France Will Never Forget

[August1991]

http://www.malaurie.com/frenchamericanfrie...ndex1.php?id=85

The French People have always cherished and valued the tradition of friendship and alliance between France and the United States, which dates back 225 years.

Whatever circumstances and differences of views this friendship might have gone through, we want to reaffirm strongly this profound feeling. We cannot, do not, and will not ever forget the ultimate sacrifice American heroes made during the two World Wars to liberate France. To show our gratitude and demonstrate again this feeling, we have launched an unprecedented initiative, a symbolic gesture to lay by July 4 a red rose on each and every one of the 60,511 graves and 11 Missing In Action monuments of Americans fallen in France during World Wars I & II.

[bush_cheney2004]

Contrary to the article's position, the "friendship and alliance" does not extend back for 225 years. An undeclared "Quasi" war existed between France and the United States from 1798 - 1800 in the wake of incompatible US treaties with sworn enemies Great Britain and France. Many ships were seized or sunk...sailors died.

Nation states have interests and "rivals". If the notion of "friendship" must be tolerated for such nation state relationships, the US is much closer to the UK than France. The UK is America's #1 ally and best "friend".

[August1991]

Contrary to the article's position, the "friendship and alliance" does not extend back for 225 years. An undeclared "Quasi" war existed between France and the United States from 1798 - 1800 in the wake of incompatible US treaties with sworn enemies Great Britain and France. Many ships were seized or sunk...sailors died.

Nation states have interests and "rivals". If the notion of "friendship" must be tolerated for such nation state relationships, the US is much closer to the UK than France. The UK is America's #1 ally and best "friend".

After a gesture of such goodwill, I'm surprised that you would be so churlish as to make reference to a minor dispute that occurred over 200 years ago.

BTW, the UK and the US declared open war in 1812. The US also violently obtained its independence from the UK.

More significantly, the US and France were the first modern republics in the world. They both overthrew their monarchs at about the same time and established radically new forms of governments.

[Riverwind]

The UK is America's #1 ally and best "friend".

Why? Because the Blair was stupid enough to join Bush's war? The average UK citizen is completely opposed to that venture and extremely hostile towards Bush and his policies. America is in real trouble if the UK represents its #1 ally and best "friend".

[bush_cheney2004]

Why? Because the Blair was stupid enough to join Bush's war? The average UK citizen is completely opposed to that venture and extremely hostile towards Bush and his policies. America is in real trouble if the UK represents its #1 ally and best "friend".

There's no such thing as best "friends", but if the French want to play this kind of PR game in the wake of recent elections, then the history is plain for all to see. Not only did America attack your Empire to gain independence, but it also attacked your Empire's enemies so it could continue to exist.

God Save the Queen.

[bush_cheney2004]

After a gesture of such goodwill, I'm surprised that you would be so churlish as to make reference to a minor dispute that occurred over 200 years ago.

The facts are what they are...to President John Adams and me. Sorry to rain on your pretend world of friends and history:

De Gaulle did become the leader of France after World War II and in the 1960's decided French soil could no longer stand having American soldiers standing on it so he pulled out of the military branch of NATO and ordered all American troops out of France. An angry President Johnson asked De Gaulle if he wanted us to dig up our dead and remove them as well. The story goes that a sputtering De Gaulle told him he didn't mean THOSE American soldiers.

Before that it was the Suez Crisis (1956) when Ike put the kabash on plans to consolidate control over the canal.

Edited July 22, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[ScottSA]

The UK is America's #1 ally and best "friend".

Why? Because the Blair was stupid enough to join Bush's war? The average UK citizen is completely opposed to that venture and extremely hostile towards Bush and his policies. America is in real trouble if the UK represents its #1 ally and best "friend".

You know, I don't think you know the first thing about intl relations. Every time you get into the subject, your ignorance shines through. Here's a little something to help you understand why BC said what he said about Britain and the US::

The term "special relationship" was first coined to describe the strong ties forged between US President Franklin D Roosevelt and Winston Churchill during World War II. http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:Db1_uB...clnk&cd=3&gl=ca

[Riverwind]

The term "special relationship" was first coined to describe the strong ties forged between US President Franklin D Roosevelt and Winston Churchill during World War II.

Lovely feelgood crap spouted by a British PM that was glad the US decided to finally decided to stop sitting on its a** and help out. If there was really a "special relationship" then the US would have been involved the day the Germans started bombing London.

Your own link shows how the relationship has waxed and waned. BC had it right when he said that nations don't have friends - they only have strategic interests. Claims of national "friendships" are nothing but propaganda tools designed to advance the adgenda of the politicians making the claim.

