Since when are the French obligated to help us? Granted, you and all your ilk have long maintained the cheese-eating-surrender-monkey theme as a tool for beating up a faithful ally, but now it's gone a bit far. The joke is over. The unilateralist foreign policy of the 1600 Crew has managed to make enemies of the staunchest of allies, and turned the rest into opportunistic "Mouse that Roared" allies. No soveriegn nation "owes" us anything when we behave as arrogant, spoiled children, and yet you seem to believe we have some divine right to their assistance, in any case and for any reason. (a bleg? From Friedman...sorry you didn't write it?)
If France were serious, it would be using its influence within the European Union to assemble an army of 25,000 Eurotroops, and a $5 billion reconstruction package, and then saying to the Bush team: Here, we're sincere about helping to rebuild Iraq, but now we want a real seat at the management table. Instead, the French have put out an ill-conceived proposal, just to show that they can be different, without any promise that even if America said yes Paris would make a meaningful contribution.
If that's your "money quote", cash in your chips and leave the table now, Andy. If you want to build alliances and maintain them, you don't insult your peers (Freedom Fries, Chocolate Makers, Right-wing Talk show doing the Cheese-eating Surrender Monkey riff 24/7), you start by treating them with respect and like adults.
One would tend to believe that as someone who is always complaining about being "marginalized" for your personal choices you would understand this. But I guess it's more fun to complain than learn...sorry Sully, you're still a fool, just on a global scale now.
posted by Jo Fish on 09.18.03 at 01:01 AM
Comments:
In the 1990s, several movies came out that focused on Presidential power and its abuse. One was "Wag the Dog", which was picked up by pundits and politicians to attack Bill Clinton's moves that were perceived to distract the American public from his "scandals". Since W became President, and he designated the "Axis of Evil", I have thought back of a movie from the 1950s "The Mouse that Roared" starring Peter Sellers. It seems that the the nations comprising the Axis of Evil and other third world countries seeking nuclear power are playing a version of "The Mouse that Roared." I have wondered why TV networks, with their dearth of material, have not featured "The Mouse that Roared" and I have wondered whether it is for political reasons. I have mentioned this to friends in discussions, trying to convince them that the efforts of these third world nations are for their sovereign protection, especially since W's National Security Strategy was issued. Jo, you referenced "The Mouse that Roared". Do you think about this movie the same as I do? Also, another movie that the TV networks should show more often is "Dr. Strangelove" also starring Peter Sellers. Since the Cold War ended, it seems as if nuclear proliferation has not been better controlled. Third world countries are concerned with survival against the sole superpower, militarily and economically, in the world. W has made it clear in the National Security Strategy that the U.S. will take all necessary steps, including unilaterally and pre-emptively, to maintain its #1 position in both categories. So what should be the anticipated reaction of other nations, big and small? The EU is planning to grow and compete economically with the U.S. What if the EU threatens the U.S.'s #1 position economically? What will the U.S. do under W's Strategy if this comes about? The EU will probably not challenge the #1 military position. But if the U.S. were to overreact to this economic threat, might the EU form alliances with other nations? Right now the U.S. military is stretched thin. What steps can be anticipated by W's administration to impliment its Strategy if it were to continue for 4 more years? It's us against them. W's Strategy is in effect an effort to cower other nations to do it his way. So the Cold War is over. Are we now looking at a Hot War in the near future, or are we already there?
posted by: Shag from Brookline on 09.18.03 at 07:33 AM [permalink]
I saw the Friedman column, a masterpiece of comedy, and wondered whether he had just dusted off something he wrote six months ago and deemed "too stupid to publish".
I realize that France is the visible face of resistance to American foreign policy idiocy, but the Germans, Russians, Chinese and Indians all opposed this increasingly bizarre "liberation" as well. That's about 3 billion people, Eritrea and Uzbekistan notwithstanding.
I think it is worth remembering that French soldiers ARE defending us in Afghanistan.
posted by: 56k on 09.18.03 at 12:10 PM [permalink]
Jo points out: No soveriegn nation "owes" us anything when we behave as arrogant, spoiled children....
Take this a step further. No sovereign nation "owes" us anything. Period. Regardless of how we're behaving. That's implicit in the very meaning of "sovereign", something which the 1600 Crew, in its treatment of our allies, appears to have forgotten (if, indeed, they ever learned the meaning of the word).
