 |
| |
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Colon
That said, I don't view France or the UK to be particularly less willing to use force than the US. |
True, the French or British governments are quite willing to use force as well. The French are especially adept at sending troops in the former colonies.
However, my interest is more about the attitudes of the American citizens (their perceptions of war), than in the behaviour of the government.
I don't know about Britain, but the French understanding of war (and of nationalism) appears to me as vastly different than the American one.
1. Since France mostly participates in coalition wars, our media mostly focuses on what we bring to the coalition's effort: whether the Charles de Gaulle is being sent, how many planes and men we contribute, etc. I don't remember seeing much coverage of the French actions during the Kosovo war or the Afghanistan war (I was too young during Gulf War 1 to know how the media reacted, but I'd hazard it was in a similar fashion). The pics I mostly remember from the French invovement in the Kosovo war, were planes taking off and techie soldiers doing some reparations / communication. The coverage of the peacekeeping operation was something else entirely.
2. The only occurence where France was alone at war against an enemy (that I'm old enough to remember clearly) is the week of war against Ivory Coast. Despite the field being quite hot*, the emphasis was on the diplomacy between the two Heads of State. The media swept the nastiness under the rug, with little coverage and gentle words. If you now tell an average Frenchman that his country was an occupation power for several days last year (not specifically mentioning Ivory Coast), suprise is the likely reaction.
Even though our involvement in Ivory Coast could be easily spinned for a moral high ground (the French involvement is probably the main reason IC didn't turn in another Rwanda), such spin doesn't happen. Our establishment prefers to sweep it under the rug, rather than to bring light (even a positive light) on the matter.
The way I see it, had the Americans been involved in IC instead of us, that involvement would have been advertized as the US doing good to the world again, and that idea would have been picked up by many ordinary citizens. The French establishment prefers to maintain apathy over it.
*the Ivorian military attacked a small base and killed a few French soldiers, the French military replied by destroying the Ivorian airforce. Shortly after, an anti-French crowd took over Abijan, and the French military occupied the city to secure our citizens, and I suppose to scare the Ivorian President.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:16
|
|
yes
Is there any choice at this point?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Colon
|
 |
Antwerp, Colon's Chocolate Canard Country
Jan 1970
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
We only occupied Abijan for a few days, but it had all the perks of a military occupation: our military had control over the city, made some places off-limits, restricted the ability to move, and imposed curfew IIRC. Since Ivory Coast is supposed to be an independent country, I don't see how you could not call that an "occupation". Well, you could go with the French media's understatement ("took control"), but that's the same. |
You said it yourself, you only occupied the capital for a couple of days. I'd say there's quite a difference in scale to what's taking place in Iraq. Moreover France hasn't overseen the instalment of a new regime, it's merely mediating between the already-existing regime and rebels. (whatever bias there may exist)
quote:
- many Americans don't want to associate their country with the word "occupation"? |
Of course. People tend to view their country's actions abroad in the most positive light possible. "occupation" is turned into "liberation" and "diplomacy out of necessity" becomes "diplomacy out of pacifism".
Last edited by Colon on 02-01-2005 at 09:10
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
NO, the US is NOT a warlike country, in the sense that the American people, or governments, seek war.
Lets take those "decisive" wars mentioned:
1. As was already stated, friction with England did not end in the Revolution, and we did get the war of 1812.
2. The Civil War- come on, do we not remember the endless threads? if that war was so damned decisive, whats with all the Confederate flags???
3. WW2- yes, this is THE war Americans like tot hink about- a nice, clearcut, obvious good vs Evil war, no gray. US as shinningh knight, plus the end and our actions afterwards make us feel nice and warm. BUt a few realities- the US went in 2 years late, ONLY after direct attack- while the US was most concerned about Germany, we were most acitve in the Pacific trying to pressure Japan to stop threatening our interests in China.
Compared to most other countries, the last 225 years of American history have not particularly been more of less warlike than any other western state- as for the notion DanS stated, that American know when war is necessary for the national; interest- BULL. I say bull when it comes to the average citizen- normal people on the street know nothing of national interests- not in the US, not anywhere. And Europe sure as hell knows about waging wars when its interests are at stake- France and the UK saw plenty of action during the cold war on the waning days of their empires.
No, thew question is, does the US behave any differently from a Great Power? The answer is generally NO. The UK, when iot was preeminent in the world, had its own notions of civilizing the lesser peoples. America in fact is rather short on Imperial adventures compared to the other more advanced states. We are not as insular and self-centered as China, but more insular and self-centred than Europe. But in the end, what matters is the fact the US is a Great Power, and all great powers wage war- you can;t be a peacenik Great Power.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-01-2005 05:18
ACK!
|