 |
| |
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
You're assuming the Yanks give a **** what the French feel since 1960. They don't. The Republic proved it's worth in the 60's, and that was not much. |
You're assuming diplomacy behaves like your bitter self. It doesn't. Diplomacy is about having other people do what is in your interests. It's a game of realpolitics where feelings are short lived.
quote:
Germany might smart a little, bit it isn't going to disuade the Yanks from anything they want to do. |
Duh. Of course. The question is not whether the US will listen to others. The question is whether the US believes it has the resources necessary to do what it wants - indirectly, the question is whether the US can get away with obtaining foreign support while still doing what it wants.
quote:
As far as needing the support of a country that never lent support, no matter what, and a country that is constitutionally bound not to lend support. |
You mean like the French and German peacekeepers in Kosovo and Afghanistan? Yeah, sure, they don't exist at all.
The French and German militaries are among the best suited in the world for peacekeeping operation, along with the Brits (and maybe the Japanese, but I don't know about their peacekeeping experiences). Getting France and Germany to support the US policy could lead to a far easier (for the US point of viey) occupation next time the US invades, or next time it wages a war by proxy-civil-war. This in turn would help the US not to overstretch its military capabilities, and to move on with some other war.
quote:
You have a serioulsy deluded impression of the place of France, Germany, and the EU in the world. |
I am not deluded about their role in the world. The EU is nothing in diplomatic and military matters. France and Germany are only medium (along with Britain, Japan, Russia, India etc.) in a field where the US is gigantic.
Yet, these countries are useful tools for the US. The US isn't strong enough to do everything alone: Iraq -an expected walk in the park- has completely crippled the US from making any massive military intervention in the past two years.
The US is spending far too much time and resources in Iraq for a peacekeeping job that could be done just as well (and maybe better) by the smaller players. And in the meatime, Iran is developing its nukes as fast as it can.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
You're assuming diplomacy behaves like your bitter self. It doesn't. Diplomacy is about having other people do what is in your interests. It's a game of realpolitics where feelings are short lived.
quote:
Germany might smart a little, bit it isn't going to disuade the Yanks from anything they want to do. |
Duh. Of course. The question is not whether the US will listen to others. The question is whether the US believes it has the resources necessary to do what it wants - indirectly, the question is whether the US can get away with obtaining foreign support while still doing what it wants.
quote:
As far as needing the support of a country that never lent support, no matter what, and a country that is constitutionally bound not to lend support. |
You mean like the French and German peacekeepers in Kosovo and Afghanistan? Yeah, sure, they don't exist at all.
The French and German militaries are among the best suited in the world for peacekeeping operation, along with the Brits (and maybe the Japanese, but I don't know about their peacekeeping experiences). Getting France and Germany to support the US policy could lead to a far easier (for the US point of viey) occupation next time the US invades, or next time it wages a war by proxy-civil-war. This in turn would help the US not to overstretch its military capabilities, and to move on with some other war.
quote:
You have a serioulsy deluded impression of the place of France, Germany, and the EU in the world. |
I am not deluded about their role in the world. The EU is nothing in diplomatic and military matters. France and Germany are only medium (along with Britain, Japan, Russia, India etc.) in a field where the US is gigantic.
Yet, these countries are useful tools for the US. The US isn't strong enough to do everything alone: Iraq -an expected walk in the park- has completely crippled the US from making any massive military intervention in the past two years.
The US is spending far too much time and resources in Iraq for a peacekeeping job that could be done just as well (and maybe better) by the smaller players. And in the meatime, Iran is developing its nukes as fast as it can. |
Though I think you are being too modest or gracious in underestimating the effect that France and Germany can have on world opinion and the consequences of that world opinion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
You're assuming diplomacy behaves like your bitter self. It doesn't. Diplomacy is about having other people do what is in your interests. It's a game of realpolitics where feelings are short lived.
quote:
Germany might smart a little, bit it isn't going to disuade the Yanks from anything they want to do. |
Duh. Of course. The question is not whether the US will listen to others. The question is whether the US believes it has the resources necessary to do what it wants - indirectly, the question is whether the US can get away with obtaining foreign support while still doing what it wants.
quote:
As far as needing the support of a country that never lent support, no matter what, and a country that is constitutionally bound not to lend support. |
You mean like the French and German peacekeepers in Kosovo and Afghanistan? Yeah, sure, they don't exist at all.
The French and German militaries are among the best suited in the world for peacekeeping operation, along with the Brits (and maybe the Japanese, but I don't know about their peacekeeping experiences). Getting France and Germany to support the US policy could lead to a far easier (for the US point of viey) occupation next time the US invades, or next time it wages a war by proxy-civil-war. This in turn would help the US not to overstretch its military capabilities, and to move on with some other war.
quote:
You have a serioulsy deluded impression of the place of France, Germany, and the EU in the world. |
I am not deluded about their role in the world. The EU is nothing in diplomatic and military matters. France and Germany are only medium (along with Britain, Japan, Russia, India etc.) in a field where the US is gigantic.
Yet, these countries are useful tools for the US. The US isn't strong enough to do everything alone: Iraq -an expected walk in the park- has completely crippled the US from making any massive military intervention in the past two years.
The US is spending far too much time and resources in Iraq for a peacekeeping job that could be done just as well (and maybe better) by the smaller players. And in the meatime, Iran is developing its nukes as fast as it can. |
Are you listening to yourself?
Diplomacy is also about the possible. French support for the US is not really possible, is it?
quote:
Getting France and Germany to support the US policy could lead to a far easier (for the US point of viey) occupation next time the US invades, or next time it wages a war by proxy-civil-war. |
Since when would France ever support the US in any venture? You've been undermining the US ever since the start of the Cold War! 
The US has had the resources to win a Cold War with far greater powers than the piss-ant French state ever dreamt of rearing itself up on its hind legs as. Your leaders should remember that, the next time they decide to cash in chips from UN programs to stand in the way of what a real country is going to do, no matter how hard you bleat as sheep.
As far as Iranian nukes go, I doubt their theatre weapons could reach Seattle. Maybe they could reach Ankara, Athens, or Rome. Whose problem is that? Do you want any help with it?
I suggest you ask nicely. Your 'diplomacy' has pissed a few people this side of the pond off no end.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ted Striker
Though I think you are being too modest or gracious in underestimating the effect that France and Germany can have on world opinion and the consequences of that world opinion. |
Well, actually I am close to the so-called "realist" understanding of international relations, where rational self-interest is the primary factor of diplomatic behaviour, and where ideas are are only secondary.
The world's public opinion didn't reject the war because of an efficient PR campaign by France and Germany. It rejected the war because the most people in the world oppose American imperialism, which is what the war looked like to them (I agree with that POV too). The French vocal opposition to the war might have given the world's public opinion a focus (especially European public opinions in countries whose government sided with Bush), but little else.
And the public opinion outside of the US mattered zilch in Bush's decision. The only people Bush yould listen to are his advisors and the ones whose opposition could be harmful to him, like his own electorate, or the Brits. Fortunately, it proved easy to manipulate the electorate. It was more difficult to flatter Blair enough, by unergoing the whole UN mess. But that's the kind of lengths you need, if you want to keep your only significant ally.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
Diplomacy is also about the possible. French support for the US is not really possible, is it?
Since when would France ever support the US in any venture? |
On which side were we during the Kosovo war, despite the US barging in our attempts of diplomacy and ruining them? On which side exactly are the French peacekeeping troops currently stationed in Kosovo?
quote:
As far as Iranian nukes go, I doubt their theatre weapons could reach Seattle. Maybe they could reach Ankara, Athens, or Rome. Whose problem is that? Do you want any help with it? |
It appears to be the US' problem, considering how much talk about striking Iran I hear from your side of the pond, in comparison to mine.
In case you haven't noticed, the thread we're currently spamming is about the US trying to undermine the Iranian nuclear program. But I guess they only do that to be nice to us, don't they?
quote:
I suggest you ask nicely. Your 'diplomacy' has pissed a few people this side of the pond off no end. |
Yep, you, and some other ordinary citizens like you who couldn't get over their bitterness in 40 years. Maybe even some diplomats. However, those diplomats know when to keep their emotions in check, as they know when to attempt milking a country of what it can offer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
Oh, Christ, give up Kosovo, already, will ya? |
Save for Kosovo and Afghanistan, when was the last time the US could have used support in a military operation? Ah yes, during the first Gulf War, in which France took part as well.
quote:
The French were involved? Big Deal! It was your front yard, after all. Do you want a medal? |
No, I want you to stop your crap about France always undermining the US, never supporting its efforts. It is false. It also false for Germany, which allowed itself to send troops in Kosovo despite its constitution. As long as you'll believe something that false, your contribution in threads about International Relations will be nothing more than ignorant spam, which I think doesn't fit you.
quote:
I find it difficult to believe that a cynic such as yourself does not recognise that others might place premiums on past actions. You seem to think France will skate? Oh, the folly. |
France could skate. Actually, France was close to cooperating with the US on Iraq. In early January 2003, Chirac told his diplomats and his soldiers to be ready for any possibility. In the monthes before that, both the US and France had worked at sorting out their disagreement with a compromise. The reason why France and Germany eventually opposed the US adventure in Iraq with such vehemence, is because they used it in an attempt at grabbing all power in the EU.
We have repeatedly cooperated with the US in the past, and we were undecided about it until showing some opportunism. I don't see why a diplomat would assume that we will never ever cooperate again.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
People who show 'opportunism' are not invited to watch backs. And so, they are not really counted among allies. Maybe this is the fundamental problem the French have faced since 1950? No one trusts you with their backs. |
And the Yanks, when they bomb some country at the other end of the world, are not about inviting their allies top "watch their backs". It's not like the US' survival is at stake in these conflicts.
Since there is little danger in these wars for the continued welfare of the US, and since there is little for other countries to win by swapping sides in mid-war, very little trust is required between allies in this kind of operation.
If the US were dependant on us for their survival, they would be very wrong, because we're no more altruistic or principled than any other country. But if the US saw us as a convenient tool to alleviate their burdens in various operation fields across the world, they would be right. We have done so repeatedly in the past, and to my dismay, we will certainly do so repeatedly in the future.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:30
|
|
Do you know how the Anglos look at it, Spiff?
We don't always agree with what the Brits or the Yanks are doing. If they are wrong, we stay home. If they are right, we go.
We do not undermine their efforts, no matter what we think of what they are up to, and we sure as hell do not try to up our status with Mexico by undermining US policy.
IOW, we are friends. If they are being idiots we tell them, not everyone else. If they are right, we help them. If they are wrong, we shrug and let them go without us, but we always have their backs.
I doubt anyone could look at France that way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
And the Yanks, when they bomb some country at the other end of the world, are not about inviting their allies top "watch their backs". It's not like the US' survival is at stake in these conflicts.
Since there is little danger in these wars for the continued welfare of the US, and since there is little for other countries to win by swapping sides in mid-war, very little trust is required between allies in this kind of operation.
If the US were dependant on us for their survival, they would be very wrong, because we're no more altruistic or principled than any other country. But if the US saw us as a convenient tool to alleviate their burdens in various operation fields across the world, they would be right. We have done so repeatedly in the past, and to my dismay, we will certainly do so repeatedly in the future. |
Actually, there was the continued welfare of the US, and the rest of the West, including France, bound up in those wars. That's one of the reasons that French actions in withdrawing militarily from NATO, and now later day examples, show me how useless your country has been since 1917.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-01-2005 14:06
|