![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Four years ago, the government of the French Republic took the lead in refusing to support the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. The French, who had taken a very active and successful part in the first Iraq war, simply did not think that an invasion followed by the occupation of an Arab country was a good idea. That was their prerogative (see under "sovereign state").
(My position was that I loathed Saddam Hussein so much that anyone who wanted to drive him out was fine by me. I would even have supported an Iranian invasion. But I would not have started to insult people who disagreed.)
The idiot part of the American right suddenly made France the bout of all their hatred. Someone spotted a market opportunity, as Americans do (the French do that as well, but when the French do it, that's evil!) and prostituted a certain amount of historical knowledge in the search for a quick buck, producing some sort of tract which rewrote history with the claim that "France have always been our enemy, but they have concealed it under a pretence of friendship".
I would dismiss this intellectually contemptible and factually fraudulent thesis in as many words, and not even bother about it, were it not that one of the finest minds in my f-list seems to have been taken in by it. As it is, I want to ask how you imagine you can trace a consistent attitude of hatred, and what is more, of subtly disguised hatred, in a nation that has, since the foundation of the United States, experienced three royalist constitutions, five republican ones, two bonapartist ones, and one fascist tyranny, and completely boxed the compass in terms of attitudes, views, and alliances. This is the kind of things that rabid anti-Semites postulate about Jews - attitudes consistent across the centuries, constant vicious subtlety in carrying them out, hatred fertile in invention but completely barren of reason. The French ought to be proud: they have been promoted to the rank of Chosen People, next to that other target of unreasoning, blind, stupid, despicable hatred. In case anyone had any doubts, I regard Jew-bashing as a stain on the face of mankind.
No doubt the prostitute or prostitutes who set out on this bit of free enterprise got out of it what they wanted - money, admiting letters from ignorami and fanatics, and the odd spot on TV talk shows; rewards that serious historians get rather less often. But as we are still free people here, I want to use my own freedom of expression, rather less despicably than the prostitute or prostitutes concerned: first, by calling whoredom by its proper name; and second, by stating clearly that there shall be no pity here for such views. The historical slag or slags who sold their integrity for popular success will not be treated as anything but filth, and anyone who takes them seriously is warned that I will do what is in my power to restore them to sanity.
(My position was that I loathed Saddam Hussein so much that anyone who wanted to drive him out was fine by me. I would even have supported an Iranian invasion. But I would not have started to insult people who disagreed.)
The idiot part of the American right suddenly made France the bout of all their hatred. Someone spotted a market opportunity, as Americans do (the French do that as well, but when the French do it, that's evil!) and prostituted a certain amount of historical knowledge in the search for a quick buck, producing some sort of tract which rewrote history with the claim that "France have always been our enemy, but they have concealed it under a pretence of friendship".
I would dismiss this intellectually contemptible and factually fraudulent thesis in as many words, and not even bother about it, were it not that one of the finest minds in my f-list seems to have been taken in by it. As it is, I want to ask how you imagine you can trace a consistent attitude of hatred, and what is more, of subtly disguised hatred, in a nation that has, since the foundation of the United States, experienced three royalist constitutions, five republican ones, two bonapartist ones, and one fascist tyranny, and completely boxed the compass in terms of attitudes, views, and alliances. This is the kind of things that rabid anti-Semites postulate about Jews - attitudes consistent across the centuries, constant vicious subtlety in carrying them out, hatred fertile in invention but completely barren of reason. The French ought to be proud: they have been promoted to the rank of Chosen People, next to that other target of unreasoning, blind, stupid, despicable hatred. In case anyone had any doubts, I regard Jew-bashing as a stain on the face of mankind.
No doubt the prostitute or prostitutes who set out on this bit of free enterprise got out of it what they wanted - money, admiting letters from ignorami and fanatics, and the odd spot on TV talk shows; rewards that serious historians get rather less often. But as we are still free people here, I want to use my own freedom of expression, rather less despicably than the prostitute or prostitutes concerned: first, by calling whoredom by its proper name; and second, by stating clearly that there shall be no pity here for such views. The historical slag or slags who sold their integrity for popular success will not be treated as anything but filth, and anyone who takes them seriously is warned that I will do what is in my power to restore them to sanity.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 11:06 am (UTC)The idea that I believe in some kind of ‘Protocols of the Elders of Paris’, or find some sinister and age-old conspiracy in the acts of the various French governments since the American war of independence, is your own fabrication entirely.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 11:35 am (UTC)As for "protocols of the elders of Paris", it so happens that I know that such publications have been made, sold, and believed. And you do not help your cause by delivering ill-informed and ill-meaning diatribes about events that took place sixty years ago. It was because of the trash you spoke about World War Two, which I notice you do not try to defend here, that I assumed that you had read one of the tracts in question.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 02:55 pm (UTC)I did not know this. Can you tell me more about this claim that the French have been prosecuting a long-standing conspiracy against America (which strikes me as hilarious, given that the French have shown an inability to prosecute a long-standing anything regarding anything, at least since the fall of the monarchy in the first French Revolution).
no subject
Date: 2007-04-23 08:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 01:55 pm (UTC)While France was opposing the Iraq invasion, they were unilaterally invading Cote d'Ivoire, including destroying the air force of the legitimate government (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526243), and massacring peaceful protesters (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3997885.stm).
In addition, during the 1990s, 60 percent of tropical hardwood sold in France came from the warlords of civil-war-torn Liberia (in John-Peter Pham, _Liberia, Portrait of a Failed State_).
This may not say anything about France's status as a ally of the US, but it says a lot about its stance as an upright and responsible member of the international community.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 02:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 03:17 pm (UTC)???
In Chile, we gave money and advice to a native political faction, we did not march our own troops into the country and oust the regime by main force. I suggest you read up on the actual mechanics of the coup that ousted Allende.
Or about being an irresponsible member of the international community in general.
Doubly ???
Most of the trouble America has gotten into has been because we have tried to be a hyper-responsible member of the international community. We have intervened against invasions (such as the North Vietnamese invasion of South Vietnam) which most of the world community was willing to idly watch completed by conquest. If not for us, the Soviet bloc would have captured the Third World during the Cold War.
With no immediate threat the size of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, we are quite willing to take our toys and go back home. This is, basically, what the French would like us to do -- they imagine that they would then have a free hand to reap colonial gains in Africa and the Mideast.
They are deluding themselves: an American return to isolationism would mean that, abruptly, third-tier Great Powers such as France would find themselves the primary defenders of their regions and interests against movements such as Islamic fundamentalism, not to mention the second tier Great Powers such as Russia and China. At that point, they would probably beg us to return and fight for them; and they might find their policy of encouraging American isolationism had succeeded a tad better than might then be convenient for themselves.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 05:06 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 03:54 pm (UTC)Second, I grew up in Liberia, and lived a year in Cote d'Ivoire. I still have friends there, and got my information from them, not from any newspapers or the BBC.
I'm afraid that you are the one to have the fact wrong. Laurent Gbagbo won a democratic election that had been fixed by a military dictator, Robert Guei. The French didn't like Gbagbo because he wished to reduce the French economic stranglehold on his country -- thus leading to the French "Mugabeizing" smear.
And the civil war was between the Muslim north and Gbagbo's government in the south. It came about because Gbagbo was _anti-Muslim_, you twit! He riled up the Christian south against the large Muslim immigrant population from Burkina, etc.
You have a strange idea of democracy if you think that a democratically-elected president who came to power through a popular (and peaceful) protest against a military dictatorship is not "legitimate".
And you do not recall correctly about the protests in Abidjan. There was violence against French citizens and business, whose armed forces, after all, were engaged in systematically destroying their legitimate government's combat power. But the crowd in front of the Hotel Ivoire (in whose bowling lanes and ice-cream parlour I spent many a delightful hour) was entirely peaceful and non-threatening. There was an hour-long home video distributed on the net of the incident. The crowd was not threatening the French, who had drawn a cordon of armoured vehicles around the hotel. There was chanting, and singing, and then shots. People's heads really shouldn't be split open like that. It makes their brains spill out all over the pavement.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 04:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:They both murder.
From:Re: They both murder.
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 03:08 pm (UTC)It certainly shows a strong degree of French hypocrisy, given the far less egregious acts for which the French have condemned America. I've also never appreciated the French stance of moral superiority over Indochina, and their continued trade with North Vietnam during America's Vietnam War, given just who messed the place up so badly that the Communists were able to convince a significant number of Vietnamese to follow them as an alternative. And the French behavior during the War on Terror has been despicable, with the sort of short-term cunning and long-term sacrifice of French interests that France has been famous for since they bit at that telegram in 1870. I say "long-term sacrifice of French interests," because it never seems to have entered their pretty little Existentialist heads what position they are putting France in should they succeed in pushing America back into an isolationist mode.
But they certainly aren't as bad as the Russians and Chinese. The countries the French are pushing around are half- to quarter-civilized African joke-nations which probaly need some recolonization anyway if they are to avoid slipping into total anarchy. And they haven't engaged in a wholesale massacre of their own people since World War II, and that was under duress from Germany (another country that really should shut up and get out of the way of our war).
Perhaps France annoys us more than Russia, China, or Germany because the French are not only so incredibly arrogant about their role in history, but (unlike the Chinese) make their claims based on concepts of what constitutes excellence similar to our own. We can laugh at the Chinese idea of being "the Middle Kingdom" -- France, however, challenges us on grounds we have to take seriously.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 04:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 06:21 pm (UTC)Because "the Third World" became such a source of "authenticity" to the academic Left, there has not been much examination of the incredible folly, perpetuated not only by the Truman but also the Eisenhower Administrations (so it was bipartisan), of American support for decolonization in the two decades immediately following World War II.
This support originated not only in outright Communist moles such as White and Hiss, but also in a general American hostility to empire which still exists today (the reasone we didn't really fight a "war for oil," which might have worked better in terms of American interests). Our nation having originated in an anti-colonial secession movement, we tended to uncritically support the anti-colonialists in our first essays at Great Power postwar diplomacy, both under Wilson at Versailles and under Truman and Eisenhower through the United Nations.
This had disastrous consequences. The small states of Central Europe that Wilson helped create were but appetizers to Hitler and Mussolini; the Third World nations that emerged from the post World War II breakup of colonial empires were not only small, and hence similar treats served up for the delectation of Stalin and his successors, but also barbaric, and hence barely able (in some cases unable) to even rule themselves.
We tended to draw analogies between the new Third World states and the nascent American Republic of the late 18th century; between their secession struggles and our own Revolutionary War. We missed the important difference: we were civilized and struggling to achieve liberty; they were barbaric and struggling to achieve local tyrannies. It was this confusion that led to the misguided American tolerance extended to Ho Chi Minh, Gamel Abdul Nasser, and Fidel Castro, in the beginning of their reigns.
The worst consequence of this was not our lack of support for France in 1945-54, but rather our lack of support for Britain, France and Israel in 1956 in the Suez Crisis. Here we took the side of Nasser against our own NATO allies and the only democracy in the Mideast, mostly to curry favor with the Third World.
To salve their pride the British and French have decided now that they were in the wrong, but they were clearly in the right -- Nasser was in violation of the teaty that had returned the Canal to Egyptian control. We gained nothing by this betrayal, and we paid heavily for it -- this is one of the reasons why Europe was willing to trade with North Vietnam during the Vietnam War.
Indeed, this was one of the direct provocations that turned France anti-American.
The lesson we should take from this: Never betray long-time allies to curry favor with potential allies.
That's the lesson I take from it, anyway.
(no subject)
From:I'll leave you and <lj user = kulibali> to argue this out
Date: 2007-04-16 04:59 pm (UTC)Re: I'll leave you and <lj user = kulibali> to argue this out
Date: 2007-04-16 06:22 pm (UTC)Really? How would you describe them?
"Failed states" is just a more polite way of saying the same thing.
Re: I'll leave you and <lj user = kulibali> to argue this out
From:Re: I'll leave you and <lj user = kulibali> to argue this out
From:Re: I'll leave you and <lj user = kulibali> to argue this out
From:Re: I'll leave you and <lj user = kulibali> to argue this out
From:Re: I'll leave you and <lj user = kulibali> to argue this out
From:Re: I'll leave you and <lj user = kulibali> to argue this out
From:Re: I'll leave you and <lj user = kulibali> to argue this out
Date: 2007-04-16 07:37 pm (UTC)The conflict in Cote d'Ivoire (formerly one of the _most_ civilized nations in sub-saharan Africa) also involved spill-over from the Liberian disaster, financed by blood diamonds and, oh yeah, the French hardwood industry.
Re: I'll leave you and <lj user = kulibali> to argue this out
From:Re: I'll leave you and <lj user = kulibali> to argue this out
From:Re: I'll leave you and <lj user = kulibali> to argue this out
From:Re: I'll leave you and <lj user = kulibali> to argue this out
From:Re: I'll leave you and <lj user = kulibali> to argue this out
From:Re: I'll leave you and <lj user = kulibali> to argue this out
From:Re: I'll leave you and <lj user = kulibali> to argue this out
From:Re: I'll leave you and <lj user = kulibali> to argue this out
From:Re: I'll leave you and <lj user = kulibali> to argue this out
From:Re: I'll leave you and <lj user = kulibali> to argue this out
From:Quelling the Infection
From:no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 07:00 pm (UTC)Standing against what can easily be portrayed as American tyranny and Imperialism is an easy way to create an opposing political block on the world scene. France has a huge amount of influence in the EU, and to some extent the policies that they set, the rest of the countries are likely to follow. They might find it convinient to begin setting the EU on a track towards opposing the United States.
It would, after all, benefit them economically in the long run. Creating an alternative, second Superpower in the world, in the form of the EU, would mean that many smaller countries no longer feel the need to Kowtow to America, that alternative markets exist for goods, and that America, itself, will have to walk a little softer from now on.
Just saying, France is no saintly country either. Had they the chance, I don't doubt that they'd gladly exchange places and power with the United States, and proceed to act in exactly the same way that the US has.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 07:23 pm (UTC)If I really thought that France was seriously trying to become the nucleus of a second, also peaceful superpower, I would cheer them on. The world could use a backup "globocop."
However, I do not believe that the French are realistic about this, and I believe that the Europeans are even less realistic. They are fantasizing about "soft power" while a darkness rises in the Mideast, stretching forth its hand to seize nuclear weapons; they are trying to lever us out of the area while imagining that they can appease the growing mass of Islamic Fundamentalists by throwing them both the Israelis, and their own daughters, as so many sacrifices.
Europe should reflect that the Muslim ideology holds that the reconquest of former dar al Islam territory takes priority over new conquests, and that parts of Spain, the Balkans, and Southern Italy were once Muslim.
If we pull out, we are no longer in the line of fire.
You are.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 07:35 pm (UTC)Most European countries are awake to the threat of Islam (I would say that Sweden, Norway, Belgium and to some extent Britain and the Netherlands are still in denial). They tend to deal with it mainly as a matter of internal security, on the assumption that the immigration from the third world cannot really be stopped; but action is being taken, and in this field, incidentally, the French have been blazing the way. At any rate, Islam is not the only threat, as has been shown by the recent Chinese riots in Milan and the incredible behaviour of the Chinese government.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-17 06:29 am (UTC)*hugs*
That is the most reasuring thing I've read in a week.
It's like we're facing the hordes that tore down Rome, but we know about it, and just watching....
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 09:32 pm (UTC)... and Italy is prepared to yield Sicily and some "coastal cities" to a resurgant Caliphate?
If not, it is in Italy's interest that America kill the Beast from the East in the womb.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 10:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 10:48 pm (UTC)We very well may, if the French get their way. That's my point.
You have clearly not understood the nature of this conflict. There is no army to be defeated in battle: time and time again, the enemy has proved itself unable to withstand any modern army - not even that of Ethiopia, let alone that of the US.
In some phases of this conflict, there have been main forces; in others guerillas; in others terrorists. Simply because we have forced the enemy down the ladder of dispersal to pure terrorist operations does not mean that some Great Mystical Law decrees that they shall forever be limited to such operations, save by our continuously applied strength.
If we stopped applying force against the enemy, where they live, the terrorist groups would coalesce into guerilla bands, and the guerilla bands into main-force armies. They had both in Afghanistan and Iraq, before we destroyed them.
But there are a minimum of one billion Muslims. Each of them may at any minute become a jihadist, without consulting anyone except the books of his faith ...
Oddly enough, very few actual terrorists work that way. Most work as parts of larger organizations who train, supply, and dispatch them. Terror campaigns, like any others, must be coordinated from some center or centers.
We must steadfastly apply the laws, refuse fear and flattery, continue in our belief that our society is better than theirs, defend our ways in everything we do in our ordinary life.
I agree, as far as the threat from infiltrators posing as civilians (or mad civilians, for that matter) is concerned, but that is not enough to defeat all the levels of threat. You may "apply the laws" as you will, but a re-entering ballistic missile will ignore all man-made laws. Or, for that matter, conventional torpedo-firing submarines, or small bands of raiders landed by rubber rafts, or ... any of the other possible ways the Terrorists could strike.
But fantasies of facing and destroying big univocal enemies in grand battles are really escapism, attempts to avoid the enduring and grinding effort that awaits us.
The existence of terrorist teams does not render the existence of Terrorist State armies imaginary. We defeated one such army in 2003 -- we may have to defeat another such army in this current year.
The war must be fought at all levels.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-17 12:01 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-04-17 12:00 am (UTC)Of course, to do so we'd have to engage in the largest act of barbarism that the world has ever seen, mass-murder on a scale that, horrible though it was, would dwarf even the Holocaust. We're probably also permanently damage the habitability of the planet, and doom countless future generations of *every* nation to shorter, radiation-poisoned lives.
But, I'm just saying, we have the ability to kill them all. The United States has the largest stockpile of nuclear weaponry in the entire world. It has more warheads than the entire rest of the world's nuclear arsenal's put together, several times over. (Which, of course, creates some hypocrisy whenever the US scolds other countries for seeking to develop nuclear weapons.)
If the Jihadists, God forbid, ever actually got the massive "war of civilizations" that they want, with every muslim in the world rising as one in some kind of horde, they'd lose. They'd all become martyrs. Because, while they have suicide bombers, we have Strategic Bombers.
So, let's hope that they never, ever manage to push things that far.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: