of power politics dictated. He began making alliances with the nations not under Charles' control, and went to war.

    In 1525, Charles' armies crushed the French Army at Pavia and captured the French king. "Nothing is left to me," Francis I wrote to his mother, "except honor and life."

    By agreeing to humiliating peace terms, Francis won his freedom and returned to France. There, he began preparing at once for a new war, winning the support of the pope and the Italian states that were coming to resent the dominance of the hegemonic Charles.

    Defeated again, Francis made alliances with Scotland, Sweden and Denmark, with rebellious princes in Germany, even with the infidel Turks, an unprecedented act for a Christian king. Francis fought Charles until his death in 1547. Point of this history: For Francis I, read Jacques Chirac; for Charles V, read George W. Bush.

    Again, consider the world from the Paris point of view.

    French was once the language of every court in Europe. I speak German only to my horses, said Frederick the Great. But now, because the Americans speak English, English is the language of diplomacy, of the Internet and the Global Economy.

    Once, French culture was predominant. Today, it is not even competitive. It is American television and cinema Europeans watch, American books, magazines and newspapers they read. The Cannes Film Festival cannot compete with the Academy Awards.

    Jealous they have been displaced, resentful of having had to be twice rescued by the Americans, France is following the dictates of balance-of-power politics, trying to form up and head up a coalition of the resentful, who equally oppose America's military, economic and cultural hegemony.

    When Americans began braying about being the "last superpower" and the "indispensable nation," and tossing our weight around all over the world, it was predictable that this would happen.

    Now, the French are trying to assume the leadership of the anti-Americans, and there are hundreds of millions worldwide who would relish seeing the haughty Americans taken down. And with the Red Army back in Russia, France no longer needs us to defend her, nor does she need NATO as a constant reminder of her past dependency.

    We brought this on ourselves. Had we packed up and come home after the Cold War, and dissolved NATO and other outdated alliances, America would today be the most courted country on earth.

    Instead of our bribing nations to fight their wars, they would be begging us to defend them. Instead of our spending national treasure on bases all over the world, other nations would be buying our arms to defend themselves. Instead of yelling "Yankee, go home," they would be pleading, "Yankee, come back."

    As has been said before, we Americans are lousy imperialists.

    The sole consolation of our mismanaged diplomacy is that it is the harmless French who have taken up the anti-American banner, not a more formidable strategic rival like the Russians or Chinese.


  • Stan Conroy
    Stan Conroy

    "Having rescued France in two world wars"

    Typical American arrogance spewing from the mouth of this nut. I can't read any further. Maybe he should re-read the history books and see what role America had in WW1. They certainly didn't "rescue" France singlehandedly as he implies. The Canadians achieved much more toward "rescuing" France than the USA did.

    I don't come by hear often anymore (does that make me a troll?), but when I see stuff like this, I have to say something.

    Okay Americans, jump all over this...

    Stan

  • Celia
    Celia

    Ah, yes, good ol' Pat....

    Why are they sabotaging the president's plan to bring democracy to Iraq, as we restored democracy to France? Why are they doing this?

    What is he talking about ?

    restored democracy to France

    France was under attack from Germany, but never lost its democracy....

    The sole consolation of our mismanaged diplomacy is that it is the harmless French who have taken up the anti-American banner,

    if the French are so harmless, why all the fuss ? and the French don't spend much time thinking about the Americans. They have their own lives to live, in their beautiful country, where the food and the wine are so good, where culture is all around, where history is much older than just a couple hundred years.... For most French people, Americans are just a bunch of strange, excentric, barbaric know-it-all, to be avoided if at all possible.

  • bigboi
    bigboi
    Had we packed up and come home after the Cold War, and dissolved NATO and other outdated alliances, America would today be the most courted country on earth.

    This dude says this after recalling how one great power of the 16th century couldn't contend with a ruler who had the resources of just about all of Europe at his disposal. What a jerk-off!

    Also he before he begins to make comparisons between rulers past and present he needs to bone up on his own history. Charles V was for the most part a failure. He never could totally defeat the French, couldn't hold together the religious unity of the his 'empire' and was famous for totally inept and inefficient government. He became so fed up and worn out he retired from his offices and died a broken man in Spain.

  • heathen
    heathen

    True the french have long been awarded the most arrogant nation on the planet but I was more likely to think that they are more a pacifist state . Pat Buchanon stated on msnbc that the french themselves do not even have a military to speak of . They are clearly not interested in confrontation and futhermore the UN was developed to diplomatically solve these kinds of problems kinda like a round table with the US playing King Arthur.

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    Mr. Buchanan has proved once again the accuracy of the tenet, 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing'. What a squonka!

    HS

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    Buchanan is a crackpot, and I'm a conservative!

    Regarding political party affiliations, I'm in agreement with my hero Thomas Jefferson who said to Francis Hopkinson in a letter dated March 13, 1789:

    "If I could not go up to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all."

    Farkel

  • Englishman
    Englishman

    Actually, it was the British, American and Canadian forces that liberated France between them:

    11. The Liberation of France and Belgium, 1944
    1944, June 6
    INVASION OF NORMANDY. For many months careful and elaborate plans had been matured by the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF) for invading France. Command of this greatest amphibious operation in history was entrusted to Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower. The British Isles provided the chief base for the concentration of men and war materiel, and the plan of campaign to follow the invasion date (D-Day) was rehearsed in exhaustive detail. Air control was to be maintained by the U.S. Eighth and Ninth Air Forces and the British Royal Air Force, with a combined strength of over 10,000 planes. An American naval task force and a British naval task force were assembled to support the assault, and the invasion was planned to proceed under cover of an intense and accurately directed bombardment by 800 guns on 80 warships. To convey the troops and supplies across the channel, 4,000 other ships were used, and the lack of port facilities for disembarkation was overcome by a dramatic improvisation in engineering. Artificial harbors were to be constructed on an exposed coast by sinking lines of blockships and concrete caissons to form breakwaters, with floating pierheads and pontoon causeways to serve as wharves and docks. 1
    June 6
    U.S. and British forces succeeded in landing on the Normandy coast between St. Marcouf and the Orne River. Within a week a strip of beach 60 miles long had been occupied and the artificial harbors constructed. 2
    June 18
    An unusually severe gale with high waves delayed landing operations for three days and wrecked the major causeways of one artificial harbor. It was abandoned and traffic diverted to a British-built harbor that was less exposed and had suffered less severely. 3
    June 27
    The capture of Cherbourg placed a major port in Allied control. During the first hundred days following D-Day 2.2 million men, 450,000 vehicles, and 4 million tons of stores were landed. This extraordinary achievement was rendered possible by perfecting the services of supply, on the basis of experience gained in the First World War and in the amphibious landings in Africa and Italy. The enormous output of Allied factories and shipyards, which made it possible to duplicate all wrecked or damaged equipment, was also an important factor. 4
    July 9
    British and Canadian troops captured Caen. Allied tanks broke through German defenses near St. Lô and fanned out, disorganizing enemy resistance. Persistent bombing of all bridges and railways severely crippled the German attempts to bring up adequate forces to halt Allied drives. 5
    Aug. 15
    In another amphibious operation the Allies effected successful landings on the French Mediterranean coast between Marseilles and Nice. 6
    Aug. 24
    The citizens of Paris rioted against German forces of occupation as Allied armed divisions crossed the Seine and approached the capital. French Forces of the Interior (FFI), which had been organized for underground resistance and supplied with arms, rose against the retreating Germans. 7
    Aug. 25
    Paris liberated. 8
    Sept. 2
    Allied forces, which had penetrated into Belgium, liberated Brussels. 9
    Sept. 12
    The American First Army crossed the German frontier near Eupen, and American armored forces entered Germany north of Trier. The Germans, however, manning their Westwall defenses, offered firm resistance, and the Allied advance was halted. An Allied attempt to outflank the Westwall through the flat Dutch territory to the north (Sept. 17–26) failed, and survivors of an Allied airborne division that was dropped at Arnhem had to be withdrawn. 10
    Sept. 15
    The American Seventh and the French First Armies, sweeping up the Rhone Valley from beachheads won (Aug. 15) on the Riviera, joined the American Third Army at Dijon. The American, British, and French forces were then reorganized in liberated France for a projected assault on Germany. 11
    The Encyclopedia of World History, Sixth edition. Peter N. Stearns, general editor. Copyright © 2001 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Maps by Mary Reilly, copyright © 2001 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

    Englishman.

  • teejay
    teejay

    France Is Not a Pacifist Country

    (Interview with France's Jacques Chirac)

    Do last week's U.N. inspector's reports mark a turning point in the debate over Iraq ?

    In the preceding two days, I receive phone calls from several heads of state, both members and nonmembers of the Security Council, and I cam to the conclusion that a majority of world leaders share our determination to search for a peaceful solution to disarming Iraq.

    If there is a war, what do you see are the consequences for the Middle East?

    The consequences of war would be considerable in human terms. In political terms, it would destabilize the entire region. It's very difficult to explain that one is going to spend colossal sums of money to wage war when there may be another solution yet is unable to provide adequate aid to the developing world.

    Why do you think the fallout from a war would be so much graver than Tony Blair and George bush seem to?

    I simply don't analyze the situation as thy do. Among the negative fallout would be inevitably as strong reaction from Arab and Islamic public opinion. It may not be justified, and it may be, but it's a fact. A war of this kind cannot help giving a big lift to terrorism. It would create a large number of little Bin Ladens. Muslims and Christians have a lot to say to one another, but war isn't' going to facilitate that dialogue. I'm against the clash of civilizations; that plays into the hands of extremists.

