Does the US administration owe an apology to the French ?

[vanesch]

Yes, I found lots of news reports citing that quote as being 'widely reported' as one of Rice's. But I think the originator of that line was actually Washington Post's Jim Hoagland - the only person I've seen directly quoted (as opposed to 'widely reported to have said') - as describing Rice's 'mantra'. I wouldn't take that as a direct quote, more a chinese whisper of one man's impression of Rice.

Ok, I found another one from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4250701.stm

but I guess it falls in the same category. In fact, when I wrote it, I still had it clearly on my mind as having it read and heard several times. It was so universally repeated that I guess that if it weren't true I guess it would have been raining lawsuits!

What this article, and many others, does demonstrate is the atrocious attitude Americans can have towards other nations, simply because of a disagreement over one policy (forget decades of allegiance, this is "with-us-or-against-us" America now). Even in an editorial, the fact that this kind of hate speech is propogated and accepted...

Yes, that's the point I wanted to illustrate. I never had seen in my life such an organized hate campaign from one "civilized" democracy towards another one.

I'm going to vote 'no'. I think the Bush administration should apologise to bereaved families in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention America, and to those innocent people tortured, mentally or physically, in the name of the 'war on terror'.

Oh, those ...

yes, that's another category of course. Saying bad things about someone, or bombing them, is indeed not the same :-)

 

[russ_watters]

Exactly which resolution are you talking about? The one from nearly 15 years ago? Or the one the UN refused to accept that would specify military action in the build up to Gulf War 2?

1441, November 8th, 2002. Essentially, a 'cooperate, or else' resolution. Iraq didn't cooperate, but the French (and others) didn't hold up their end of the deal.

This thread isn't about weather the French owe an appology to the US. That is completely irrelevant. If you want to talk about France owing an appology make another thread. If want to make an argument that France's actions make the insults justified and tolerable, then make such an argument already.

Great, so you don't want to know the reason for the "no" answer? The reason is exactly that:

Answer: No.
Reason: Its the French who owe the US an apology, not the other way around.
Why: The French owe the apology because they shirked their responsibility.

If you can think of another way to phrase that that doesn't include the French owing us an apology, by all means do it, but I don't see how you can separate that part without losing the meaning of the reason.

If you read between the lines of statements made by the administration, I think it's obvious that Bush plans to apologize.

Possibly, but what, exactly is he going to apologize for? My guess would be he'd only apologize for underestimating the difficulty of the aftermath.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, that's the point I wanted to illustrate. I never had seen in my life such an organized hate campaign from one "civilized" democracy towards another one.

I have...

 

[vanesch]

My guess would be he'd only apologize for underestimating the difficulty of the aftermath.

Which was of course the entire point of discussion about whether it was a good idea or not to go to war !

George: "I don't like that Saddam"
Jacques: "nor do I"
George: "let's write some nasty papers to make him scared"
Jacques: "sure, all you want"
George: "I'd like to bomb that guy, are you coming ?"
Jacques: "I think you underestimate the problem. You're going to make a mess"
George: "You worm, stinking cheese eating vile coyote of a motherf**er bastard..."

[2 1/2 years later]

Jacques: "Eh, george, told you so..."
George: "yeah, guess you weren't totally wrong... but only for the consequences. I was right about the need for action!"
Jacques: "if you say so George, whatever you want... but about that stinking cheese eating thing?"

...

 

[stoned]

Behaviour of Americans (not all of course ) towards French peoples was shamefull and rude to the extreme. No wonder many Americans when traveling abroad are putting Canadian maple leaf stickers on their bagpacks.

 

[vanesch]

Liberty cabbage (sauerkraut) and hot dogs (frankfurters) from WWI were way funnier. The fact that the name "hot dog" for a food item actually stuck might be even funnier.

The other way around, do you happen to know where the name "Hamburger" came from ? I remember when I lived in Hamburg that there that you saw a lot of silly joke stickers on that.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The other way around, do you happen to know where the name "Hamburger" came from ? I remember when I lived in Hamburg that there that you saw a lot of silly joke stickers on that.

In the US, hamburger originally just meant ground or chopped beef. There was legislation passed in the early 20th century setting purity and content limits on "hamburger", so the butchers started calling it ground beef again. The name of the sandwich was transferred from the description of its meat as a "hamburger patty".

Perhaps there was a sausage associated with Hamburg that used beef instead of the common pork?

 

[vanesch]

Perhaps there was a sausage associated with Hamburg that used beef instead of the common pork?

I haven't gotten a clue. Someone in Hamburg told me he thought it had to do with the bombing of Hamburg during WWII, in that your "typical Hamburger" (inhabitant of Hamburg) was transformed into chopped beef, and I never figured out if he was making fun of me or not (guess he was...).

 

[Smurf]

Great, so you don't want to know the reason for the "no" answer? The reason is exactly that:

Answer: No.
Reason: Its the French who owe the US an apology, not the other way around.
Why: The French owe the apology because they shirked their responsibility.

If you can think of another way to phrase that that doesn't include the French owing us an apology, by all means do it, but I don't see how you can separate that part without losing the meaning of the reason.

Yes, everyone knows the same facts you do Russ. But there is no reason why this excuses the US from an dispitefull flame campgaign. You have yet to make an argument.

 

[The Smoking Man]

The other way around, do you happen to know where the name "Hamburger" came from ? I remember when I lived in Hamburg that there that you saw a lot of silly joke stickers on that.

Ich bin ein berliner.

I am a jelly donut!?

Gotta love the US knowledge of other languages.

... Like the French actually call 'fries' 'pommes frit'!

 

[edward]

Everything is about oil or money in Iraq

France controls over 22.5 percent of Iraq’s imports.[1] French total trade with Iraq under the oil-for-food program is the third largest, totaling $3.1 billion since 1996, according to the United Nations.[2]
In 2001 France became Iraq’s largest European trading partner. Roughly 60 French companies did an estimated $1.5 billion in trade with Baghdad in 2001 under the U.N. oil-for-food program.[3]
France’s largest oil company, Total Fina Elf, has negotiated extensive oil contracts to develop the Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields in southern Iraq. Both the Majnoon and Nahr Umar fields are estimated to contain as much as 25 percent of the country’s oil reserves. The two fields purportedly contain an estimated 26 billion barrels of oil.[4] In 2002, the non-war price per barrel of oil was $25. Based on that average these two fields have the potential to provide a gross return near $650 billion

The French didn't want to lose the $650 billion. We would have done the same as they did.

Before the invasion, the USA was actually the largest importer of Iraqi oil, under the oil for food program.

The United States remains the largest importer of Iraqi oil under the UN Oil-for-Food program. However, U.S. companies can no longer deal directly with Iraq for its oil imports. U.S. companies are forced to deal with third party vendors as a result of a ban on all American companies imposed by Iraq. In 2002, the U.S. imported $3.5 billion worth of Iraqi oil

This means that the French were one of the third party vendors that we purchased Iraqi oil from. It ain't rocket science.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm

 

[stoned]

one day in the future French going to get from Iraqi government more contracts to develop oil fields than they had ever lost, because they did not attack them . good move on behalf of French. actually USA has helped French a lot, they are highly respected everywhere, unlike American simpletons and imbeciles.

 

[Townsend]

American simpletons and imbeciles.

Nice generalization

 

[SOS2008]

It was Republican Walter B Jones, of North Carolina, that had french fries in the capitol cafeteria renamed to 'freedom fries'.

Jones was also the Congressman that introduced the bipartisan bill calling a plan for troop withdrawal from Iraq.

If not an apology, that's still a pretty strong acknowledgment that at least some members of Congress feel they were slightly misled about Iraq before they voted to authorize the invasion.

Thank you BobG for remembering that Congressman's name. Still, I wouldn't confuse his regrets about the war with his dislike for the French. Unfortunately it is likely to be awhile before the negativity fades among many Americans, which I feel is a a shame.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Nice generalization

But he didn't generalize ... he just pointed out the simpletons and imbeciles!

I guess it's all a matter of if you include yourself in the Bush votors or not.

 

[Townsend]

But he didn't generalize ... he just pointed out the simpletons and imbeciles!

I guess it's all a matter of if you include yourself in the Bush votors or not.

Oh...I am soo sorry, I thought he was generalizing...

Since were talking about imbeciles and simpletons let's not forget to point out all the morons, simpletons and imbeciles from Britain who work in Suzhou China.

I guess it's all a matter of if you include yourself in the American bashers or not.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Oh...I am soo sorry, I thought he was generalizing...

Since were talking about imbeciles and simpletons let's not forget to point out all the morons, simpletons and imbeciles from Britain who work in Suzhou China.

I guess it's all a matter of if you include yourself in the American bashers or not.

No, wait ... I think I met him.

Not a bad guy but he has a penchant for spitting in your beer if he thinks you're American.

It's a shame really because he works night shift at 'the Funky Monkey' on Shizi Jie.

 

[Townsend]

No, wait ... I think I met him.

Thats crazy cause I am pretty sure I know exactly who that guy is. Imagine that, half a world away and yet we both know the same guy.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Thats crazy cause I am pretty sure I know exactly who that guy is. Imagine that, half a world away and yet we both know the same guy.

Yeah, personally, I avoid the place because he thinks my Canadian accent is just a front and just assumes I am an American pretending to be a Canadian so nobody spits in my beer.

I do wish Americans wouldn't do that.

Now, we have to flash our passports to bartenders and utter the words, "Wo shi Jianada ren." or "Je suis Canadiene" or "Ich bin ein Canader" depending on the country ... Then we all laugh and point at the guy at the end of the bar staring confuedly at the 'floater' in his beer.

 

[Townsend]

Yeah, personally, I avoid the place because he thinks my Canadian accent is just a front and just assumes I am an American pretending to be a Canadian so nobody spits in my beer.

Oh dear, it sounds like he has Multiple personality disorder...you should consider having him looked at for his own good.

 

[Skyhunter]

I kept encouraging all the French bashers to start a campaign to return the statue of Liberty. I got a lot of strange looks, but it shut them up.

 

[Smurf]

I kept encouraging all the French bashers to start a campaign to return the statue of Liberty. I got a lot of strange looks, but it shut them up.

Hehe. My reponse the first time I heard that was "Ha! Go ahead!". How much stupider can bushies get, honestly.

 

[TRCSF]

Sure, they owe the French an apology.

They owe a lot of people an apology.

Although the obvious fact that the French were right and it makes all the chickenhawk France-bashers look really, really stupid is just desserts.

 

[SOS2008]

I kept encouraging all the French bashers to start a campaign to return the statue of Liberty. I got a lot of strange looks, but it shut them up.

Here's my theory...Since the U.S. is only a little more than 200 years old, Americans have really short memories.

 

[Townsend]

Here's my theory...Since the U.S. is only a little more than 200 years old, Americans have really short memories.

What was here only a little more than 200 years ago?

 

[SOS2008]

What was here only a little more than 200 years ago?

See what I mean? Let me refresh your memory. The French gave the U.S. the Statue of Liberty as a gift... Now perhaps you can remind us all why?

 

[The Smoking Man]

See what I mean? Let me refresh your memory. The French gave the U.S. the Statue of Liberty as a gift... Now perhaps you can remind us all why?

Ummm ... Same reason you have a state named after King Louis of France (Louisiana) and dey speak patoise dere, Eh?

The French helped the USA win their independence and, thanks to people like Ben Frankilin, forged an incredible friendship through advanced conceptual thinking.

.. Strang getting a history lesson from a British/Canadian living in China, isn't it?

(Not aimed at you by the way SOS2008. I know you're making a point and I am just firing over your shoulder )

 

[Townsend]

See what I mean?

I hope no one does because there is no possible way you're making any sense.

Let me refresh your memory. The French gave the U.S. the Statue of Liberty as a gift... Now perhaps you can remind us all why?

I never forgot this and I don't see the point in going into it at all. What does this have to do what anything I have said at all?

Now please answer my question or at least make some kind of attempt at it.

What was here only a little more than 200 years ago?

While it is sad that I have to do this I will explain my question so you don't go off making more assumptions. You said the America is only a little more than 200 hundred years old and so I was just wondering what was here before that. Can you manage to think without making so many assumptions? Hell, I could be agreeing with you and you wouldn't even know it because you already have your mind made up about what I say regardless of what I really say.

 

[Townsend]

.. Strang getting a history lesson from a British/Canadian living in China, isn't it?

Your missing some of the important parts...that is why getting a lesson from the likes of you would be no more than a joke...

 

[vanesch]

The French didn't want to lose the $650 billion. We would have done the same as they did.

I think that needs rephrasing: "We did what we thought the others would also have done in that situation"

But you're still missing the entire point, and it helps to point out that Elf was involved. Elf is a French state oil company which has, since about 5 - 10 years, a lot of legal troubles (in France) ; most of its former managers are in jail or on the run. And the reason was indeed that there were strong links between the former French president Mitterand and his political and other friends, and the managers of Elf, doing a lot of dark business. However, Mitterand was from the french left, and it turned out after his death, he had been a quite corrupt person. All ties between politicians and Elf turned out to be with friends of Mitterand, who used Elf as a kind of cash register to pay the people who did things for them.
Chirac is from the right, and his "natural environment" is more the farmer's world ; he has not much links with the world of Elf.
So I can understand that there were some French who indeed, didn't want France to get involved for "oil" reasons, but again, THEY WERE NOT LINKED TO CHIRAC, who was the guy who took the decision.

Chirac had entirely DIFFERENT reasons, which, for a politician, were much more important. First of all, he had his public opinion VERY STRONGLY AGAINST the war. If ever he was going to be in favor of it, his popularity would plummet strongly, and if he took their view, he would be very popular. And second, also very important, the silly stance of the US made it extremely easy for him to do something he liked personally a lot: play a role on the world theatre. As he KNEW that the US was heading for the wrong solution, ignoring a lot of difficulties, it was a dreamed-of occasion to be the 'wise old man who told you so'. It was a bit as if you are facing 50 nobel laureates who claim that the world is a flat disk with monsters on the border and they want to organize a campaign to go and catch those monsters. That's a dreamed-of occasion to go and tell out loud that these nobel laureates are dead-wrong ; it is so easy to show them wrong (and hence boost your own image: you were right against 50 nobel laureates!) and you simply KNOW that they won't catch the monsters !

So probably Chirac's strategy was, in his mind, a win-win situation concerning image: or Bush would finally concede to him (I think he really thought that in the beginning), so Chirac would have been the "powerful guy who stopped the US from doing something bad" ; or Bush would go ahead anyways, in which case it would take some time but Chirac would have been proven right after the fact (eg, now). The worst thing that could have happened to Chirac (in his mind) was that the US troops, after a short battle, would have been welcomed with children waving american flags - then Chirac would have been the evil old man who tried to stop the good US from liberating a country - something Chirac knew was highly highly unlikely to happen thanks to his superior knowledge of the Arab world.

Nevertheless, the point of this thread was not who was right and who was wrong concering the decisions taken ; it was about the hate campaign against all things french that was, at least partly, organized by the US administration.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

1441, November 8th, 2002. Essentially, a 'cooperate, or else' resolution. Iraq didn't cooperate, but the French (and others) didn't hold up their end of the deal.

Not going to try and argue with this twisted logic with you, just a note to everyone else that, contrary to Russ' earlier post, UN resolution 1441 does not identify Iraq as a security threat but identifies it as breaching earlier UN resolutions. The resolution actually refers back to earlier ones recalling that Saddam's possession of WMDs represented a security threat. Resolution 1441 does not reaffirm this, nor does it state that Iraq, at the time (2002), possessed such weapons or posed a security risk (the reason for which we now all understand, except maybe those people still spouting on about how Saddam must have gotten his WMDs out of the country just in time for us to not find them).

Nor does this resolution require it's member states to join any military campaign, unilateral or otherwise. A UN resolution requiring its member states to join in on a non-UN backed campaign would be absurd to say the least. All the resolution actually requests is that all UN member states disclose full information on prohibited weapons programmes in Iraq, recommending particular sites in Iraq to be investigated and the means of investigation. This is precisely why Blair pushed so hard for a second resolution, since no existing UN resolution led to military action per se.

Also note that the resolution demands UN member states' commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq. Soveriegnty, of course, includes complete and independant self-government. By overthrowing Saddam and placing an interim, US-selected head of state, the only people it seems that have breached UN resolution 1441 are... the coalition, since they impeded weapons inspections in Iraq and comprimised its sovereignty.

It seems Bush, Blair and co ARE required to apologise to France after all, along with every other UN member state not involved in the coalition.

 

[vanesch]

Not going to try and argue with this twisted logic with you, just a note to everyone else that, contrary to Russ' earlier post, UN resolution 1441 does not identify Iraq as a security threat but identifies it as breaching earlier UN resolutions. The resolution actually refers back to earlier ones recalling that Saddam's possession of WMDs represented a security threat. Resolution 1441 does not reaffirm this, nor does it state that Iraq, at the time (2002), possessed such weapons or posed a security risk (the reason for which we now all understand, except maybe those people still spouting on about how Saddam must have gotten his WMDs out of the country just in time for us to not find them).

Nor does this resolution require it's member states to join any military campaign, unilateral or otherwise.

The text can be found here:
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm

 

[Lisa!]

There's no doubt about what you're saying but the problem is that if US administration wants to apology other countries, they find no time to do anythig else like threatening other countries, interfering in everything and stuff like that.

 

[vanesch]

There's no doubt about what you're saying but the problem is that if US administration wants to apology other countries, they find no time to do anythig else like threatening other countries, interfering in everything and stuff like that.

Ah ! I see. So some other countries should start bullying around, removing some of the work the US administration has to do, so that finally they'd find some time to appologize

 

[Skyhunter]

Now please answer my question or at least make some kind of attempt at it.

While it is sad that I have to do this I will explain my question so you don't go off making more assumptions. You said the America is only a little more than 200 hundred years old and so I was just wondering what was here before that. Can you manage to think without making so many assumptions? Hell, I could be agreeing with you and you wouldn't even know it because you already have your mind made up about what I say regardless of what I really say.

I am still trying to figure out what you are driving at.

Do you mean the colonists?
The natives?
The continent?

Could you be more specific?