[bush_cheney2004]

“Never separate from the Americans” - Sir Winston Churchill to the HOC upon retirement.

[August1991]

De Gaulle did become the leader of France after World War II and in the 1960's decided French soil could no longer stand having American soldiers standing on it so he pulled out of the military branch of NATO and ordered all American troops out of France. An angry President Johnson asked De Gaulle if he wanted us to dig up our dead and remove them as well. The story goes that a sputtering De Gaulle told him he didn't mean THOSE American soldiers.

Before that it was the Suez Crisis (1956) when Ike put the kabash on plans to consolidate control over the canal.

Your description of de Gaulle's decision to withdraw French troops from NATO command is slanted. France, BTW, remained a member of NATO.

Your mention of the Suez Crisis is simply humourous. The Suez Crisis was a joint British-French attempt to regain control of the canal.

[Guest American Woman]

The UK is America's #1 ally and best "friend".

Why? Because the Blair was stupid enough to join Bush's war? The average UK citizen is completely opposed to that venture and extremely hostile towards Bush and his policies. America is in real trouble if the UK represents its #1 ally and best "friend".

Yet Blair was re-elected. This is what sort of amazes me. I've talked to Brits before either of our elections, and they expressed surprise that I thought Bush would even have a chance of being re-elected, while saying they would vote for Blair. I try to figure out the difference between their involvement in the war and supporting Blair again and us. Seriously. What is the difference between the two nations? It's really puzzling that Brits would dare to be critical of us and have a low opinion of us under the circumstances. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

As for France's gesture, I think it's great. I'll always be appreciative of France's help in the Revolutionary War; and the Statue of Liberty still stands for our nation's freedom. The whole freedom fry thing was a huge embarrassment.

[bush_cheney2004]

Your description of de Gaulle's decision to withdraw French troops from NATO command is slanted. France, BTW, remained a member of NATO.

Your mention of the Suez Crisis is simply humourous. The Suez Crisis was a joint British-French attempt to regain control of the canal.

It wasn't my description, and you are ignoring something obvious....nobody has claimed "The English People have always cherished and valued the tradition of friendship and alliance between Great Britain and the United States, which dates back 225 years".

That is part of working topic...of your own making.

[ScottSA]

The term "special relationship" was first coined to describe the strong ties forged between US President Franklin D Roosevelt and Winston Churchill during World War II.

Lovely feelgood crap spouted by a British PM that was glad the US decided to finally decided to stop sitting on its a** and help out. If there was really a "special relationship" then the US would have been involved the day the Germans started bombing London.

Your own link shows how the relationship has waxed and waned. BC had it right when he said that nations don't have friends - they only have strategic interests. Claims of national "friendships" are nothing but propaganda tools designed to advance the adgenda of the politicians making the claim.

The term has been in general usage ever since. It is evoked each time there is a crisis by either country requiring the aid of the other. If you knew the first thing about intl relations, you'd know that.

[Riverwind]

Yet Blair was re-elected. This is what sort of amazes me.

Both major parties supported the war so the Brits had to make a choice based on issues other than the war.

[bush_cheney2004]

Both major parties supported the war so the Brits had to make a choice based on issues other than the war.

Yep...Howard was also "re-elected" (his party). The trifecta was complete....if war's detractors can't get enough support to win a domestic election, I'm sure as hell glad they're not in charge of waging the wars.

Blair > won

Bush > won

Howard > won

.....but all the people were against the war....LOL!

Edited July 23, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

Yet Blair was re-elected. This is what sort of amazes me.

Both major parties supported the war so the Brits had to make a choice based on issues other than the war.

That's part of what amazes me. Britain couldn't even come up with a candidate who doesn't support the war, yet they're critical of us regarding the war.

[Riverwind]

That's part of what amazes me. Britain couldn't even come up with a candidate who doesn't support the war, yet they're critical of us regarding the war.

Politics is complicated and people often have to hold their nose and vote. There were fringe parties that opposed the war but they don't have much of a chance in a FPP system. That said, Blair was quietly booted from office by his party and the war was one of the biggest issues.

In the long term, Bush winning a second term is probably the best outcome for people that opposed the war. He has had a chance to be completely discredited. If he was booted out in 2004 he could have blamed the subsequent failure on Kerry even though failure is the only possible outcome at this point in time.

[sharkman]

Most think another 9/11 will happen, and if it does with the Dems in power, I believe we would see no better solution. Clinton was the U.S.'s last best chance, and he only let the problem grow, lobbing the occasional cruise missle at it.

[Riverwind]

Most think another 9/11 will happen, and if it does with the Dems in power, I believe we would see no better solution. Clinton was the U.S.'s last best chance, and he only let the problem grow, lobbing the occasional cruise missle at it.

Terrorism is something that can never be stopped with an army. The British did not bring peace to Northern Island by bombing the place into the last century.

[geoffrey]

Terrorism is something that can never be stopped with an army. The British did not bring peace to Northern Island by bombing the place into the last century.

Having been to Northern Ireland, I'd say that 'peace' is much less that what you may perceive it elsewhere.

I was staying with (Catholic) relatives there... the event that struck me most was watching a kid (well, young adult likely) getting beat up on the street... but my friend and I were encouraged to do nothing because he was a protestant. Might get myself into trouble back home. Hmm...

The hate is still alive and well in Northern Ireland. Just one side has the guns now though so it works out with a lower body count and more black eyes.

--

Anyways, that's just a tidbit.

The other difference between Islamo terrorism and the conflict in Ireland is that Britain had a reasonable partner in peace... the Irish don't want war, they just want their nation reunited. The Islamic terrorists activity attempt to sacrifice themselves in the name of Allah for virgins in heaven... none of the former-IRA guys I spoke to there had some fantatical devote to anything beyond their families.

al-Qaeda and their partners aren't attempting to reunited their families and their homeland, they aren't fighting political oppression (quite the opposite really)... they are just on a conquest to kill the "Western infidels."

How can you fix such a situation without force?

It's completely different. What "worked" in Ireland won't work with the Islamic terrorists. Not the same type of thinking, the British are far more civilized than al-Qaeda.

[Riverwind]

How can you fix such a situation without force?

All forms of terrorism depend on finding a pool of recruits that believe they are a victim. Villifying a religion practiced by a billion people who are not suicide bombers, invading their countries and handing thier oil wealth over to foreign corporations is a excellent way to perpetrate this victim complex and ensure a steady supply of recruits.

There are no easy solutions to the mess that exists now, however, it is pretty obvious that military force has failed in Iraq and will fail in Afghanistan. It is time to find a different way.

Edited July 23, 2007 by Riverwind

[bush_cheney2004]

All forms of terrorism depend on finding a pool of recruits that believe they are a victim. Villifying a religion practiced by a billion people who are not suicide bombers, invading their countries and handing thier oil wealth over to foreign corporations is a excellent way to perpetrate this victim complex and ensure a steady supply of recruits.

There are no easy solutions to the mess that exists now, however, it is pretty obvious that military force has failed in Iraq and will fail in Afghanistan. It is time to find a different way.

Really? So when can we expect the "Treaty 8" First Nations to rise up and attack Canada because of exploitation and environmental degradation of Athabasca Oil Sands?

There is also another way to achieve economic and political goals besides "terrorism".

Except for France, which gave up in Algeria.

Edited July 23, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Riverwind]

Really? So when can we expect the "Treaty 8" First Nations to rise up and attack Canada because of exploitation and environmental degradation of Athabasca Oil Sands?

Natives in Canada are allowed to participate in a legal system that will protect their rights. They have no need to resort to terrorism. However, if a future Canadian government unilaterally removed those protections we would likely see terrorism from native groups. When standoffs erupt the Canadian government bends over backwards trying to avoid bloodshed - an approach that is often criticized. But it is sensible because creating native 'martyrs' would be a catalyst that would trigger terrorism in the future.

[bush_cheney2004]

Natives in Canada are allowed to participate in a legal system that will protect their rights....

Hmmm.... forgive me if I don't take your word for the status of First Nations political participation and efficacy vs. provincial and federal governments, or the absence of violence, confrontation, and deaths. Truth is, as in the USA, the natives have been "conquered" and dominated into submission with only legal recourse in the courts (treaty rights).

How to get this back to France....oh I know....they have terrorists too, and it has nothing to do with oil.

Edited July 23, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Topaz]

I hope America will think very carefully when electing the next President for their own sakes. Their foreign policies is making the world unstaple and could lead to even more unrest. As far as France, I seem to remember when France was against going into Iraq and Americans pple turned their backs on France so much so they wanted to make "French Fries" into "Freedom Fries" !!!! I thought if they thought at less of France then send back that Lady that stands out in the Hudson River that would be a constant reminder of France. My point is that America seems to make you its friend when they can use you and then turn around and stab in the back when they don't.