    There is a problem--the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right to be disturbed by this situation, and it's right in having decided Iraq should be disarmed. The inspections began, and naturally it is a long and difficult job. We have to give the inspectors time to do it. And probably--and this is France's view--we have to reinforce their capabilities, especially those of aerial surveillance. For the moment, nothing allows us to say inspections don't work.

    Isn't' France ducking its military responsibilities to its oldest ally?

    France is not a pacifist country. We currently have more troops in the Balkans than the Americans. France is obviously not anti-American. It’s a true friend of the United States and always has been. It is not France's role to support dictatorial regimes in Iraq or anywhere else. Nor do we have any difference over the goal of eliminating Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. For that matter, if Saddam Hussein would only vanish, it would without a doubt be the biggest favor he could do for his people and for the world. But we think this goal can be reached without starting a war.

    But you seem willing to put the onus on inspectors to find arms rather than on Saddam to declare what he's got.

    Are there nuclear arms in Iraq? I don't think so. Are there weapons of mass destruction? That's probable. We have to find and destroy them. In its current situation, does Iraq--controlled and inspected as it is--pose a clear and present danger to the region? I don't believe so. Given that, I prefer to continue along the path laid out by the Security Council. Then we'll see.

    What evidence would justify war?

    It's up to the inspectors to decide. We gave them our confidence. There were given a mission, and we trust them. If we have to give them greater means, we'll do so. It's up to them to come before the Security Council and say, "We won. It's over. There are no more weapons of mass destruction," or "It's impossible for us to fulfill our mission. We're coming up against Iraqi ill will and implements." At that point, the Security Council would have to discuss this report and decide what to do. In that case, France would naturally exclude no option.

    But without Iraqi cooperation, even 300 inspectors can't do the job.

    That's correct, no doubt. But it's up to the inspectors to say so. I'm betting that we can get Iraq to cooperate more. If I'm wrong, there will still be time to draw other conclusions. When a regime like Saddam's finds itself caught between certain death and abandoning his arms, I think it will make the right choice. But I can't be certain.

    If the Americans were to bring a resolution for war before the U.N., would France use its veto?

    In my view, there's no reason for a new resolution. We are in the framework of 1441, and let's go on with it. I don't see what any new resolution would add.

    Some charge you are motivated by anti-Americanism.

    I've known the U.S. for a long time. I visit often. I've studied there, worked as a forklift operator for Anheuser-Busch in St. Louis and as a soda jerk at Howard Johnson's. I feel good there. I've always supported transatlantic solidarity. When I hear people say that I'm anti-American, I'm sad--not angry, but really sad.

    Do you think America's role as the sole superpower is a problem?

    Any community with only one dominant power is always a dangerous one and provokes reactions. That's why I favor a mulit-polar world, in which Europe obviously has its place. Anyway, the world will not be unipolar. Over the next 50 years, china will become a global power, and the world won't be the same. So it's time to start organizing. Transatlantic solidarity will remain the basis of the world order, in which Europe has its role to play.

    Haven't tensions over Iraq poisoned transatlantic relationships?

    I repeat: Iraq must be disarmed, and for that it must cooperate more than it does now. If we disarm Iraq, the goal set by the Americans will have been fulfilled. And if we do that, there can be no doubt that I will be due in large part to the presence of American forces on the spot. If there hadn't been U.S. soldiers present, Saddam might not have agreed to play the game. If we go through with the inspections, the Americans will have won, since it would essentially be thanks to the pressure they exercised that Iraq was disarmed.

    Don't you think it would be extremely difficult politically for president Bush to pull back from war?

    I'm not so sure about that. He would have two advantages if he brought his soldiers back. I'm talking about a situation, obviously, where the inspectors say now there's nothing left, and that will take a certain number of weeks. If Iraq doesn’t' cooperate, and the inspectors say this isn't working, it could be war. If Iraq is stripped of its weapons of mass destruction and that's been verified by the inspectors, then Mr. Bush can say two things: first, "Thanks to my intervention, Iraq has been disarmed," and second, "I achieved all that without spilling any blood." In the life of a statesman, that counts--no blood spilled.

    Yet Washington may well go to war despite your plan.

    That will be their responsibility. But if they were to ask me for my friendly advice, I would counsel against it.

    ===========================

    February 24 issue of Time magazine.

  • Maverick
    Maverick

    Well, my family,(both sides) is French. I am a second generation American. My grandparents came here in 1926. My daughter spent some time in Paris when she was 15. The first thing she said to me when she got off the plane in Tampa was,"Ah a man that smells good!" She was unimpressed by the people there. We should send them a couple of tons of soap and shampoo and ashtrays. And tell them to get over it and go paint something! I'm happy I'm here. Maverick

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit