• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

So what is it really....about these French?

Elind

Philosopher
Elind
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
7,787
Location
S.E. USA. Sometimes bible country
Truth is I'm really confused, so I'm asking for some insight here even though I know there'll be some that ain't.

What is it with the French? Am I victim of propaganda news reporting or what?

First I don't quite understand why a Lebanon ceasfire resolution is specifically an issue between the French and the US, except possibly that only the French have been dumb enough (or clever enough) to suggest that they might get involved, unlike the rest of the world (read UN) that whimps out utterly.

Secondly, I don't understand why the French, being what they are other than really stupid, would allow the world to think they were going to back a rational resolution at the UN to stop the killing (i'm all in favor), then supposedly back out because all the (obvious) Arab supporters of Hezbullah are only interested in an Iraeli retreat (not withdrawal).

Are the French such morons that they didn't see that coming, or are they so unprincipled that they engineered it so as to make them look good with the fundies, and the US bad?

For what it's worth, I drink several bottles of wine a week. None of it has been French for several years (but a lot is Australian for the benefit of those who care ;))

Opinions anyone?
 
Elind said:
Truth is I'm really confused, so I'm asking for some insight here even though I know there'll be some that ain't.

What is it with the French? Am I victim of propaganda news reporting or what?

First I don't quite understand why a Lebanon ceasfire resolution is specifically an issue between the French and the US, except possibly that only the French have been dumb enough (or clever enough) to suggest that they might get involved, unlike the rest of the world (read UN) that whimps out utterly.

Secondly, I don't understand why the French, being what they are other than really stupid, would allow the world to think they were going to back a rational resolution at the UN to stop the killing (i'm all in favor), then supposedly back out because all the (obvious) Arab supporters of Hezbullah are only interested in an Iraeli retreat (not withdrawal).

Are the French such morons that they didn't see that coming, or are they so unprincipled that they engineered it so as to make them look good with the fundies, and the US bad?

For what it's worth, I drink several bottles of wine a week. None of it has been French for several years (but a lot is Australian for the benefit of those who care ;))

Opinions anyone?
Click to expand...
There are plenty of excellent California wines.
 
I believe the French have expressed a desire to lead the boosted UN force in southern Lebanon.

This is altogether fitting - France has contributed significantly to numerous UN missions. They are also one of the few active UN peace keeping nations with a significant armed forces that isn't tied up in Afghanistan, Iraq, or East Timor.

-Andrew
 
Elind said:
Are the French such morons that they didn't see that coming, or are they so unprincipled that they engineered it so as to make them look good with the fundies, and the US bad?
Click to expand...

The last French/English war ended 200 years ago. Move on. :rolleyes:

Stop accusing the French without proof.
 
Elind said:
That was yesterday, or I wouldn't have bothered posting......
Click to expand...


It's standard practise for the UN to establish a mission that the host nation supports. It makes things a lot easier.

As things continue, the Lebanese government will realise their choice is to either sacrifice Hizbollah, or lose their entire country to civil war.

They will come around.

-Andrew
 
gumboot said:
It's standard practise for the UN to establish a mission that the host nation supports. It makes things a lot easier.

As things continue, the Lebanese government will realise their choice is to either sacrifice Hizbollah, or lose their entire country to civil war.

They will come around.

-Andrew
Click to expand...

You haven't been paying attention have you? It seems it's the French who are backing off because the Arabs don't want any furriners, or so it seems. That is the whole point of the post which you seem to have missed.
 
France has a long history with Lebanon, going back to the Crusades IIRC; and more recently after WWI France got control of that area.
 
Elind said:
You haven't been paying attention have you? It seems it's the French who are backing off because the Arabs don't want any furriners, or so it seems. That is the whole point of the post which you seem to have missed.
Click to expand...


We must be watching different news sources...

At the UN, diplomats are attempting to reword the draft calling for a ceasefire, to take in Lebanese and Arab League demands for an immediate Israeli withdrawal.

On Wednesday differences surfaced again between France and the US - which co-sponsored the original draft - leading some diplomats to express concerns that diplomacy could collapse.

But the BBC's Bridget Kendall at UN headquarters says that there is now a mood of cautious optimism.

Correspondents say the members states are considering a French proposal to deploy Lebanese forces alongside the existing UN force, which would be strengthened, as the Israelis begin a phased withdrawal.

The US has yet to respond - so far it has insisted that any Israeli withdrawal can only follow the deployment of a new, robust multi-national force.

Source: BBC
Click to expand...

Hence why I was confused. France and the US produced a draft proposal. Lebanon and the Arab League rejected it and offered their own. Now France has put forward a new proposal.

So far it is the US that have not responded. France still appears to be playing a central role.

-Andrew
 
Let's try a little game of "what if"....

(but not really posted by) Elind said:
Truth is I'm really confused, so I'm asking for some insight here even though I know there'll be some that ain't.

What is it with the Americans? Am I victim of propaganda news reporting or what?

First I don't quite understand why a Lebanon ceasfire resolution is specifically an issue between the French and the US, except possibly that only the US have been dumb enough (or clever enough) to suggest that they might get involved, unlike the rest of the world (read UN) that whimps out utterly.

Secondly, I don't understand why the Americans, being what they are other than really stupid, would allow the world to think they were going to back a rational resolution at the UN to stop the killing (i'm all in favor), then supposedly back out because all the (obvious) Arab supporters of Hezbullah are only interested in an Iraeli retreat (not withdrawal).

Are the Americans such morons that they didn't see that coming, or are they so unprincipled that they engineered it so as to make them look good with the fundies, and the French bad?

For what it's worth, I drink several bottles of wine a week. None of it has been American for several years (but a lot is Australian for the benefit of those who care ;))

Opinions anyone?
Click to expand...

If you had posted that, would you have been lambasted for being anti-American?
 
CFLarsen said:
Let's try a little game of "what if"....



If you had posted that, would you have been lambasted for being anti-American?
Click to expand...
I wish I had a $ for every time that technique was used. Not bad the first time, but wears thin after a while, kind of like the "proportionate" or "equivalence" principle, as in "more of them than yours are being killed, you need to stop until they can have a chance to catch up". Everything is equally reversible in Denmark eh?

In this case I am commenting on the news I hear here, which seems to be different where you are.

What I am hearing is the French are backing off on their original generous offer of leading a "robust" force (yes, most Lebanese speak French, makes sense).

The reason they are backing off is because the Arabs all object. Surprise surprise!! The Arabs want the Israelis to withdraw and a return to the status quo. IE an inneffectual Lebanese force supported by an inneffectual UN force (same old observers as before).

My point is that any fool could have seen that coming, the French better than most. So what is their game here? Why start off with a proposal they MUST have known they were going to back off on, perhaps to gain points with their Arab "friends"?
 
Elind said:
My point is that any fool could have seen that coming, the French better than most. So what is their game here? Why start off with a proposal they MUST have known they were going to back off on, perhaps to gain points with their Arab "friends"?
Click to expand...


I think you're totally misreading what happened.

Nothing ever works the first time, but you always put your best proposal forward first. That's how negotiations work. France and the US put forward their ideal proposal, Lebanon and the Arab League demanded changes, so they adjusted the proposal (to what I feel is a much better balance).

I simply cannot see any way in which this could be construed as France "backing off".

Latest Developments:

A spokeswoman for British Prime Minister Tony Blair said agreement on a text was possible within 24 hours.

This was echoed by the two sponsors of a draft, the US and France.

The possible deal is thought to centre on sending Lebanese troops to the border with a strengthened UN force, while Israel starts a phrased pullout.

Source: BBC
Click to expand...

-Andrew
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom