IT Employment

General discussion

Locked

The French

By Oz_Media ·
I don't want to be tagged as pro French NOR do I want to be tagged as anti French.
In my 34 years, I've been to France about 25 or so times, mostly when living in England. I've never met a French person that I didn't like, on the contrary, I've found the French people to be very happy and welcoming.

NOTE: I've met MANY French Canadians who I didn't like, but that's not the topic.

Living on the absolute southernmost island in England, it is only 4 hours to France by ferry.

It is now assumed by SOME, that Brits don't like the French. Why would the British be seen as people who don't like the French?

Is it the same as Americans not liking the French because they wouldn't fight with American's in Iraq?

Secondly, if they didn't WANT to fight alongside of British or American troops, why would they be disliked?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

A little late with your point

by Oz_Media In reply to Who is mistaken?

"He did miss how the French Gov refused over flight of their country when Reagan struck Libya, and that may have cost the lives of two US Airmen."
'May have cost', is speculative. The fact that US troops attacked and killed friendly UK troops is NOT. Did a similar FRIENDLY attack not also occur during the war in Iran?

A few discussions ago, I don't remember which, I poked at the point that the US always seems to attack friendly targets during war yet they spout about having the highest military training with the best equipment. British soldiers were killed in Iraq when US intelligence and recon was not accurate they attacked a friendly target. This also shows that because Canadians didn't support the war effort, we contributed the their deaths too.

Canada's recon is used by many countries worldwide and is well known as the fastest, most effective and advanced recon around.

http://tinyurl.com/n17a >read "Which military assets does the US want Canada to bring to a War on Iraq?" and "What lessons can we take from these US preferences?"


So for you to wine about "...and that may have cost the lives of two US Airmen." is a little out of line.

I was told that War is War and people die at war, friendly or not. Which is it, a mistake by the US or just one of those things, like France possible costnig the lives of two airmen?

Collapse -

It's too bad. . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to mistaken

...that the other "responsible nations of the world" didn't do anything about the killing of millions upon millions of people in eastern Europe over the past hundred years (at least). Most recently, where were these "responsible nations" in the 1990s when Bosnia was no more than an ethnic killing field?

Collapse -

Bosnia

by Oz_Media In reply to It's too bad. . . .

>>"where were these "responsible nations" in the 1990s when Bosnia was no more than an ethnic killing field? "


"CONSTITUTION AND CIVIL LIBERTIES In December 1990, the Croatian parliament, or Sabor, passed a democratic constitution which guarantees the civil liberties of all of its citizens and provides for cultural and educational autonomy for the Serbs and other national minorities in Croatia. Under this constitution, Serbs and representatives of smaller minorities are given the right to have their own schools and to use their own language and alphabet as the official language and alphabet of districts where they form a majority."

"In May 1992, urged by the United Nations and European community, the Croatian government went even further, passing a law guaranteeing self-government and political autonomy to districts where Serbs make up a majority of the population. Because of these conciliatory measures taken by the Croatian government,"

"it seems clear that the legitimate goals and concerns of the Serbian minority could have been addressed through negotiation and comprimise, and that there was no need whatsoever for an armed rebellion."


"Ignoring the months of fruitless negotiotions
deliberately sabotoged by the Serbian and federal army leadership, in the final week before the Slovenian and Croatian independence proclamations,
American Secretary of State James Baker and Under Secretary Lawrence Eagleburger publicly opposed the Croatians' and Slovenians' moves towards
independence. The German government, which had followed event much more closely and carefully, rightly advocate immediate recognition of the
independence of Croatia and Slovenia and an unambiguous policy against Serbian or "federal" military intervention to prevent the indepence of these republics."

"The United States, France, England and Russia failed to intervene in an effective and constructive way to mediate a democratic and peaceful disassociation of former Yugoslav republics from the Yugoslav federation after its viability had been destroyed by a series of arbitray actions of Milosevic's Serbian government and the Serbian-dominated federal army leadership.
The United States, France and England - by initially publicly opposing the democratic decision of the Slovenian and Croatian peoples when they declared independence after months of Serbian and Montenegrin sabataged negotiations - gave the "Yugoslav" military an open invitation to intervene militarily to prevent the independence of these republics and to seize territory for Greater Serbia alias Yugoslavvia.

Great job, I'm glad that, as you say, America was alone on this one again. Eastern Europe, Germany, France and England "responsible nations?" have no part in this at all I see.

Collapse -

I thought you wanted facts?

by Oz_Media In reply to It's too bad. . . .

It seems that whenever I post, you have a rebuttal, which is fine of course. You often say that I have no substance in my posts and that I don't post facts and just opinions.
DISCUSSIONS are a generally a series of personal opinions
DEBATES are usually a controlled interpretation of the facts as seen by different sides.

That aside.

When I do post facts, as in the above post, you eloquently sidestep the issue and focus on other opinions I've shared instead.

Any reason, or do you just not like facts that don't compliment you posts?

Collapse -

Okay, I'll try to answer you

by maxwell edison In reply to I thought you wanted fact ...

Yes, discussions are usually a series of personal opinions. However, it's very difficult, if not impossible, to have a meaningful discussion with someone if the opinion is without basis in fact. For example, one person's opinion might be that Santa Claus really uses the door to get in your house, not the chimney. How could a person debate such an assertion since Santa Claus doesn't exist? (Sorry to burst your bubble.) Sure, that's an extreme analogy, but I think it illustrates my point. Opinion without some remote basis in fact might be considered opinion, but it's ignorant opinion.

As far as the facts you posted about Bosnia, I didn't sidestep anything. I just didn't read the stuff you cut and pasted. I'm sure it's accurate, but I'm not sure what it's worth. The point I was making when I mentioned Bosnia in the first place is that history has shown that European countries sit idly by and let millions upon millions of their neighbors be killed without doing anything of significance to stop the atrocities. Why does the USA even have ONE soldier there? Let France and Germany clean up the mess, if you ask me. Why does the USA always have to do it?

Collapse -

Moving backwards

by Oz_Media In reply to Okay, I'll try to answer ...

I agree that it is not fair that the USA is the only country that sees a crisis and decides to attack in order to restore peace.

Other countries seem to be more reserved than the US when it comes to fighting other people's wars. I don't know if this is a result of them having a longer history of war and are reluctant to start a new one or perhapse it is that the USA is so far away acroos the pond that they don't see any threat of repercussion.

I really don't. Why DOES the USA have soldiers in Bosnia? Why aren't they cleaning up the mess in Afghanistan instead of Canadian and German troops? Why did they go after Saddam?

There are a LOT of questions that don't have valid or relevant answers. This may be why I fron upon all the people who've supported Bush's decisions, he doesn't make sense, I'm sure you saw him on TV last night with no answers to any questions he was asked. Why support him, I sure as **** wouldn't.

Collapse -

Backup and reread

by MallardtooXX In reply to mistaken

"Obviously your views are slightly bias..Do you really think that the other nations that you stated where influenced by the French??"

First off I did not mention any other countries but America and France.

"Get a life "hate" is a lethal weapon towards self destruct and let peace begin with you."

Reread the post ma'am I never said I hated France or the French people. As a matter of fact I said: " To say I hate the French is a strong statement. I do not by nature hate anyone. However I have a strong disdain for what the French have come to represent in the last 2 centuries."


And for the record, the reason Chirac and France did not want the war was because France was the #1 trading partner with Iraq against UN sanction. Like I said in my original post I do not like what france has come to represent, and never will you see france move on the world stage in a selfless manner.

To you I say I have a life, do not hate preach to me. You can ask anyone I am far from a hate mongering American like you want to portray.

-duck

Collapse -

I'll second that

by Oz_Media In reply to Backup and reread

You have valid points and I agree, you do offer some open minded input and rarely show your political biases, of course you have done but it's usually not the focus of your posts.

I'd say (based on your posts) your a somewhat open minded and selfless person.

Just a couple of pennies, but you have a point.

OM

Collapse -

...

by voldar In reply to The French

I thought a lot before posting here on this subject. I always think that ?to globalize something? ? does not mater what ? shows at least great lack of wisdom. There is no French / American / British dispute, if you ask for my opinion. Always is about one or another ego, one or another ?deep feelings? against or for someone. For the one that posted about the war, and about how French stood up for their rights, I just have to say one word ? read more the history books, and than talk (in fact there are more than ?one? word ? sorry). Everyone in his past history did mistakes ? so, lets not be so ? the supreme know-everything master?. The way he replied to the subject gave me the reason to think that nobody is perfect ? but so little is trying to change that. The best question would be ? WHY is that?
I have a lot of French friends and also Americans (and not only them), but this means nothing for narrow-minded fellows.
If someone believes that the white is black, no matter how many people tell him he?s wrong, he will never accept that. You can?t open up his mind; you can?t switch his thoughts 180 degrees just because you want him to see the truth. Because truth is something so volatile - it depends on everyones experience.
Life taught me something: never try to change someone?s deep beliefs or thoughts; you?ll never succeed. You can advice/tell him he?s wrong, but never expect him to do the way you want/tell him to do. And the simple reason for that is that everyone is a single and unique character.
The point of my post is that nature sometimes create ?mistakes?, and people are usually the one that are the cause of trouble ? not nations nor anything else. I don?t think fair to judge a child because of his father, so I don?t judge a nation because some of his citizens.
So - OzMedia - the problem is not the French or anyone else - it is us, every human being. It is up to us to change ourselves first, and when we change, everything changes.
P.S. I am not French/American/British - just a voice from the eter.

Collapse -

Nicely said

by Oz_Media In reply to ...

Your post makes a lot of sense in an ideal world. Unfortunately we build bias and prejudice as we grow, nobody is born hating blacks or whites, French or English, it is a learnt trait that is passed down through generations.

As with WWII, there were many hard feelings that were passed down through generations, it is only in the past 20-30 years that people have started to forget the German/British hatred and now they have become Friends that fight side by side. I'm sure there are many who are still frowned upon by grand parents or great grandparents for their interracial friendships.

My last girlfriend was African but she was also the daughter of a Muslim priest who was born in Pakistan. She was very Canadian in her ways, her father was very African in his ways but her mother and grandparents were very Pakistani in their ways and beliefs.
We were considering a life together but this would have been to hard for her family to accept (perhaps not so much her family but the people in her Ismaeli religion).
Although we are BEST Friends and she has moved to be closer to me, marriage is out of the question (for now)because if the impact on her family.

It is this kind of prejudice that slows the progression of the people and keeps us in our respective social and economic classes.

I am confident that this will cease as a way of thinking, only to be replaced by another prejudice. Hopefully our children will not see people for where they came from or what colour and ethnicity they are and ultimately the world will become a better place.

We have to realize that the world only has just over 2000 years of modern recorded history. before that time, we have merely gathered enough information to speculate past history however, the earth is millions of years old (at least)and I'm sure if we don't destroy it, it will have many more years to come. Hopefully (not necessarily in my lifetime) we can break these bonds and prejudices to find the billions of world inhabitants living in harmony.

We must teach our children the destruction of forming prejudice and hope that they will in turn pass this down. One day, prejudice may be a thing to read in the GLOBAL HISTORY BOOK.

Related Discussions

Related Forums