ANALYSIS: An Even-Handed Look at American, European Relations

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Chirac wants to leave a trace in history books like De Gaulle did

De Gaulle certainly left his mark on the history book. A big brown streak akin to the ones in some people's underwear.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Only if you symphatize with Al Queda's aims . If so, then yes, you'd have a point.

No dice. The methods of war are supposed to be valid, whatever the one perfomring it. IS the willful slaughter of civilians an acceptable war strategy, yes or no?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
De Gaulle certainly left his mark on the history book. A big brown streak akin to the ones in some people's underwear.

I know De Gaulle got on your Yank fragile nerves, but it was really no reason to poop in your pants, you know

[ErikM]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
<...>in WW2, we bombed civilians in Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

Of course, in the end, our system was better .

*ErikM tries hard to find some logical link between these two statements*

[Imran Siddiqui]

The methods of war are supposed to be valid, whatever the one perfomring it.

'Supposed to'? Sorry, but the winners decide which 'methods' are valid and which are not.

IS the willful slaughter of civilians an acceptable war strategy, yes or no?

Yes, if the end goal is a prevention of more casulties. That's, at least, my view. In reality, it is acceptable only if the winner does it and says it was acceptable.

[GhengisFarb™]

De Gaulle's one of those people who will be a prime target for potential time-travelers to irradicate from existence as his nonexistence is almost guaranteed to improve human society.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, if the end goal is a prevention of more casulties. That's, at least, my view. In reality, it is acceptable only if the winner does it and says it was acceptable.

I couldn't care less about the winner writing history books, I am asking YOU, what YOUR MORALS think of the slaughter of civilians as a military strategy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

*ErikM tries hard to find some logical link between these two statements*

Why is it so hard? In tough times, we resorted to killing civilians of an enemy country in a total war to save our system, which has many more freedoms for our citizens (at least IMO).

[ErikM]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
De Gaulle's one of those people who will be a prime target for potential time-travelers to irradicate from existence as his nonexistence is almost guaranteed to improve human society.

That's why Americans are so dangerous. They are raised on Star Trek and believe in all kind of sci-fi nonsense like time travel and democracy in Afghanistan.

Lack of logic + military power = dangerous mix

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
De Gaulle's one of those people who will be a prime target for potential time-travelers to irradicate from existence as his nonexistence is almost guaranteed to improve human society.

Ah, well, if you think that the guy who established France as an independant country instead of a US poodle, and who also avoided France to be ruled by a military junta, I suppose you have quite a few enemies among the world. Do you hate, say, Juan Carlos with a similar passion as well?

[GhengisFarb™]

Naw, just De Gaulle. He's the only one that's French.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I am asking YOU, what YOUR MORALS think of the slaughter of civilians as a military strategy.

If the end intention is less people killed in military actions than in the civilian bombings, then yes, valid.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If the end intention is less people killed in military actions than in the civilian bombings, then yes, valid.

Well, thank you for your honesty.

[Ted Striker]

Chirac

Richard Simmons

[Ned]

Spiffor, thanks for your thoughtful and accurate post. It would be helpful for France to have people like you explain France's position to the US. We then would have a place for dialog.

[Ned]

Spiffor, under what conditions (do you believe) would France send a division of troops to Iraq to help win the peace?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Israel gained a nuclear program through their own spying and research.

Are those codewords meaning from the French?

under what conditions (do you believe) would France send a division of troops to Iraq to help win the peace?

France talks of role in post-U.S. Iraq

Elaine Sciolino - New York Times - Saturday, January 17, 2004

PARIS France is considering ways to help boost security in Iraq after the American occupation ends and sovereignty has returned to the Iraqi people, Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said Friday.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Are those codewords meaning from the French?

Quote:

under what conditions (do you believe) would France send a division of troops to Iraq to help win the peace?

France talks of role in post-U.S. Iraq

Elaine Sciolino - New York Times - Saturday, January 17, 2004

PARIS France is considering ways to help boost security in Iraq after the American occupation ends and sovereignty has returned to the Iraqi people, Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said Friday.

It looks like a lot is possible after June 30. No one is talking about exactly what is going to happen. No one. This implies a lot of back-room discussions.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

De Gaulle certainly left his mark on the history book. A big brown streak akin to the ones in some people's underwear.

So how many battles, in how many wars have you fought in?

'Commissioned as a second lieutenant, the 6 feet 5 tall de Gaulle joined an infantry regiment commanded by Colonel Henri-Philippe Petain in 1913.

