The France Stance
France is at it again. Chirac is upholding the same philosophy that so many previous French leaders have done. Chirac said yesterday that he is "never in favor of sanctions"
"I don't believe in a solution without dialogue," Chirac said in an interview with Europe-1 radio. "I am not pessimistic. I think that Iran is a great nation, an old culture, an old civilization, and that we can find solutions through dialogue."
Diplomacy certainly has its place, but sooner or later, you have to have action. The consequences of a nuclear Iran will eventually be ongoing terror threats or worse.
France continues to maintain the perception of being passivists and has been joked about by various people as seen here.
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me."General George S. Patton
"We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it."Marge Simpson
"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure"
Jacques Chirac, President of France
“As far as France is concerned, you're right."
Rush Limbaugh
"The only time France wants us to go to war is when the German Army is sitting in Paris sipping coffee."Regis Philbin.
"You know, the French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the 1940s who was still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it."John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona.
"I don't know why people are surprised that France won't help us get Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn't help us get Hitler out of France either"Jay Leno
"The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag."David Letterman
War without France would be like ... uh ... World War II.
The favorite bumper sticker in Washington now is one that says 'First Iraq, then France.'"Tom Brokaw
"What do you expect from a culture and a nation that exerted more of its national will fighting against DisneyWorld and Big Macs than the Nazis?"Dennis Miller
"It is important to remember that the French have always been there when they needed us."Alan Kent
"They've taken their own precautions against al-Qa'ida. To prepare for an attack, each Frenchman is urged to keep duct tape, a white flag, and a three-day supply of mistresses in the house."Argus Hamilton
"Somebody was telling me about the French Army rifle that was being advertised on eBay the other day -- the description was, 'Never shot.
Dropped once.'"Rep. Roy Blunt (MO)
posted by Anonymous at 6:15 AM
43 Comments:
Way beneath an educated man, Doc.
I'm disappointed.
Good to have you back NAC. Hope the trek was a good one and relaxing.
It is always to good to bat around varying political and other viewpoints. It is what makes this enjoyable.
I find it hard to believe all the educated people out there who cannot see the impending threats. History has shown that the passivist approach has never worked.
I am not in favor of a nuclear (or "nucyaler") Iran, and I am not always against sanctions. I am, however, in favor of dialogue.
As for the jokes, some are funny, but all are historically inaccurate.
It took the Romans over 400 years to conquer the Celtic people of Gaul. In fact, those very Celts sacked Rome in 395 BC!!
Also, Americans are quick to talk about what "the French owe us," while they forget that we owe our very existance as a country to the French. Without the French blockade of the Chesapeake we would not have won the Revolutionary War. More importantly, without French funding of that war, we would have had to disband the army and surrender. The French kept us afloat.
Also, in WWI, the French fought as well and as BRAVELY as anyone. They stoped the greatest army in Europe (the German/Prussian war machine)cold and did not allow the fall of Paris.
I will concede that trench warfare is the dumbest type of warfare I have ever seen, but this was a European phenominon, not just a French one. And I am glad that we intervened and broke the 3-year stalemate. But the French were NOT cowardly in WWI. Far from it.
So, now that we have WWII to the present in proper context, I say the USA and the French are about even.
I also say that France is a sovereign nation. Why do we think they have to do what WE want all the time? It's ridiculous.
As for Iran, as I have said many times, they have sponsored terrorism since 1979 and we know it. It's documented.
Sanctions? I am not against the idea.
Roz, you always add valuable information to the dialogue.
France was the reason we beat the British and they have fought valiantly when needed.
But this passivist approach to Iran will not work.
Heavy sanctions with further restriciton of trade to actually isolate them should be agreed on by all nations who understand the risk.
Dialogue can continue once that is accomplished. O/W idle threats allow them victory and further advancement in their nuclear program.
They would use a nuclear bomb if they had one.
"They would use a nuclear bomb if they had one."
You know this how? That is a pretty absolute statement coming from a physician in Floyd County.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Roz's comments are accurate, as always, and appreciated -- also as always.
Thanks, Dan. It's good to be back, and I'll seeing you soon (wink wink, nod nod).
I listened to some of President Chirac's comments on CNN while in Europe. He may be French, but much of what he said is being discussed "over there" by French and non-French alike.
Too bad that whatever the outcome of the Iranian nuclear presence, much of the debate will be colored by our Iraqi lie.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I certainly don't know this for a fact, but ignoring the obvious and waiting for it to happen is a poor approach. What rationale evidence based on their history makes you think otherwise??
They have repeatedly shown that they do not value life and especially the life of non-muslims.
How many homicide bombers do you need to see and how close to home before you are willing to choose sides.
If they are allowed to get a nuclear bomb, there is only two options. They will use it or they won't.
I pray that we have leaders who believe they will use it and take appropriate steps at prevention.
After the fact won't matter
If one gauges modern France by the standards of art, architecture, education, gastronomy, literature, film, philosophy, medicine, design, transportation, and quality of life rather than their ability and willingness to kill people, they're doing quite well.
I have not stated my position at all. I just asked you a question.
It is the absolutism in your statement that bothers me.
We are still the only people that have ever used nuclear weapons. "If" they get it they "might" use it. We have it and did use it. How can we be so high and mighty now?
We did use the bomb and it was justified although I'm pretty sure you will disagree. What do you suppose would have happened if it didn't get used. Do you think Japan and Germany would quietly have gotten tired and left everyone alone?
Again, there will be only two choices with Iran. I believe they will use the bomb without justification. This is very different than what we did.
Judging a country on its past successes and accomplishments has value, but relying on the past will not necessarily lead to success in the future.
What has France, as a country, contributed or accomplished in the past 50 years that has made humanity better?
They are being torn apart from within. They really won't need any help from the outside. They have lost their moral compass as has many others.
Doc,
You sure do assume a lot. You just might be surprised what I believe on some issues.
" What do you suppose would have happened if it didn't get used. Do you think Japan and Germany would quietly have gotten tired and left everyone alone?"
I am not a history professor like Roz but I am pretty sure Germany had already surrendered before we dropped the bomb. (really, I am a 100% sure). Japan was virtually surrounded and all but defeated. The problem was the actual invasion of Japan and the expected massive loss of American lives.
So dropping the bomb had nothing to do with Japan and Germany "getting tired" and leaving everyone alone.
How do you justify us dropping the bomb?
First, it is a joy to have so many in support of dialoguing as the superior method to resolving conflicts.
With that being said…
As a child, I was taught that it is impolite to talk about politics and religion. Now that it undeniably necessary to address concerns and questions in these two fields, the problem becomes that fewer and fewer in the USA will receive religious truth claims seriously. After Galileo’s conspiracy and Darwin’s alternatives, religion moved to the bottom of the epistemological totem pole. It is politically and socially incorrect to judge/suggest there may be a set of truth claims that hold Divine ideas of reality and descriptions of the nature of the Creator God that would harmonize with both empirical and intuitive evidence. Reality that would work for "all".
Yes although Germany was essentially defeated by this time, they along with Japan, facist Italy were termed the Axis powers.
There were many smaller countries that supported them as well,Hungary, Bulgaria, Yugaslavia, Slovenia, Romanai, Thailand, and Findland.
Talks had broken down with Japan and they made it very clear that they believed inflicting more casualties would give them more favorable negotianting ability later.
If the war would have continued, these supporting countries could also have risen in power and stature and caused more loss of lives.
We had lost 400,000 american lives already with no end in site.
This decision saved american lives against our aggressors. It ended the war and saved many lives from other countries as well.
It was the correct decision, morally, politically, economically.
I am glad we had someone willing to make the tough decisions.
Naplam killed more Japanese civilians than did the atomic bomb and we dropped that very freely and without much prior contemplation.
Sorry for the typeo...Napalm
Well, I for one really go a kick out of this post. Thanks, doc!
Doc,
Thank you. It was a tough decision for President Truman. Your history is still flawed but that is for another time.
"It was the correct decision, morally, politically, economically."
Would this be your basis for using WMD in today's world?
I am happy that I am not in the position to make that decision.
My profession leaves little room for indecision and that is partly why I see things so black and white.
Indecision in the Medical Field can many times lead to disastrous consequences. Our actions can save lives and occasionally our decisions can end lives. Take the recent incidence at the Indy hospital with the infants.
Familiarity and relying on routines probably contributed to the double checking of the dosing of the medicine.
Very unfortunate, but very real.
Another time has arrived. I can't help it.
The Axis alliance was effectively gone by the time of the first bomb.
Japan was the only one left. Germany and Italy were already defeated--not almost. VE day was 5-8-45. Most of the other countries you mentioned were held by the Soviets. Not sure about Thailand but I don't think they were considered a threat to world peace.
Again, VE 5-08. First bomb 8-06. VJ 8-15.
The one part you did get correct was that Japan was holding out for better terms by trying to make us invade Japan proper. While today there is great debate about what the casualty figures would have been, at the time it was generally accepted they would be higher than all of the Pacific casualties.
Your comment, "the axis was essentially gone" is easy to look and judge retrospectively and make assessments as to who was truly defeated, who was still a threat, or which countries could become a threat. It is much more difficult in real-time. All of these countries played a roll.
Information in the 1940's was not readily available as it is today and the decision they made was based on their experience, current intelligence and probably fears.
I am not in any way an expert on WWII but I commend those who had the guts and integrity to make such a difficult decision.
Who are the threats today? Who should we putting pressure on and how? What if it were you having to make todays decisions and then be judged over the next century. It is not easy to predict which of the many threatening countries today will actually be the true menace in the next 10-20 years. It could be China.
Easing up on Iraq, Afghanistan now would serve only to allow an increase in the insurgency much like if we eased up on any of the countries in the 1940's.
Well, I can only say two things:
Iamhoosier: You are correct in that the Germans/Austirans/Hungarians/Turks were defeated in Europe before the bomb was dropped, or even threatened.
Truman issued the threat to Japan from Potsdam, Germany ("Potsdam Declaration").
Alos, BDMD: Your point is well taken. There were trenches used in many wars prior to WWI.
They were not, however, used on the same scale (100s of miles of 'em), in the same stupid way, for over 3 straight years, anywhere else. That's really what I was saying, but I concede I didn't do it very well.
A bientot mes amis!!
HB,
Are we even talking about the same thing? What do you mean in retrospect? The Axis powers in Europe were crushed. I don't care if the news came on a slow boat from Budapest. Mr. Truman knew the war was over before he made his decision.
I agree, the decision was based upon their experinces, knowledge, etc. at that time. I am a great admirer of Harry S Truman and I really don't have trouble understanding how and why he decided as he did. However, understanding and agreeing are two different things.
What does need to be looked in retrospect, based on current knoweldge, experience, etc, was it the right decision.
Does your moral, political, and economic sense rational for the use of the bomb 60 years ago still hold? If it does and we were right 60 years ago, who are we to tell anyone else who feels threated politically, morally, and economically that they can't use the same means we did? Scary thought isn't it?
Much of the world seems to think America is always wrong. That is incorrect. Just as incorrect is the thought that, because we are America, we are always right.
Please forgive the spelling and grammar in the above. I get excited conversing with Rush, uh, I mean Healthblogger.
If he knew the war was over, than why do you think he did it?
I wasn't even born yet. I can only look at things in retrospect and I have no clue as to how much he did or didn't know at that moment in time.
Losing more than 400,000 Americans already at that point certainly played a role. I'd be willing to think that had some impact on his decision and dropping the bombs may have been his way of making certain the war would end. He was right.
I think there was more than "feeling threatened" as you stated to why the bombs were dropped.
Feeling threatened is not a valid reason. I believe Truman was justified and any country under the same circustances would be also.
This does not apply to anyone at the present time.
For those interested in the thought processes behind Truman's decision to use the bomb, an excellent and recent read is David McCulloough's "TRUMAN". As he points out, Japan had been defeated well before Truman ever became president. Their defeat was therefore not the issue. Rather, their unconditional surrender and the removal of Hirohito were what was wanted. The Nazis had been held to unconditional surrender and so, Truman believed, should the Japanese. Anything less would have been politically disaterous. However, the Japanese had been training their soldiers for years(since they were visited by an American entourage wishing to establish whaling ports and control of Japanes trade routes) that surrender was not an option. From the day of their birth, Japanese children were drilled in military lessons. General Marshall had advised Truman that an invasion of mainland Japan (the only other alternative) would have cost "at a minimum a quarter of a million American casualties..." This was deemed far too high a price by Truman. How could he answer to the American people, after a bloody invasion of Japan, that a weapon which could have ended the war much earlier was available but not used?
Several other excellent current reads on WWII are James Bradley's "FLYBOYS" and "FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS". These give an excellent accounting early on of how the Western world was ultimately responsible for the military transformation of Japan into one of the most fearsome and fanatical enemies. And basically, in simplistic terms, it rose from their opposition to Westernization and it's goal to overtake non-caucasian, non-Christian ethnic cultures. So, perhaps we Americans are indeed ultimately responsible for the seemingly savage and terroristic posture of the Islam nations. We anihilated the Native Americans, we conquered and overtook the Mexicans and their lands, and we tried to sneak off with islands in the Orient (as did the French, the Russians, the British and the Dutch). No, I personally think we should stop forcing Democracy and Christianity on others for, as history will attest, the ends may well not justify the means.
Small point, perhaps, but I am not sure where HB got the fact that US battle deaths in WWII were about 400,000. All the sources I have found list the number at around 292,000.
HB,
You really need to read up on your history of this. Anonymous 7:36 does a nice job of summing up why the bomb was dropped. The book "Truman" he sites is excellent. I have a copy that I would be glad to loan you. Seriously.
You have been the one basically talking about being threatened. Your timelines are off. The war in Europe ended 3 months BEFORE the bombs were dropped. You seem to have this idea that the USA and the world was still under a threat from the AXIS. Not true.
I have already stated that I understand why Mr. Truman made the decision that he did. There was a political cry for complete victory over Japan. I believe the overriding concern was that it would save many American soldiers lives that would be lost with a full scale invasion of Japan proper.
At the time, there was no way for our leaders to know what nuclear power would lead to. There was some thought about it, but time was also of the essence.
Retrospect comes into play here. Knowing what we do now, I have to say that it was not right decision.
I am not blaming President Truman, he did what he thought he had to do based on the political climate and knowledge at that time. A better decision would have to blockade Japan and force their surrender. The problem at that time was twofold. It would have taken some time to accomplish this and politically this was problem. There was a cry for blood. Second, Russia may have decided to invade and take over. Again this was a political problem for the President.
Can we continue to say that it is okay to use WMD to save lives? What is the threshold of lives saved? No!! We need to say that we have grown and learned. If not, we have no standing to tell anyone otherwise.
Obviously, sites should be cites.
I certainly acknowledge that you know more specifics about the timelines etc. and I am not a WWII "buff".
We disagree in the fact that even in retrospect, I believe using the bomb was the correct decision and would not rule out using it again depending on the circumstances.
Even in our lives, we cannot agree on how much Clinton and Bush knew about the current situation or what should have been done and when. I do know that there is a lot of classified information that none of us is privvy to and I'd bet that Truman, Clinton, Bush and every other president will take some of this info to their graves.
We have limited knowledge and base our beliefs on a very biased media system. We will never know as much as those in the positions to make decisions and therefore have to rely on their choices to some degree.
That's what I like about the American system. "you don't always get your way, but you always get your say"
I am not trying to shove my knowledge of WW II down your throat. You have mentioned before about trying to get people to think. That is what I am trying to get to do on this topic. Some of your basis is in error, yet you won't even begin to reconsider. You may even come up with the same answer but you not even trying. Afraid of being called a "waffler"?
Let me ask it this way. If Saddam had WMD, would he have been justified in using them when we invaded? Would Iran if we invaded? Would North Korea? Would have Japan if they had developed one first? Every one of these countries could claim they were trying to save their citizens lives, their culture, their sovereign status.
Do you realize that is what you are saying by defending our usage in WW II?
At this point in time and in my opinion, none of these countries would be justified including ourselves. They certainly could see their options much more limited and feel they could be justified.
We did not start the current war. We have been attacked repeatedly by radicals. Unfortunately, they do not represent one particular country and are not fighting as a unified group making it much more difficult.
If these other countries you mentioned had a bomb, I do think they would potentially use it much quicker than we ever would again because of their moral values and belief system.
We have advanced tremendously in the last 60 years and have many more options compared to what they had in 1940's, but I could not say with the same certainty you have that a nuclear option would not be justified at some future time.
'Cuz we are Americans and we know all. This attitude is why so many others hate us.
I am not even going into your statement about us not starting the current war.
Have you ever heard the phrase, "Walk a mile in another man's shoes"?
Mark
The problem ultimately boils down to belief systems and worldviews.
Radical Muslims hate us because we are not Muslim and do not adhere to their belief system. This hasn't changed for thousands of years and isn't likely to change in the near future.
The difference between us is that our goal is not to erradicate or subjugate anyone not of the same worldview. We don't intentionally target innocent people. We want everyone to have personal choices.
Cal Thomas recently said something that relates: Many people hate us because they have a need to identify an enemy in order to escape accountability for failing to improve their own societies.
The state department has a listing of all the terrorist attacks directed toward us since 1961. There are more than 200. They are summarized at:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm
Do you really think that if we just leave them alone they won't continue to attack? You seem to respect history and there is nothing in it that would support this view.
It is not the USA's fault that these other nations are failing.
Although the USA is no where near perfect, our moral values still far outweigh the alternatives.
The bombs were dropped and that is now history, but the decision was a lot more complicated than just forcing Japan to surrrender. The Japanese emperor had sent feelers to Stalin that he was interested in ending the war. The US had broken the Japanese codes and knew of the offer. According to a program on the History Channel regarding the decision to bomb Hiroshima, virtually every one of Truman's advisors recommended taking the emperor up on his offer AND changing the terms of surrender from "unconditional" to allowing the emperor to remain in his position--a matter that the Japanese considered essential since Hirohito represented Japanese nationhood. Only Truman's secretary of state advised him to go ahead and include "unconditional" surrender in the Potsdam Declaration and drop the bomb for the purpose of freezing the Russians out of the Japanese theater of war and to hold the Ruskies in check following the war. Plus, there was the built up momentum of the Manhatten project with its high costs and the curiosity to know how this new device would work.
Every war has its "victor's justice." Say what you want about whether the bomb actually shortened the Pacific war or not, the fact is that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilian targets--they hadn't been bombed at all previously and virtually every military target had already been bombed to ashes. Civilian targets were prohibited by the Geneva Convention. Had we not won the war, there is no question in my mind that Truman would have been tried as a war criminal for using the bomb.
I may be mistaken, but I thought the Geneva Convention was after all of this took place and around 1949-1950.
The USA has not intentionally targeted civilian targets outside of wartime and nowhere that I recall in the recent past.
HB,
Of course I don't believe that we should just leave them alone. I believe terrorists should be hunted down.
My problem is your apparent view that there are no legitimate gripes about the USA from the those who dislike and/or hate and/or distrust us. I bet you there is list somewhere that would document more than 200 atrocities by the US in the last 45 years.
Radical Christians bomb abortion clinics where innocent poeple have been hurt and killed. Remember the "Kool Aid"? Further back, the crusades. There is plenty of blood to go around.
I would also suggest that in some cases, the USA is a big reason they are failing. In many cases, there is more we could do to help keep them from failing. And I don't mean just economic help.
The USA is a great country, we do agree on that. You just seem to think that we much closer to perfection than I do.
HB,
How do know the USA has not? Yes, I do not know that we have.
You have no more idea what the CIA or similar agencies may have actually done than I do. But based on the history, I bet we have.
Who would have thought that the FBI kept the kind of files they did under Hoover? We denied sending spy planes over the Soviet Union. I know it was war, but we denied being in Cambodia. We orchestrated the assassination of the president of Viet Nam.
Why are so sure? You just baffle me sometimes.
Healthblogger said...
I may be mistaken, but I thought the Geneva Convention was after all of this took place and around 1949-1950.
You are mistaken:
The conventions and their agreements are as follows:
First Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field" (first adopted in 1864, last revision in 1949)
Second Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea" (first adopted in 1949, successor of the 1907 Hague Convention X)
Third Geneva Convention "relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" (first adopted in 1929, last revision in 1949)
Fourth Geneva Convention "relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War" (first adopted in 1949, based on parts of the 1907 Hague Convention IV)
Thanks anonymous, I didn't check wickepedia about the specific dates on the conventions and thought it was the 1949 convention that addressed the POW issue.
iamhoosier,
We must both baffle each other. I admit the USA is not perfect and has made many poor choices. But I defend them passionately because of the many who cannot seem to find any good in them.
The examples you listed are not state or government supported acts of terror. These were typically random acts of terror or violence and do not compare with the open and in many cases government supported terror we are currently seeing.
Crusades were wrong and they always are brought up in an attempt to discredit all the good that Christianity stands for and has done for this country and many others. Christians have not been characterized by these activities for the last several 100 years, whereas radical islam terror has continued.
The USA is not the cause of the failure in other nations and why you continue to want to blame them is exactly why I'll continue to defend them.
There is evil in the world. The USA as a whole is not the source. They aren't perfect, but it is still the best nation on the planet in my opinion.
It was refreshing to see that you do believe we should not leave the terrorists alone.
Oh, Dr. D I really think you need to read up on your history. Just as one example, pick up "Fly Boys" and you will see that the US did indeed kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in both the Pacific and European theaters. Perhaps this wasn't "intentional" but it was very well-known that it would occur. It was called unfortunate "incendiary damage". The accuracy of the bombers was terrible and they considered themselves on target if they destroyed anything within 15 miles of their planned target. Granted there are no reports of Americans eating their prisoners (as did the starving Japanese which we had cut off from supplies) but the crimes which were enacted had the same results. Movie-goers back home considered it a treat to eat popcorn and watch the news reels which showed sailors standing on the ship shooting unarmed Japanese sailors and airmen floating in the water. We Americans have been brainwashed into believing all we have done has been for good intent. Teddy Roosevelt was a huge advocate of eliminating the savage Native Americans and the Mexicans because the "poor things were not smart enough" to take advantage of the wealths of their lands. And I would venture to guess that Muslims don't hate us because we are Christians, they hate us because we are opportunists and capitalists. Even the Japanese executioners, out of respect for the captive, frequently said a Christian prayer and made the sign of the cross before they beheaded them. So, please, please read some more history. It will make your stomach turn to realize how savage we Americans have been and continue to be.
HB,
I guess that you see me as always too negative toward our country and I see you as always too positive. I would bet when we sit down over a beer sometime, we will find that our positions are not quite so far apart. Not the same, mind you, just not across the Grand Canyon.
I do not bring up subjects such as the Crusades or witch trials to just add emotion. My belief is, that in many instances, these people were acting on what they KNEW at the time.
Take the witch trials. They did not know much about the brain. They did not know about mental illness. They were sure they KNEW the answer, resulting in tragic consequences.
I am not a "sure" type of personality. 2+2=4 is about as far as I go.(smile)
Post a Comment
<< Home