Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2004 3:14 am Post subject: YET ANOTHER FRENCH SNUB | |
|
Just when you thought surely France had snubbed the United States for the last time, comes this news today. French Prime Minister, Jacque Chirac has indicated he will NOT attend former President Ronald Reagan's funeral on Friday, even though he is presently in Savannah, Georgia for the G8 conference.
Dozens of world leaders are making the long journey to Washington, some in ill health, to pay homage to a great world leader. Mr. Chirac apparantly is unable to travel a few hundred miles to the north to do the same. Bill O'Reilly said it best earlier tonight on his show. "Can you imagine the world outcry if President Bush, while in France, chose to skip out and go home had it been a great French leader that had passed?" When you consider the military and financial assistance we've provided France and other European countries over the years, this snub is frankly unbelievable. Footsoldier |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2004 3:44 am Post subject: | |
| And also our "friends" the Canadian PM is not coming........but the ex PM Brian Mulrooney (sp) is attending. | |
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 916
Location: roaming...
| Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2004 3:47 am Post subject: | |||
|
Footsoldier, you'll be interested to know that the Canadian Prime Minister will not be attending the funeral either. While, like J. Chirac, PM Martin is also in Georgia for the G8 Summit, Canada is in the middle of an election. We vote on June 28th, so all politicians are committed to the process right now more than ever.
You will also be interested to know that ...
Mr Reagan was a remarkable historical figure, but while certain political leaders may be obliged to attend his "final departure", they are certainly not obligated. Obligation is reserved for family, not "friends", BG. |
|||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2004 4:53 am Post subject: | |
| We are not speaking of obligation, Kanaka.......we are talking about respect. Reagan was one of the two greatest Presidents of the 20th century........surely you dont compare him with any Canadian PM (good and honest men they have been) to Ronald Reagan? There are degrees of greatness........as you have said, it is a political time in Canada........why should the US expect a liberal PM to take the chance to lose even one vote by attending the greatest conservative President of the century??? Silly me for expecting such things. | |
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:52 am Post subject: | |||||||
Footsoldier,
And... the last time the french "snubbed" the US was over Iraq, correct? More specifically the lack of evidence of WmD's in Iraq. Turns out the French were right, no? Thus referring to their objection to the war as a "snub" is disingenuous.
Any idea what his reason for not attending is?
O'Reilly's conjecture is just that, conjecture. Regardless, using GwB's reception in Europe for the D-Day celebrations as a gauge, if such an event were to occur, I'd posit that a lot of French people would prefer if GwB stayed home. :shrug: |
|||||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2004 6:04 am Post subject: | |||||
NO The French did not want the "Food for oil" funds to stop from the UN..........The truth is slowly coming out about the corrupt UN and Russia and France........what a co inky dink that the most vocal opponents of the war had the biggest stakes in the Oil for food program........
I posit that the French would be a lot worse off with out the sacrifice of all those American crosses they stood in front of. You really crossed the line with that one sleK. Does anybody on this board really care what the French care about? They are a third world country with memories of greatness. |
|||||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2004 12:10 pm Post subject: | |
|
We're talking about diplomacy and respect for an ally and a champion for freedom.... freedom that France enjoys today due in large part to the United States of America, not "obligation".
As for the political climate in Canada, well it's political time in the United States as well. While I'm no John Kerry fan, I was impressed with his actions of respect for a political FOE. While John Kerry cannot attend the funeral because of his child's graduation falls on the same day, he suspended ALL of his campaign work for the entire WEEK out of deference and respect to Ronald Reagan. It appears to me France's attitude, or more specifically Chirac's, is "if we are suffering a crisis, we'll call you and expect your help, otherwise, to hell with you". Maybe we should be too busy to help him next time. Footsoldier |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 916
Location: roaming...
| Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2004 12:27 pm Post subject: | |||
So for that, France should send its president(s) to the funerals of deceased American presidents for exactly how long?! Around the clock coverage of Mr Reagan's funeral is available only in the U.S., Footsoldier. All other news stations around the globe are apparently covering ..... world news. He was an important man. That is all. |
|||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:44 pm Post subject: | |||
It appears to me that the US's attitude is "if we are suffering a crisis, we'll call you and expect your help, otherwise, FREEDOM FRIES!!". IMO, attitude is a two way street in this instance. The US, however, has been a fair bit pettier in its condemnation of France. |
|||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2004 11:11 pm Post subject: | |
|
SO how many miles is it from Savannah Georgia to Washington DC anyway? About an hour or so flight by my calculation.
If he wasn't willing to fly across the ocean for the funeral, I could more easily understand it but to leave when he's an hour away comes across as a slap. Diplomacy? I don't think so. Footie |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1964
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 12:29 am Post subject: | |
The French are nothing but snobs. No wonder the British hate them. 
|
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 5:53 am Post subject: | |||||
Hmm... here's a couple of interesting excerpts from a speech Al Gore gave at NYU last month (which I'll link in new thread) that deal with both the French AND funerals:
Talk about a "snub" heh? |
|||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 6:08 am Post subject: | |
|
Just shows how long the French remain loyal does it not? And it is truly revolting to compare 9/11 to the acts of a few fools at Abu Ghraib. But not suprising.
The President does not attend soldiers funerals so as not to upstage the event of a private funeral. And does not release the photos of the fallen out of respect of the families. It is called class......look it up. |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 8:32 am Post subject: | |||||
It demonstrates that the French are loyal to the ideals of freedom, democracy and justice, for sure. Nonetheless, let's not forget the chronology of events here: 1. WtC 2. France: "We Are All Americans Now!" 3. US: "So, invade Iraq with us then!" 4. France: "Iraq? Uhh... WRONG!" 5. US: "FREEDOM FRIES!!!!1ONEONE" 6. Reagan 7. France: "Sorry. Can't make it." If the French were petty I'd call it "tit for tat". However, they're not. They're quite astute. Although not documented anywhere I can find, I suspect Chirac's reason for not attending is probably fair and just. And, until proven otherwise, any anti-French sentiment espoused as a result of Chirac's "snub" can be safely written off as nationalistic zealotry much like the wholly embarrassing "freedom fries" debacle.
Read the quote again. There's no mention of "release". Only "permit". And there's a substantial difference between the two. |
|||||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 11:57 am Post subject: | |
|
It's easy to say "we're all Americans now". They don't have to do anything but set type at the newspaper and print away.
It's much harder to back up their words with actions, which as your list of chronological events points out, they were unwilling to do. It's especially hard to do when you're up to your eyeballs in financial dealings with Saddam and Iraq like the French were (are). Maybe French's leader should change the spelling on his last name to Jacques ChIRAQ. Footie |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 916
Location: roaming...
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 1:55 pm Post subject: | |||||
Footsoldier, you really ought to study your own history before you make any more ignorant statements like that one. The US government has been "up to (its) eyeballs in financial dealings with Saddam and Iraq" far more than any sum of governments and for much longer. After World War I, the US took the poor and defeated Turkey's oil rights and "gave" them to Iraq (and Saudi Arabia). Prior to the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein was a close ally of the US and the CIA. From petroleum deals to transactions involving ingredients for WMDs, the US has received plenty a dollar from Iraq with Saddam's fingerprint on it. And need I mention the name "Haliburton"? I think they write everyone's paycheque in Iraq today.
Maybe Iraq should become the 51st State. ... and it's "France's". |
|||||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 762
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 3:13 pm Post subject: | |||
Quote from previous Slek post:
This is a policy that has been in place since 1991. Al Gore should know this policy as it was observed during his administration as well. |
|||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 762
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:21 pm Post subject: | |||
Kanaka wrote:
Ignorant statement? Regardless of the past history that the United States has had with Iraq, it is exactly that...past history. France, along with Germany and Russia, had current ties to Iraq and the Hussein regime and had billions of dollars tied up at the time of the UN vote. Even the UN was profiting from the corrupt Oil for Food program. By attacking Iraq they were giving up their slush fund. Footie: ChIraq!!! 
|
|||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 916
Location: roaming...
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:36 pm Post subject: | |||||||||
I didn't bring the history up, Footsoldier did:
... so please direct your bold statements at the right person.
Did you forget who attacked Iraq? 
That's almost as infantile as Sissy-Cs. Should we start a whole new "What's in a name?" thread? 
|
|||||||||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 762
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:55 pm Post subject: | |||||
No, my point was that they could not attack Iraq because they had immediate financial ties to Saddam and his regime through the Oil for Food Program.
You seem to bring up history throughout this quote while trying to prove your point. So my highlighted post was directed to you. No one will argue that the US has had dealings with Iraq in the past. The point was that the French had current financial dealings with Iraq, and they did not want to disrupt this flow of cash. As far as your name calling...who is being infantile? |
|||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 916
Location: roaming...
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 5:07 pm Post subject: | |||
Ah, so you mean my point might have gotten accross? Amazing! It works! Thanks for the idea, Footsoldier! We can now continue on with today's history lesson.
|
|||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2004 4:22 am Post subject: | |||||||||||
Footsoldier,
You're ignoring the point. The point being that the US had the empathy and support of the entire world until they trained their focus on targets tangential to terrorism and the WtC attacks. Whether you choose to believe it or not, the fact remains that Saddaam Hussein was not responsible for the attacks.
That may be so but it doesn't diminish the fact that Iraq wasn't responsible for the attacks. And that, along with the tenuous evidence the US produced to solicit support, is precisely why the French chose not to get involved. CCCs,
Fair enough. Can you provide a link or a pointer to the policy itself? My googling turns up nothing but crazy news stories. |
|||||||||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2004 5:52 am Post subject: | |||
Please give examples of this. Show in their constitution their bill of rights.......dont forget to quote the new law that stops Muslims from wearing their headgear............LOL you really kill me sometimes...........Did you know you can be arrested in France and held for 48 ours for no reason??????????? |
|||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2004 12:17 pm Post subject: | |
|
sLEK wrote:
You're ignoring the point. The point being that the US had the empathy and support of the entire world until they trained their focus on targets tangential to terrorism and the WtC attacks. Whether you choose to believe it or not, the fact remains that Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the attacks. _____________________________________________________ Is that the point you're trying to make? It's as if to say, "well we got along fine with the neighborhood bully, until he beat up one of my friends". EVERYTHING changed in the wake of 9/11! In a world full of "gray", there is one thing that is black and white. You're either against terrorism or your on the side of terrorists and those who would train and harbor them. Saddam Hussein may not have ordered the planes into the World Trade Center, but he has been known to harbor, train, and help fund such activities. Are you suggesting the world was a better place with Saddam in power? I think the "targets" the United States are focussed on are exactly the RIGHT ones. We're still after Bin Ladin in Afghanistan and Pakistan (or would you also suggest they are also beyond suspicsion?). Many of those individuals captured have known ties to terrorism and have been taken out of circulation. Even though there is a war going on in Iraq, the work is shifting toward turning over control to an IRAQI government. The fighting that remains involves those militent groups loyal to Saddam Hussein. Once those are quieted, Iraq stands a real chance at peace and freedom for its citizens. I see the glass half full sLEK. We're making progress in Iraq. You seem to set perfection as your standard, then be critical of anything and everything the United States is doing that falls short of that mark. Pretty cynical if you ask me (which I realize you didn't). Footie |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2004 7:06 pm Post subject: | |||||||
No, and you're still ignoring the point. As I stated previously...
... and no amount of the US's "with us or against us" crap is going to change the fact that France, much like many other countries, was well within their rights and obligations to refuse to support what is, in their opinion, an unjust invasion. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge that fact is entirely up to you. However, continually slinging mud in Frances direction, which is, to my knowledge, already much of an American tradition, to spite that fact isn't going to win the US any friends. It simply makes the US appear petty and spiteful. Even further, to use something as innocuous as funeral attendance as the basis for even more mud-slinging speaks more to a problem within American culture than it speaks to any of Frances attributes. |
|||||||