|
Post by Wycco on Apr 3, 2003 11:13:18 GMT -5
I personally see nothing wrong with the French or their actions, it is supposed to be a free world after all. NATO- an attack on one is an attack on all members... France was supplying an army that through unprovoked military aggression attacked a fellow NATO member!
|
|
|
Post by justan on Apr 3, 2003 11:36:12 GMT -5
Didn't the US ensure that French were defeated in 56 when they went in to reclaim access to the suez canal after Naseer nationalized it? I think the French are still reeeling from that. Was the first time that their role in the world had been firmly undermined by the US foreign policy. Just off the top of my head from what I remember the Canal was owned by a group of French and British concerns. Nassar was cut funding by the States because he made some arms deals with the Communist block. Then in retaliation he nationalised the Canal with full and fair compensation for the owner. Britain and France using true 19th century logic decided a change of government or if you like decided a regime change was in order. Didn't Israel for obvious reasons(survival) join France and Britain in this re-occupation of the canal, and installing a new government in Egypt. The Soviet Union planned to send troops in if Britain, France, and Israel didn't leave the area. The States didn't want a hot war so they supported the USSR's efforts in having the nations to pull out. Is that crushing French foreign policy? I suppose if you're French it is. Now if there was no Soviet Union at the time would the USA have interfered? I'm guessing not. France and Nato: Doesn't France have a special arrangement in Nato different than the other members? regards
|
|
|
Post by Wycco on Apr 3, 2003 12:34:59 GMT -5
France and Nato: Doesn't France have a special arrangement in Nato different than the other members? LOL! Seriously? or are you joking? I sure hope you're joking- but looking back at the last 200 years of French foreign policy (and domestic policy regarding foreign issues) it really wouldn't surprise me!
|
|
|
Post by justan on Apr 3, 2003 14:05:32 GMT -5
OK after using google I found out that France really is special , and that they just don't like America being a leader, the little pups they helped become a country Is that the reason for all the jokes about how rude the French are to Americans Below is something I cnp'd from a NATO history website The French president Charles de Gaulle constantly criticized the dominating role of the United States in NATO. He also criticized Article 5, which would force France to take part in warfare at the decision of others. In July 1966 this led to the official withdrawal of France from participation in the military structure of NATO. Also, NATO forces and headquarters were required to leave France and NATO headquarters was moved to Brussels, Belgium. In case of unprovoked aggression, according to the Gaulle, France would support NATO. France continued to sit in the Council and the French ground forces in West Germany remained present, but not under NATO command OHH those French, they are special after all
|
|
|
Post by Wycco on Apr 3, 2003 14:10:09 GMT -5
Yet, I take it WE'LD be required to help France if they were attacked!
And they still help our enemies!
|
|
|
Post by Topcontender on Apr 3, 2003 14:44:48 GMT -5
Everytime i look france up on Google i get "French surrenders" ;D
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on Apr 3, 2003 16:49:42 GMT -5
NATO- an attack on one is an attack on all members... France was supplying an army that through unprovoked military aggression attacked a fellow NATO member! I think you will find that the NATO and the UN, condemned the British over their claim to the Falklands and war with Argentina.
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on Apr 3, 2003 16:52:51 GMT -5
Every time I look up Topcontender on Google it comes up with "Redneck farmer stranded in Indiana"
|
|
|
Post by justan on Apr 3, 2003 18:32:17 GMT -5
Every time I look up Topcontender on Google it comes up with "Redneck farmer stranded in Indiana" LOL @ Dannyboy have a beer
|
|
|
Post by who won on Apr 3, 2003 19:08:11 GMT -5
The French and British had built the canal securing international shipping routes through Egypt.
Naseer then nationalized the canal controlling one of the most important shipping routes in the world.
Meanwhile, and earlier, Egypt had been sponsoring attacks from fedayeen guerrilas into Israel which had been met with reprisal attacks. The attacks and reprisal attacks continued. The number of Egyptian troops began to grow along the Sinai border. Egypt then closed the Strait of Tiran blockading Israeli shipping. Fearing an imminent attack, Israel invaded Egypt. Israeli troops made rapid progress and in days reached the east bank of the Suez.
Seeing the international crisis growing around the worlds most important shipping route, France and Britain then stepped in landing troops into Egypt and demanded Israeli withdrawl from the penninsula.
The UN and the US condemened the British and French action and demanded they leave Suez.
In addition to the condemnation from the US, there was the threat of a Russian invasion, France and Britain had no choice but to back down against US condemnation and the threat from the east.
Thats the basic strand, France and Britain believed they still had the right to step into another countries internal affairs.
The US saw that as another colonialist action from the old countries.
France was humiliated, it was clearly a subordinate to the US wishes, but saw the US acting in the same manner as it chose while it was left incapable of acting without US approval.
Perhaps French policy today is aimed at attemptiong to make the US feel as impotent as the French did in Suez
|
|
|
Post by justan on Apr 4, 2003 8:48:26 GMT -5
I know I watched that on HIstory Channel a while ago but I thought that France Britain and Israel had planned the crisis so that the British and French troops could move into the Canal Zone under the pretext of securing it from the war as a first step to regime change thus maintaing control of the Canal.
That's why they needed Israel to attack the Sinai and start this conflict. Israel as you stated had their own valid reasons for going along with this conspiracy.
The States were in an election year and I doubt if they would have interfered anyways but I don't really remember what the thinking of the States was. I know they were pissed because Nassar was dealing with the Soviet Bloc.
I know they didn't want a hot war so they did pressure France and England to back off.
So why would the States possibly start WW3 because France and England wanted the Suez Canal.
I'm sure England was just as humbled as the French, but they seemed to have gotten over it.
regards
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on Apr 4, 2003 9:20:55 GMT -5
The British masterminded the Cyprus conflict to ensure they, the British, would have large numbers of troops nearby, ready to get into Egypt as soon as possible after the Suez crisis came to a head. The Turkish leader of the uprising, was in fact, British trained, and in their pay all through the first conflict.
|
|
|
Post by glendo on Apr 4, 2003 17:30:52 GMT -5
we must seperate french public opinion from french governent. they are 2 completely different things.
|
|
|
Post by hoo one on Apr 4, 2003 18:13:40 GMT -5
England got over the humiliation and France did not. England came to the realization that in order to continue to have any influence above their clout in world affairs, they should align themsleves with the US as closely as possible. That has become their primary and ongoing foreign policy, the so called 'special relationship' with the US.
The policy, for the British has worked to a degree. At least in their own eyes they think they are influencing international politcis.
The French on the other hand saw the need for a couunter balance to the US power. They elected to forge ever closer relationships within Europe itself. To pool their sovereignty and foreign policy making if not Frnace, but Europe a realistic, western power that could influence international events in its favor, instead of in the US's favor.
The plan has not yet come to fruition, although, Europe is increasingly being considered as a single entity and France wishes to have the most influential voice within Europe.
Europe needs to get its act together is the lesson France will take from this.
If they do, then the UK will be left firmly in the cold having a close relationship with a continent whose interests are increasingly divergent from their own.
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on Apr 5, 2003 6:13:20 GMT -5
Actually I am a bit relieved the French have not joined the coalition. If they had, they would have sent a small number of soldiers to the gulf area, and all we would be hearing on the TV here is how the 5 French legionaires were winning the war for the coalition. A bit like 12 years ago....
|
|