In the First World War de Gaulle was wounded twice in the first few months of the conflict. Promoted to the rank of captain in February, 1915, de Gaulle fought at Verdun where he was wounded again and on 2nd March, 1916 was captured by the German Army. Over the next 32 months he was held in several prisoner of war camps and made five unsuccessful attempts to escape.

After the Armistice de Gaulle was assigned to a Polish division being formed in France where he served under Maxime Weygand. He fought against the Red Army during the Civil War and won Poland's highest military decoration, Virtuti Militari.

De Gaulle lectured at the French War College where he worked closely with Henri-Philippe Petain. Over the next few years the two men recommended a small, mobile, highly mechanized army of professionals.

De Gaulle's military ideas appeared in his book, The Army of the Future (1934). In the book he also criticized the static theories of war exemplified by the Maginot Line. The book was unpopular with the politicians and the military who favoured the idea of a mass army of conscripts during war. In 1936 de Gaulle was punished for his views by having his name taken off the promotion list.

In 1938 de Gaulle published France and Her Army. This book caused a disagreement with Henri-Philippe Petain who accused de Gaulle of taking credit for work done by the staff of the French War College.

On the outbreak of the Second World War de Gaulle took over command of the 5th Army's tank force in Alsace. He soon became frustrated with the military hierarchy who had failed to grasp the importance of using tanks in mass-attacks with air support.

When the German Army broke through at Sedan he was given command of the recently formed 4th Armoured Division. With 200 tanks, de Gaulle attacked the German panzers at Montcornet on 17th May, 1940. Lacking air support, de Gaulle made little impact on halting the German advance.

De Gaulle was more successful at Caumont (28th May) when he became the only French commanding officer to force the Germans to retreat during the German Invasion of France.

On the 5th June, 1940, the French prime minister, Paul Reynaud, sacked Edouard Daladier and appointed de Gaulle as his minister of war. De Gaulle also visited London but when he returned to France on 16th June he discovered the Henri-Philippe Petain had ousted Paul Reynaud as premier and was forming a government that would seek an armistice with Germany. In danger of being arrested by the new French government, de Gaulle returned to England. The following day he made a radio broadcast calling for French people to continue fighting against the German Army.

Whereas as President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the USA recognized Vichy France Winston Churchill refused and backed de Gaulle as leader of the "Free French". Henri-Philippe Petain responded by denouncing de Gaulle. On 4th July, 1940, a court-martial in Toulouse sentenced him in absentia to four years in prison. At a second court-martial on 2nd August, 1940, sentenced him to death.

De Gaulle made attempts to unify the resistance movements in France. In March 1943 Jean Moulin, Charles Delestraint and Andre Dewavrin managed to unite eight major resistance movements under de Gaulle's leadership. However, this good work was undermined when in June, 1943, both Delestraint and Moulin were both arrested by the Gestapo.

On 30th May 1943, de Gaulle moved to Algeria. The following month the French Committee of National Liberation (FCNL) was established with de Gaulle and Henri Giraud as co-presidents. De Gaulle had difficulty working with his co-president and by July, 1943, had limited Giraud's power to command of the armed forces.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill were furious when de Gaulle's announced on 26 May, 1944, that the FCNL will now be known as the Provisional Government of the French Republic. Roosevelt and Churchill refused to recognize de Gaulle's action and decided to exclude him from the planning of Operation Overlord.

Despite objections from Britain and the USA, De Gaulle's Provisional Government was recognized by Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Yugoslavia and Norway. On 13th July, 1944, the governments of Britain and the USA also agreed that de Gaulle could help administer the liberated portions of France.

De Gaulle reached France from Algiers on 20th August 1944. De Gaulle and his 2nd Armoured Division was allowed to join the USA Army when it entered Paris on 25th August. At a public speech later that day he announced that the French Forces of the Interior (FFI) would be integrated into the French Army and the militia would be dissolved. He also offered posts in his government to leaders of the resistance. Those who took office included Georges Bidault, Henry Frenay and Charles Tillon.

De Gaulle was upset by not being invited to the Yalta Conference but he was allowed to represent France as one of the four countries to sign the final instrument of surrender with Germany. France was also given one of the four occupation zones in Germany.'

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdegaulle.htm

I think perhaps you should brush up on your French history, before speaking ill of the dead, even in jest.

[GhengisFarb™]

I would prefer for France to not have anything to do with Iraq. They made their position clear and they should stand by it.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Israel gained a nuclear program through their own spying and research. The US didn't help them at all. And Britain only got the bomb because they were helping with the Manhatten Project, not because we decided to give it to them after WW2.

Actually, I'm pretty sure Israel got the bomb from France. I doubt that America did anything to oppose this, though.

We very much tried to hinder Pakistan. We threatened to remove aid many times and when it actually happened, it was automatic to take away economic aid. We had knowledge that they were trying to acquire uranium in the 80s, and we held back an order of 15 F-15's to Pakistan (which they already paid for) in response. IIRC, those F-15s are still in the US, and the money was not returned to Pakistan.

Therefore, going back to the topic of the discussion, you knew in advance Pakistan was trying to get it- just the same way it would have been clear if Saddam was in its way.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
In a total war, you need to wage war agains the populace as well, in order to try to get the government to surrender and prevent even more bloodshed than simply firebombing a city. It didn't work in Germany, but it did in Japan.

It didn't. Moss figures concerning an invasion of mainland Japan were grossly exaggerated to justify the invasion.

[notyoueither]

So you say, OB. However, it is pretty obvious to the people there at the time what would have happened if the US had to invade. They had a couple of recent and very bloody examples to go on. Civilian casualties alone would have been massive.

Also, the responsibility of the American leadership was to American servicemen and their families. Ending the war through the use of reasonable force with as little cost to themselves was perfectly acceptable.

What you want to debate is what was reasonable force. Japan was, to me, because the Japanese were undefeated and defiant. Dresden was not, as the Germans were on the whole defeated and the massacre of civilians served very little point. It is telling that criticism of Dresden among the Allies themselves was widespread at the time. The same can not be said of the atomic bombs, until later when peoples perceptions of the weapons had changed.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Again, way too narrow minded. The US needs a cheap, continuous supply of oil from the ME just as much as anyone else, and maybe even more. It's called a commodity market, and it means that it doesn't matter who physically ships oil to who, but rather what the prevailing global price is.

I don't think that is entirely correct. Yes, the world price effects all supplies, but not all supplies are economic or possible for any given region.

Take Alberta's oil for instance. There is no infrastructure in place to ship it anywhere but to Eastern Canada and the US. The cost of getting that oil to Europe or Japan would be a huge additional cost, and wouldn't even be possible until significant alterations in logistics were made. That takes time. In a crisis, we're talking about access to any oil at all, not just the cost of the oil you can get.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Woah.....have you been infected by Ned? Seriously, you've always seemed to be quite rational - what's getting into you? As a preface, I'm trying not to make any value judgements as to whether or not the US should police the world or whether Europe (or anyone else) should free ride on the US. I'm just saying that they can because the US will not just stop intervening in areas where it feels its interests are threatened.

No Republican or Democrat in the US is going to stop using the long reach of the US military for matters they deem important. Of course the US public is squeamish of large numbers of casualties - that's kind of why the US makes sure that it picks and chooses it's fights so as to minimize the chance of that. All that could conceivably change is that conflict X gets overlooked in favor of conflict Y. I think it's pretty clear that the US would never (at least in the foreseeable future) extridite itself from all conflicts, especially given the sheer size of it's global interests.

I am speaking of what could happen, not what will happen next week or what is likely to happen in 2 years. The word 'conceivable' is a dangerous one to use when considering possibilities. Consider...

The US has a strong streak of isolationism in its not too distant past. Of course they picked a few spots where they did get involved, but by and large they treated the world beyond the ponds as not much of their concern, and certainly not something to send their sons off to fight and die for. It is inconceivable that a trait they have demonstrated in the past could not become current again?

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans decide what is going to happen. For all the crap that gets dumped on their system, the American people are the ones who call the shots. FDR did his best, but he could not convince them. It took an attack on them to get them fully involved in world affairs.

Finally, lots of things are possible. The world changes a little bit every day. On some days it changes a lot. How exactly would the US continue to fund the military that projects their power if there were another severe economic shock? If a crisis in the world or the American economy coincided with weariness of overseas adventure and body counts, don't you think it would be conceivable that the American people might decide that they no longer wanted the role of being the worlds cop, even if they could afford it?

You do a good job of describing how the US has operated for close to 60 years. What you are not doing is taking into account that times and people change. I am not saying that they will change, or that when they do that they will change the way I have outlined. I am saying that change is possible if not probable. It's been 60 years since the last major change in US attitudes and behaviour. Historically speaking, we are due for another any time now. Then again, maybe we are already seeing it. Maybe the change is that the US will act the hegemon and get more deeply involved overseas. I can't see that continuing for too long though. Those soldiers are voters, and so are their families.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I doubt that America did anything to oppose this, though.

And what, pray tell, was America going to do? Bomb Israel? Bomb France? Israel continually denies they have it and we don't have any solid evidence they do, even though we believe they probably do.

you knew in advance Pakistan was trying to get it- just the same way it would have been clear if Saddam was in its way.

Um... actually the 'way' we knew Pakistan was trying to get it was the same 'way' we knew that Saddam was trying to get it. Remember that yellowcake from Africa thing that bit the US in the ass? Yep, that was part of the evidence... and about as strong as the evidence Pakistan was going to get it.

Sorry, but Saddam could have easily surprised us, seeing as these reports were from the mid-90s and we didn't do anything about it back then.

Moss figures concerning an invasion of mainland Japan were grossly exaggerated to justify the invasion.

Proof? Every invasion death number are much higher than those killed by atomic bomb blasts.

[Agathon]

The difference between America and Europe is that the latter knows first hand what modern war is really like. The former is populated by a bunch of people who love modern war because they've never really experienced one. 911 was ample proof of that. Ask people who were living in Coventry or Dresden during the war, how 911 rated on the horror scale. Yet we're supposed to believe that the world will never be the same again. Get off the grass! 911 rates well down on the atrocity scale.

It's no wonder that the Euros would rather spend the time on diplomacy and put up with less than optimal results, because they've suffered the horrors of war. Meanwhile, on the other side of the world you have a bunch of people who applaud smart bomb videos.

If you want a reasonable comparison - compare the European attitude towards war with the Jewish attitude towards neo-Nazis. In both cases, people are prepared to do whatever is required to prevent a perceived, terrible evil.

[Harovan]

Good post, Agathon . Your Hasselhoff avatar is forgiven.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The US has a strong streak of isolationism in its not too distant past. Of course they picked a few spots where they did get involved, but by and large they treated the world beyond the ponds as not much of their concern, and certainly not something to send their sons off to fight and die for. It is inconceivable that a trait they have demonstrated in the past could not become current again?

Those were the GOOD OLD DAYS too, no income tax, no worries. The US just set back and let the rest of the world kill each other off and we sold weapons and supplies to both sides. Life was good.

I seriously wouldn't mind going back to that type of policy. And nye has a good point. The US WAS going back towards a more Isolationist view, the polls were showing a large swing in American sentiment to ditch Israel and pull out of the Middle East and foreign manipulations. Until 9/11. All of a sudden that trend vaporized.

I think there's still a remote chance it can change back though. The biggest catalyst I can see that might cause it is money. Our soldiers in the Middle East are facing equipment shortages due to the fact we don't have the funding to give the best equipment. Their families are raising funds in the US to buy the armor plates for the vests they wear and are shipping the plates to them on their own. The pay and incentive/separation pay the soldiers have been getting are under review to be cut due to the lack of budget and the reluctance to raise taxes.

That could change Americans attitudes far more than the Terrorist groups. If they were to get Al Zapparooney or whatever his name is and Jomama BenJLo I think they would be hardpressed to keep troops in the field. I think Americans would take that as a finished project all wrapped up nice and neat and time to call it a day.

AND DON'T GET ME STARTED ON THE UNITED NATIONS!

I thought the United Nations was supposed to be a group of united nations that pooled their resources and accomplished goals together? Instead its a group of nations that makes policies and resolutions and has the United States fulfill them. "Let's police this civil war area, send in American troops," "Let's finance this developing country, send in American money."

Why does the American taxpayer have fund all these developing countries? Why does the American taxpayer have to pay for all the police actions? Why do American troops have to fight all the conflicts and lay down their lives for the mulitute of nations in the UN? Why don't the other UN members ante up their share?

Kudos to the UK for pulling their own weight.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Spiffor, thanks for your thoughtful and accurate post. It would be helpful for France to have people like you explain France's position to the US. We then would have a place for dialog.

Well, I think our diplomats all understood both our countries tried to further their interest, or their greed if you want to put it this way.

The real reason why hatred was so intense is because the governments tried to associate the public opinion with the diplomatic efforts. As such, only the emotional arguments were used ("let's kill the bastard" vs "let's save the peace") in open place, as they tried to gain the moral high ground.
You'll notice both governments tried to avoid too much transatlantic hatred, which was mostly excited by the civil society, including the media.

Had the governments been honest to their people about their real diplomatic intentions, the rift would have been definitely less severe (although I'd expect both populations to be discontent about the choice of the other).

Had the positions not been as polarized, it is very possible France would convince the EU as a whole to say "you are wrong" to the US, yet without impending on the UN endorsement of the war. It would have resulted in no side truly losing the face, and an actual peakeeping cooperation would have been possible.