Full Version: Gratitude to America...
Here's a simple question thats never really been answered...
Since America has helped so many other nations, (mine included) what do all these nations (morally?) owe in return?
I'm asking this on the back ground of the war in Iraq of course, but also because I watched 'Saving Private Ryan' this night. In the film, Captain Miller as he's dying, tells Ryan, to 'earn this'.
Ryan does this by doing the best he can, but is unsure as he stands before Millers grave, fifty years later, if he has succeeded.
Have we, Europeans, succeeded because we have kept the peace? (Did we fail in the Balkans?)
Or do we owe more?
Since America has helped so many other nations, (mine included) what do all these nations (morally?) owe in return?
I'm asking this on the back ground of the war in Iraq of course, but also because I watched 'Saving Private Ryan' this night. In the film, Captain Miller as he's dying, tells Ryan, to 'earn this'.
Ryan does this by doing the best he can, but is unsure as he stands before Millers grave, fifty years later, if he has succeeded.
Have we, Europeans, succeeded because we have kept the peace? (Did we fail in the Balkans?)
Or do we owe more?
great question moif.
my only response to this is that these countries please, ensure that your people retain their freedom that americans have died helping them achieve. That is the ultimate goal of america. First and foremost. Freedom from Nazis, freedom from communism and other brutal tyranny has taken the lives of thousands of americans and continues to do so this minute.
my only response to this is that these countries please, ensure that your people retain their freedom that americans have died helping them achieve. That is the ultimate goal of america. First and foremost. Freedom from Nazis, freedom from communism and other brutal tyranny has taken the lives of thousands of americans and continues to do so this minute.
World War II ended in a new era of international economics and mutual self-defense that has virtually removed western Europe as a source of conflict. Western Europe even honors America in its criticism of American foreign policy because it is in free speech and the right to look after self-interest and debate different versions of international best interests. Although the Cold War helped bind these democratic nations together, the ability of nations to look beyond borders and nationalism has brought tremendous prosperity to the world.
America is not owed allegiance but I think her foreign policy has generally served as a benefit to the West, much as British foreign policy tended to serve the best interests of Western Civilizations. Both "empires" have or had their problem with arrogance and not respecting the sovereignty of weaker nations as well as they might have. But I'll take a world with the dominant power as a democracy over a Marxist or Fascist state any day.
I tend to be Jeffersonian in the sense that the collective beliefs of the people tend to be right, and when that collective voice is wrong, strong majority voices emerge to change public opinion (Harriet Beecher Stowe and Mohandas Gandhi to name two). The people should not defer to authority. They should challenge it and test its authenticity.
Moif if you are representative of the Danish's
of the world, then your slice of Scandinavia is honoring the legacy of the United States just dandy.
America is not owed allegiance but I think her foreign policy has generally served as a benefit to the West, much as British foreign policy tended to serve the best interests of Western Civilizations. Both "empires" have or had their problem with arrogance and not respecting the sovereignty of weaker nations as well as they might have. But I'll take a world with the dominant power as a democracy over a Marxist or Fascist state any day.
I tend to be Jeffersonian in the sense that the collective beliefs of the people tend to be right, and when that collective voice is wrong, strong majority voices emerge to change public opinion (Harriet Beecher Stowe and Mohandas Gandhi to name two). The people should not defer to authority. They should challenge it and test its authenticity.
Moif if you are representative of the Danish's
of the world, then your slice of Scandinavia is honoring the legacy of the United States just dandy.
Countries should pay us back for our helping them by keeping their freedom. We shed blood in France to liberate it from the Germans in the first world war and then the war with the Nazies, then they should keep it democratic.
I think we have an organization that does that. OAS i think it is. An organization that promotes and maintains democracy in countries we liberated and have turned into democracies:
State Dept: OAS
(i learned about OAS when watching a West Wing episode
)
Anyways, i think that if there is a coup that threatens democracy in any of the members of OAS (listed in the link), there is military action taken if all other resources have been exhausted
I think we have an organization that does that. OAS i think it is. An organization that promotes and maintains democracy in countries we liberated and have turned into democracies:
State Dept: OAS
(i learned about OAS when watching a West Wing episode
)Anyways, i think that if there is a coup that threatens democracy in any of the members of OAS (listed in the link), there is military action taken if all other resources have been exhausted
This mornings news carried an interesting story here which sort of ties into this debate.
Greenland is a frozen wasteland to the very north of the America's, with a population of less than 60,000. The USA maintains an air force base called Thule AFB in Greenland, which guards the approach into America from across the North pole.
Since Greenland is sovereign to the Danish crown, it is technically NATO territory, but over the course of the last few decades, the Inuit have been granted more or less autonomy.
The highest law in the land is still the Danish crown court, and the Danish queen is the sovereign of Greenland in much the same way as the British queen is still sovereign of Australia. Amongst Denmarks other responsibilities is Greenlands defence.
This mornings story involves a legal action, brought about by native Inuit in the Danish courts to have Thule AFB closed down, the argument being, that the cold war is over and the base serves no further defensive purpose and the inuit want their hunting grounds back.
The Danish state is opposed to the action, although it has made no commitment to the future of Thule AFB.
Behind this matter lurks the matter of GW Bush's desire to construct a missile shield. The Pentagon's design of the missile shield requires Thule AFB, because of its strategically important position, guarding America from the north.
There is no doubt that Anders Fogh Rasmussen (the conservative PM of Denmark) would give the Americans the green light if he had free reign, since he is a staunch supporter of the USA. However the case is to be decided by the courts since Greenland has autonomy, and the question rests as too how much authority Denmark can impose over Greenland in a defence matter.
I find this interesting because, although Denmark was liberated by the alllies during the second world war, the Inuit were never involved. There was some fighting in Greenland, but it did not involve the population, and Greenland is so large a place (the bulk of the nation is still largely unknown territory) that the Inuit can easily ignore the worlds problems by virtue of their lack of political consequence... a nuclear strike at Thule AFB for example, would not affect the rest of the nation at all.
I wonder how the court will decide. There is a lot riding on the decision, perhaps the efficiency of the missile shield, and who knows whether the shield will one day be needed? but the case will rest on a question of who's authority is fore most, Denmark's, NATO's or the population of Greenland.
As far as I can tell though, the actual parliament of Greenland is not involved in this matter, having yet to decide for or against the extensions planned for Thule AFB. The Inuit government has already made comments that providing the Americans pay up some cash... then they would most likely approve the extensions. (The legal case is being brought by private Inuit.)
Personally I am undecided in this matter. Although I think the people of Greenland should be left to decide their own matters, I can't see how they can expect Denmark to cater to their needs, if they in turn refuse to cater to ours. Regardless of whether the missile shield is effective or not, it is in Denmarks interests to support our ally, the USA, whether or not we agree with the policies of her President.
Thats is not to say that we should follow blindly... we should follow cautiously, but I feel that if America needs our help, then we, and that includes the Inuit of Greenland, are morally obliged to the United States to provide any and all the assistance we can.
editted to add;
I do believe I was paid a compliment. 'skål' Eeyore!
Greenland is a frozen wasteland to the very north of the America's, with a population of less than 60,000. The USA maintains an air force base called Thule AFB in Greenland, which guards the approach into America from across the North pole.
Since Greenland is sovereign to the Danish crown, it is technically NATO territory, but over the course of the last few decades, the Inuit have been granted more or less autonomy.
The highest law in the land is still the Danish crown court, and the Danish queen is the sovereign of Greenland in much the same way as the British queen is still sovereign of Australia. Amongst Denmarks other responsibilities is Greenlands defence.
This mornings story involves a legal action, brought about by native Inuit in the Danish courts to have Thule AFB closed down, the argument being, that the cold war is over and the base serves no further defensive purpose and the inuit want their hunting grounds back.
The Danish state is opposed to the action, although it has made no commitment to the future of Thule AFB.
Behind this matter lurks the matter of GW Bush's desire to construct a missile shield. The Pentagon's design of the missile shield requires Thule AFB, because of its strategically important position, guarding America from the north.
There is no doubt that Anders Fogh Rasmussen (the conservative PM of Denmark) would give the Americans the green light if he had free reign, since he is a staunch supporter of the USA. However the case is to be decided by the courts since Greenland has autonomy, and the question rests as too how much authority Denmark can impose over Greenland in a defence matter.
I find this interesting because, although Denmark was liberated by the alllies during the second world war, the Inuit were never involved. There was some fighting in Greenland, but it did not involve the population, and Greenland is so large a place (the bulk of the nation is still largely unknown territory) that the Inuit can easily ignore the worlds problems by virtue of their lack of political consequence... a nuclear strike at Thule AFB for example, would not affect the rest of the nation at all.
I wonder how the court will decide. There is a lot riding on the decision, perhaps the efficiency of the missile shield, and who knows whether the shield will one day be needed? but the case will rest on a question of who's authority is fore most, Denmark's, NATO's or the population of Greenland.
As far as I can tell though, the actual parliament of Greenland is not involved in this matter, having yet to decide for or against the extensions planned for Thule AFB. The Inuit government has already made comments that providing the Americans pay up some cash... then they would most likely approve the extensions. (The legal case is being brought by private Inuit.)
Personally I am undecided in this matter. Although I think the people of Greenland should be left to decide their own matters, I can't see how they can expect Denmark to cater to their needs, if they in turn refuse to cater to ours. Regardless of whether the missile shield is effective or not, it is in Denmarks interests to support our ally, the USA, whether or not we agree with the policies of her President.
Thats is not to say that we should follow blindly... we should follow cautiously, but I feel that if America needs our help, then we, and that includes the Inuit of Greenland, are morally obliged to the United States to provide any and all the assistance we can.
editted to add;
I do believe I was paid a compliment. 'skål' Eeyore!
We owe America the sacrifices it made during the two world wars and the protection we had during the Cold War.
I don't know if we have to consider that we have a debt of honor or a debt of memory though. Typically, a debt of honor would require us to fight in America to free Americans, should their country be invaded.
A debt of memory, which is better in my opinion, consists in remembering always how hard it was to achieve peace on the continent. It also consists in keeping and sharing the ideals of free speech and democracy. In that sense and in my opinion, the EU is a good tribute to America's sacrifice.
I don't know if we have to consider that we have a debt of honor or a debt of memory though. Typically, a debt of honor would require us to fight in America to free Americans, should their country be invaded.
A debt of memory, which is better in my opinion, consists in remembering always how hard it was to achieve peace on the continent. It also consists in keeping and sharing the ideals of free speech and democracy. In that sense and in my opinion, the EU is a good tribute to America's sacrifice.
QUOTE(Horyok @ Nov 3 2003, 06:57 AM)
In that sense and in my opinion, the EU is a good tribute to America's sacrifice.
I agree. A democratic unity!
But for some, there are some bad apples in the EU who are corrupt & a pain(Ex: Chirac)
Let me ask you this. Does the EU owe anything to Canada? Does Britain owe anything to the French Underground? Personally I'm a bit perplexed by the discussion. Anyone who believes that America was acting out of beneficence is sorely misinformed. While certain elements of government may have been keen on intervening in Europe in both ocassions from the get-go; the U.S. didn't enter either war until they themselves were threatened. In the first World War this happened when the Lusitania was sunk. In the Second World War Germany declared war on the United States (a fact that is often overlooked) and then the United States picked up arms.
Of course this is not to minimize the importance of the Lend-Lease treaties and other support that the U.S. offered. It is not a criticism of U.S. foreign policy (or the foreign policy of any other nation either.) It is merely a recognition that the United States merely acted in their own interests during both Wars. (Hence the late deployment in both cases.)
It is quite clear that you dislike Chirac; and that is your perogative. But I have never in all my time here or as someone who actually follows International Affairs seen any accusations of his being corrupt. Just because you disapprove of someone's tactics doesn't mean you can label them however you see fit; that is libel.
Of course this is not to minimize the importance of the Lend-Lease treaties and other support that the U.S. offered. It is not a criticism of U.S. foreign policy (or the foreign policy of any other nation either.) It is merely a recognition that the United States merely acted in their own interests during both Wars. (Hence the late deployment in both cases.)
QUOTE
But for some, there are some bad apples in the EU who are corrupt & a pain(Ex: Chirac)
It is quite clear that you dislike Chirac; and that is your perogative. But I have never in all my time here or as someone who actually follows International Affairs seen any accusations of his being corrupt. Just because you disapprove of someone's tactics doesn't mean you can label them however you see fit; that is libel.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Nov 3 2003, 02:43 PM)
It is quite clear that you dislike Chirac; and that is your perogative. But I have never in all my time here or as someone who actually follows International Affairs seen any accusations of his being corrupt. Just because you disapprove of someone's tactics doesn't mean you can label them however you see fit; that is libel.
France
Here is the first paragraph from that link:
France, riven by money-laundering and graft scandals reaching to the highest levels of government, is one of the most corrupt of all developed countries, according to a new international study.
Chirac - personally corrupt?
And from this one...
Jacques Chirac received £500,000 cash kick-back on public contracts when he was mayor of Paris, according to a video-taped confession by a former official of the president's party published yesterday. The confession, taped four years ago, three years' before the official died, is the closest direct link yet established between Mr Chirac and allegations of corruption practices in Paris town hall during his mayorship from 1977 to 1995. It might be called the smoking gun from beyond the grave.
moif -
what an interesting article on Greenland and very pertinent to the topic. It's my fault to not having much knowledge of the policies of Denmark in relation to the US. Thanks for bringing that to our attention
I agree that Allies should not "blindly" follow but as you've stated
what an interesting article on Greenland and very pertinent to the topic. It's my fault to not having much knowledge of the policies of Denmark in relation to the US. Thanks for bringing that to our attention
I agree that Allies should not "blindly" follow but as you've stated
QUOTE
we should follow cautiously
. I think we do all owe like minded free countries allegiance where we can. There is such damage done when Free nations are at severe odds with one another. Nations divided...fall. imo.
UltimateJoe
I certainly think so. I believe we have a moral obligation to honour those Candians who died fighting for European and World freedom, just as much as the Australians or the Indians.
The EU cannot simply rise from the ashes of the past like some sort of real politik pheonix, shedding the guilt of the past like burnt feathers
The moral obligation does not rest with the governments or politicians of our nations. These people are servants and are only in office to act upon the wishes and needs of the people.
It is the people themselves who must carry the responsibility of ensuring that history is not allowed to repeat itself.
Whether the people of the United States acted on principle or necessity, does not, in my mind make much of a difference to those soldiers in a field in France under so many white crosses.
Those men are dead, and it does not matter why they were in Europe, or where they all come from. If their sacrifice is not honoured in actions as well as ceremony, then they died for nothing.
The question refers to Americans, not because we owe them a greater debt than any one else, but because today, America needs our help.
editted to add;
So Caliente_1
It was'nt actually an article, but here is an article for you;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2591283.stm
The BBC's perspective is a little different from the Danish one, but the main facts are the same.
How ever, I realise that I made a mistake in my initial post when I said a nuclear attack on Thule AFB would not affect the population. What I meant was... the rest of the population... The people of Qaanaaq (Thule) would be very upset by a nuclear attack I think...
QUOTE
Let me ask you this. Does the EU owe anything to Canada?
I certainly think so. I believe we have a moral obligation to honour those Candians who died fighting for European and World freedom, just as much as the Australians or the Indians.
The EU cannot simply rise from the ashes of the past like some sort of real politik pheonix, shedding the guilt of the past like burnt feathers
QUOTE
Does Britain owe anything to the French Underground? Personally I'm a bit perplexed by the discussion. Anyone who believes that America was acting out of beneficence is sorely misinformed. While certain elements of government may have been keen on intervening in Europe in both ocassions from the get-go; the U.S. didn't enter either war until they themselves were threatened. In the first World War this happened when the Lusitania was sunk. In the Second World War Germany declared war on the United States (a fact that is often overlooked) and then the United States picked up arms.
The moral obligation does not rest with the governments or politicians of our nations. These people are servants and are only in office to act upon the wishes and needs of the people.
It is the people themselves who must carry the responsibility of ensuring that history is not allowed to repeat itself.
Whether the people of the United States acted on principle or necessity, does not, in my mind make much of a difference to those soldiers in a field in France under so many white crosses.
Those men are dead, and it does not matter why they were in Europe, or where they all come from. If their sacrifice is not honoured in actions as well as ceremony, then they died for nothing.
The question refers to Americans, not because we owe them a greater debt than any one else, but because today, America needs our help.
editted to add;
So Caliente_1
It was'nt actually an article, but here is an article for you;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2591283.stm
The BBC's perspective is a little different from the Danish one, but the main facts are the same.
How ever, I realise that I made a mistake in my initial post when I said a nuclear attack on Thule AFB would not affect the population. What I meant was... the rest of the population... The people of Qaanaaq (Thule) would be very upset by a nuclear attack I think...
I agree with what some have said, specifically that the debt should not be monetary or even in terms of blind allegance. It should be to respect and honour the freedom you have, especially if foreign troops have died for you to have it.
The question of whether a nation entered the war to spread freedom or to protect itself is irrelevant IMO. The motives aren't as important as the fact that ordinary men and women have died, and as a result you have the life you have today.
Nations who have been liberated should not be exected to pledge allegance to their liberator, or conform to their ways of thinking or politcal/economic policies. This is contrary to what is being preached, it is not freedom.
The question of whether a nation entered the war to spread freedom or to protect itself is irrelevant IMO. The motives aren't as important as the fact that ordinary men and women have died, and as a result you have the life you have today.
Nations who have been liberated should not be exected to pledge allegance to their liberator, or conform to their ways of thinking or politcal/economic policies. This is contrary to what is being preached, it is not freedom.
Well I personally thank America..my family, If Hitler had reached Britain, would have been slaughtered. I am of Romani descent (on my father's side) and altho it is a little unknown issue....the Roma were also despised by Hitler and his Nazi army and were also a target of his racial cleansing campaign. 1,5 million said to be murdered.
I have been to the holocaust museum in DC as a family pilgrimage kind of thing...I stood in there and wept with all the other visitors and I do not know how anyone can take witness to this history and not feel a great gratitude to those who helped end the genocide. I would be the first to admit that the US did not enter wwII in order to end the Holocaust..but to me the motivations are not the most important issue.
Um yes..this war exemplifies Europe's failures and her most basic differing views from America.
Racism is a pretty ugly thing in Europe that never gets talked about. They like to point their fingers to the US but what about themselves? I have even had discussions with continental Europeans and had them ask me about the US and it's problem with racism..uh excuse me? The US' problem? Why are they so concerned about our problems?
In Spain they set fire to African homes and businesses...the ETA murders gov official..in France French born jews are leaving in droves ..why?..In Germany neo nazi's walked up to a black man and shot him dead in front of his child..Italians.. as in groups of them..are notorious for singing racial slurs to any non anglo footballer....Swiss companies advertise their employment with requests that only native German speakers apply..several European countries are known for their mistreatment of the Roma... shall I go on?
All one has to do is take a look around Europe and see what political parties/groups have been gaining popularity to know what is happening over there. Europe has become increasingly xenophobic and I am so glad we left when we did.
I have been to the holocaust museum in DC as a family pilgrimage kind of thing...I stood in there and wept with all the other visitors and I do not know how anyone can take witness to this history and not feel a great gratitude to those who helped end the genocide. I would be the first to admit that the US did not enter wwII in order to end the Holocaust..but to me the motivations are not the most important issue.
QUOTE
(Did we fail in the Balkans?)
Um yes..this war exemplifies Europe's failures and her most basic differing views from America.
Racism is a pretty ugly thing in Europe that never gets talked about. They like to point their fingers to the US but what about themselves? I have even had discussions with continental Europeans and had them ask me about the US and it's problem with racism..uh excuse me? The US' problem? Why are they so concerned about our problems?
In Spain they set fire to African homes and businesses...the ETA murders gov official..in France French born jews are leaving in droves ..why?..In Germany neo nazi's walked up to a black man and shot him dead in front of his child..Italians.. as in groups of them..are notorious for singing racial slurs to any non anglo footballer....Swiss companies advertise their employment with requests that only native German speakers apply..several European countries are known for their mistreatment of the Roma... shall I go on?
All one has to do is take a look around Europe and see what political parties/groups have been gaining popularity to know what is happening over there. Europe has become increasingly xenophobic and I am so glad we left when we did.
QUOTE
Europe has become increasingly xenophobic
I don't know if there has been an increase in xenophobia. I won't deny that it exists, with or without reasons though. Its roots go deep in the past and in the daily life of Europeans.
A poll released today by the European commission revealed some interesting figures. 7000 Europeans were interrogated, and according to more than half of them, Israel is the number 1 enemy of peace in the middle east.
Furthermore, when asked which countries are currently menacing world peace, they said :
1. North Korea
2. Iran
3. United States of America (yep, no kidding)
Of course, Israel was shocked and claimed that Europe was anti-semitic. I do think they're wrong. Europeans condemn the policies of the Sharon government, but not the Jews as people. According to the various reactions I've seen around the globe, I would say that there are still feelings of victimization from the Jews themselves. And quite frankly, I don't know if that will help racists to like them better.
About the US, the same analysis applies. It is Bush and its actions which are condemned in the poll, not the Americans as such.
Of course, the EU representatives say that they condemn the poll and that it doesn't reflect their policies and opinion with Israel. I wonder if they're not doing too much about it after all... would they say the same if Syria had been put in the place of Israel? I doubt it.
Somehow, it seems politically incorrect to admit that some anti-semitists in your country. Since the end of WW2, Jews have become untouchable and taboo because of the Shoa. I'm afraid they're alienating their community in the end, instead of becoming citizens like all others.
Here is a link in English about the Survey : International Herald Tribune
QUOTE
Somehow, it seems politically incorrect to admit that some anti-semitists in your country. Since the end of WW2, Jews have become untouchable and taboo because of the Shoa. I'm afraid they're alienating their community in the end, instead of becoming citizens like all others
Huh?
Sorry having computer problems and it posted before I could add anything at all....
I hope this is not meant the way it sounds. I know I read reports from France the govt officials were asking Jews not to wear their skullcaps so that they are not easy targets for violent attacks done in the name of anti-semitism. I know I have also read reports that the French schools were thinking of requesting that Muslim girls not wear their head coverings.
To have a free and open society is to have acceptance of all kinds of people. Not to define what a citizen should look like or dress like and how they should practice their religion. That is left up to the citizens themselves to decide. That is the essence of freedom
Also I do not feel this is off topic because one of the questions asked by the topic starter was if Europe had failed..and if the Balkans was a representation of this. And I feel it is true. I feel as if freedom of society in it's truest form has not been accomplished in Europe.
I really hope you do not take my comments negatively or meant in any manner to bash Europeans , as I am British myself
It is just something that I experienced first hand or took witness to and is to me one of the only great failures and hinderances to European society. I also feel sexism is unfortunately less resolved in Europe than any of the other western nations. But that probably would be off topic
QUOTE
Somehow, it seems politically incorrect to admit that some anti-semitists in your country. Since the end of WW2, Jews have become untouchable and taboo because of the Shoa. I'm afraid they're alienating their community in the end, instead of becoming citizens like all others.
What I meant was that the association between Jews, recurrent anti-semitism in Europe and the Shoa are constant in the media here. My very personal opinion is that I wish politicians and journalists could see beyond that point, instead of turning Jews into eternal victims of human hatred and mixing their fate with the current policies of Israel.
It just makes things confused and unclear. I wouldn't be surprised to hear some Palestinians complain and feel even more resentment against Jews, because their own suffering seems lessened or denied in comparison.
Anyway Bucket, your comments were welcome. Don't worry, I didn't think you meant to 'bash' Europeans. Everyone has an opinion and a right to express it... and disagree sometimes.
QUOTE
To have a free and open society is to have acceptance of all kinds of people. Not to define what a citizen should look like or dress like and how they should practice their religion. That is left up to the citizens themselves to decide. That is the essence of freedom
In France, the situation and appreciation of democracy is a bit different than yours. We take great pride in the separation between the state and the church (and any kind of religion actually). In other words, the law supersedes any religious beliefs. Practically, it brings equal justice and freedom to all by offering a common reference, beyond the differences of religions.
That's the reason why we have a law that prohibits children and teenagers in schools from showing their belonging to their religion if it's too blatant, because it's considered discriminatory. The typical examples would be : Christian crosses, Jewish skullcaps (kippa) and Muslim head coverings (chador).
The citizens representatives voted that law, in complete respect of the rules of democracy. Like you said, it is the essence of freedom, but from a different point of view.
QUOTE
What I meant was that the association between Jews, recurrent anti-semitism in Europe and the Shoa are constant in the media here. My very personal opinion is that I wish politicians and journalists could see beyond that point, instead of turning Jews into eternal victims of human hatred and mixing their fate with the current policies of Israel.
Well blacks, slavery and their suffering before the human rights movement is still an issue here in the US. That is because it is a part of our history and ultimately a piece of our making. You can not just move beyond it until it is no longer an issue. Obviously in France anti-semitism is still an issue. And your laws reflect this. <---that is in reference to the new hate crime laws France enacted.
Besides I have seen EuroNews gobs and the plight and just outright horror of the daily lives of the Palestinians is always top headline news. Europeans report far more in favor of the Palestinian side than they do the Israelis'.
QUOTE
In France, the situation and appreciation of democracy is a bit different than yours. We take great pride in the separation between the state and the church (and any kind of religion actually). In other words, the law supersedes any religious beliefs. Practically, it brings equal justice and freedom to all by offering a common reference, beyond the differences of religions.
That's the reason why we have a law that prohibits children and teenagers in schools from showing their belonging to their religion if it's too blatant, because it's considered discriminatory. The typical examples would be : Christian crosses, Jewish skullcaps (kippa) and Muslim head coverings (chador).
That's the reason why we have a law that prohibits children and teenagers in schools from showing their belonging to their religion if it's too blatant, because it's considered discriminatory. The typical examples would be : Christian crosses, Jewish skullcaps (kippa) and Muslim head coverings (chador).
Right... but don't you have national holidays in France for Christian holidays? I know when I lived in CH we got several holidays which were solely holidays only celebrated by those of Christian faith that America would never ever consider making a national or public holiday. So aren't the school children also observing these national holidays? Really I am curious.
One of the religious holidays I believe it was on Good Friday or something like this one of my husband's co-workers (my dh at the time worked with stuff involving the world stock markets) said to me "ohh but the godless American's stock market is still open". ..and I found that ever so peculiar that anyone in Europe would ever consider Americans godless because they are anything but...yet the American govt is far more godless in that respect than the Europeans'.
Also the request that Jews refrain from wearing their kippahs was just in situations like wandering around town, out shopping doing your banking ....you know... out living your life.
We're drifting here. Let's get back to debating the original questions.
Since America has helped so many other nations, (mine included) what do all these nations (morally?) owe in return?
::::::::
Have we, Europeans, succeeded because we have kept the peace? (Did we fail in the Balkans?)
Or do we owe more?
Thanks
Since America has helped so many other nations, (mine included) what do all these nations (morally?) owe in return?
::::::::
Have we, Europeans, succeeded because we have kept the peace? (Did we fail in the Balkans?)
Or do we owe more?
Thanks
QUOTE(Horyok @ Nov 4 2003, 11:10 AM)
QUOTE
Europe has become increasingly xenophobic
I don't know if there has been an increase in xenophobia. I won't deny that it exists, with or without reasons though. Its roots go deep in the past and in the daily life of Europeans.
A poll released today by the European commission revealed some interesting figures. 7000 Europeans were interrogated, and according to more than half of them, Israel is the number 1 enemy of peace in the middle east.
Furthermore, when asked which countries are currently menacing world peace, they said :
1. North Korea
2. Iran
3. United States of America (yep, no kidding)
So they poll 7000 Europeans out of the huge number of people in all of Europe....plus...how many of those polled were muslim radicals? France and Germany are loaded with them. That'll kinda swing the poll towards some bias
QUOTE
Of course, Israel was shocked and claimed that Europe was anti-semitic. Europeans condemn the policies of the Sharon government, but not the Jews as people.
Yes...they condem the policies of the Sharon government, but do they condem the policies of the Arafat government? Sure they do...but they just stick a resolution into the UN's nose telling them to condem Israel for bombing Arafat's Ramallah compound, but meanwhile, do they do the same when Hamas bombs a bus full of women and children?
Nope!
Anyway, getting back on topic:
I think that all the nations we liberated should feel gratitude to America because we sacrificed lives so that they can live in freedom and not fear
I'm surprised that not one person has mentioned our involvement in the world wars was, in part, a demonstration of our collective gratitude to Europeans. They did create this country both directly and indirectly. How many of us are first, second, third generation progeny from Europe? I can't think of a thing Europeans owe us...except regard and respect as an ally, as we owe them.
Gracie mille
Gracie mille
QUOTE(Horyok)
In France, the situation and appreciation of democracy is a bit different than yours. We take great pride in the separation between the state and the church (and any kind of religion actually). In other words, the law supersedes any religious beliefs. Practically, it brings equal justice and freedom to all by offering a common reference, beyond the differences of religions.
That's the reason why we have a law that prohibits children and teenagers in schools from showing their belonging to their religion if it's too blatant, because it's considered discriminatory. The typical examples would be : Christian crosses, Jewish skullcaps (kippa) and Muslim head coverings (chador).
The citizens representatives voted that law, in complete respect of the rules of democracy. Like you said, it is the essence of freedom, but from a different point of view.
That's the reason why we have a law that prohibits children and teenagers in schools from showing their belonging to their religion if it's too blatant, because it's considered discriminatory. The typical examples would be : Christian crosses, Jewish skullcaps (kippa) and Muslim head coverings (chador).
The citizens representatives voted that law, in complete respect of the rules of democracy. Like you said, it is the essence of freedom, but from a different point of view.
I had no idea that this situation existed, and quite frankly, it appalls me. What possible excuse can the state have to prevent people from wearing religious clothing at school? One's body is his own, and he should be able to control it, provided that he is not physically harming anyone else. This is especially important in regards to expressing deeply held convictions. How is this "the essense of freedom" at all, as you say? It's not freedom for the people who want to wear crosses around their necks but can't. It's oppression.
FINAL WARNING -
Get this thread back on topic or we close it.
QUESTIONS TO DEBATE:
Since America has helped so many other nations, (mine included) what do all these nations (morally?) owe in return?
::::::::
Have we, Europeans, succeeded because we have kept the peace? (Did we fail in the Balkans?)
Or do we owe more?
Get this thread back on topic or we close it.
QUESTIONS TO DEBATE:
Since America has helped so many other nations, (mine included) what do all these nations (morally?) owe in return?
::::::::
Have we, Europeans, succeeded because we have kept the peace? (Did we fail in the Balkans?)
Or do we owe more?
I don't want this topic closed, so could we please keep the subject clear?
I am hoping to gain some understanding of how other nations consider their debt to America, and what Americans feel is owed (if anything).
Mrs P
Thats an interesting perspective, and not one which readily springs to my mind.
I know from Stephen Ambrose's book, 'Citizen Soldiers' (or it may have been 'Band of Brothers'... I'm not quite sure since I read them back to back) that something like a quarter of the US solders fighting in Europe, were themselves descendents of German immigrants, and a good portion of them still spoke German.
Many of these soldiers felt an empathy for the Germans because they felt a kinship with them. Far more so than with the French (according to the book) and in many cases even the English. Only the Dutch seem to have been more popular with the American GI's.
Whether this has any bearing on the soldiers actual attitude to why they were fighting in Europe I don't know, but I would love to hear the opinions of American soldiers who fought to defeat Hitler's Germany, regarding whether or not the Germans today have lived up to their moral obligation.
On the one hand, one could argue that since Germany is today a unified and strong democracy, then they have.
But on the other hand, Germany's resistence to the WOT may be seen in the opposite light, though this may be qualified by their contributions in Afghanistan.
With regards to American gratitude though, I am undecided. I don't really see how Americans owe much in the way of gratitude to Europeans, except perhaps to the French for helping the fledging union defeat the British, but I fear that by saying this, I reveal my ignorance of America history since I am unsure as to the actual extent of French aid to the USA.
Either way, it matters not (to my understanding) since its one thing to send aid to a struggling country and quite another to lay down the lives of thousands of men in their prime of life to liberate a country.
And frankly, considering that France has twice been bailed out by the British and Americans, I feel that France, though perhaps justified, has proven herself ungrateful. Its not that I think the French are wrong... I don't see this matter as being a simple case of right or wrong, but rather that their approach to the matter was crass... blunt, crude....
So whilst I distance myself from GW Bush and his insulting rhetoric, I feel that (in particular) the French have acted even worse.
I suppose I could construed as displaying a confusing double standard here, since I am pointing the finger at both parties. But I take more offence at the French attitude than the American, because I am European, and as such, the French position reflects badly on me as well.
I am hoping to gain some understanding of how other nations consider their debt to America, and what Americans feel is owed (if anything).
Mrs P
QUOTE
I'm surprised that not one person has mentioned our involvement in the world wars was, in part, a demonstration of our collective gratitude to Europeans. They did create this country both directly and indirectly. How many of us are first, second, third generation progeny from Europe? I can't think of a thing Europeans owe us...except regard and respect as an ally, as we owe them.
Thats an interesting perspective, and not one which readily springs to my mind.
I know from Stephen Ambrose's book, 'Citizen Soldiers' (or it may have been 'Band of Brothers'... I'm not quite sure since I read them back to back) that something like a quarter of the US solders fighting in Europe, were themselves descendents of German immigrants, and a good portion of them still spoke German.
Many of these soldiers felt an empathy for the Germans because they felt a kinship with them. Far more so than with the French (according to the book) and in many cases even the English. Only the Dutch seem to have been more popular with the American GI's.
Whether this has any bearing on the soldiers actual attitude to why they were fighting in Europe I don't know, but I would love to hear the opinions of American soldiers who fought to defeat Hitler's Germany, regarding whether or not the Germans today have lived up to their moral obligation.
On the one hand, one could argue that since Germany is today a unified and strong democracy, then they have.
But on the other hand, Germany's resistence to the WOT may be seen in the opposite light, though this may be qualified by their contributions in Afghanistan.
With regards to American gratitude though, I am undecided. I don't really see how Americans owe much in the way of gratitude to Europeans, except perhaps to the French for helping the fledging union defeat the British, but I fear that by saying this, I reveal my ignorance of America history since I am unsure as to the actual extent of French aid to the USA.
Either way, it matters not (to my understanding) since its one thing to send aid to a struggling country and quite another to lay down the lives of thousands of men in their prime of life to liberate a country.
And frankly, considering that France has twice been bailed out by the British and Americans, I feel that France, though perhaps justified, has proven herself ungrateful. Its not that I think the French are wrong... I don't see this matter as being a simple case of right or wrong, but rather that their approach to the matter was crass... blunt, crude....
So whilst I distance myself from GW Bush and his insulting rhetoric, I feel that (in particular) the French have acted even worse.
I suppose I could construed as displaying a confusing double standard here, since I am pointing the finger at both parties. But I take more offence at the French attitude than the American, because I am European, and as such, the French position reflects badly on me as well.
QUOTE
I suppose I could construed as displaying a confusing double standard here, since I am pointing the finger at both parties. But I take more offence at the French attitude than the American, because I am European, and as such, the French position reflects badly on me as well.
It is indeed your opinion, Moif.
I'd like to remind our readers that the project of European constitution introduces a common foreign policy for the EU. For the time being, all the countries of the EU express their opinions individually.
I agree that France's and Germany's opposition to war had some impact on Europe as a whole. But Britain's and Spain's commitment had an impact too, if I remember correctly.
I believe things will improve when we all speak as one, because our speech to the world will be clearer.
The World owes us a great deal! Why, if it wasn't for the United States, we'd all be speaking German! Or maybe Japanese. Spanish? Italian? Whatever.
We give freely and without strings billions of bucks to all sorts of countries with only their best interests in mind. We are a selfless nation, the Leaders of the Free World! We invented the United Nations by gosh, and . . .
(Due to homland security interests, this poster has been returned to his padded cell.)
We give freely and without strings billions of bucks to all sorts of countries with only their best interests in mind. We are a selfless nation, the Leaders of the Free World! We invented the United Nations by gosh, and . . .
(Due to homland security interests, this poster has been returned to his padded cell.)
In case any one is interested here is another link to the story regarding Thule AFB.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3236083.stm
Horyok
What do you mean by this sentence?
I don't think political unity should make any difference at this stage. Whether we speak with one voice or many, our response should be appropriate.
If we believe in freedom, and democracy, and if we honour those who preserved our freedom and democracy, then our words, if not our actions, should reflect that.
Chirac and Shroeder revealed their churlish nature when they so blatently ignore America's struggle.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3236083.stm
Horyok
QUOTE
It is indeed your opinion, Moif.
What do you mean by this sentence?QUOTE
I believe things will improve when we all speak as one, because our speech to the world will be clearer.
I don't think political unity should make any difference at this stage. Whether we speak with one voice or many, our response should be appropriate.
If we believe in freedom, and democracy, and if we honour those who preserved our freedom and democracy, then our words, if not our actions, should reflect that.
Chirac and Shroeder revealed their churlish nature when they so blatently ignore America's struggle.
In a broader sense, does anyone feel that France and to a bit lesser extent, Germany, have split-ideologically speaking, with the US?
This may be off topic a little but could be the root of why allegiance and loyalties have become seriously damaged.
DOES democracy and freedom mean the same to America and France anymore?
If the fundamental principals of "democracy and freedom" has changed between the two then the interests of our "Allies" has changed as to something other than support or feelings of "gratitude" towards America.
This may be off topic a little but could be the root of why allegiance and loyalties have become seriously damaged.
DOES democracy and freedom mean the same to America and France anymore?
If the fundamental principals of "democracy and freedom" has changed between the two then the interests of our "Allies" has changed as to something other than support or feelings of "gratitude" towards America.
Frankly, I don't know if the French have ever believed in the same ideas of freedom and democracy as the Americans/ British.
They certainly have an idea of it, since they fought a revolution or two over the matter, but what it actually means to them, I can't be sure.
From my Anglophile perspective, France seems to resent everything Britain and America stand for, but whether this is due to a lack of empathy, or to a bloated sense of self importance I do not know. But as my Father says, the French are bloody useless because they are always in the way, and never help out.
To some extent I agree with him, because right now, I can't think of a single instance where success was reached because France helped out...
As for the Germans, well they are some what easier to understand (at least for a Dane). Germany still bears the stigma of the second world war, and most of the population are pacificist by nature because of this.
Germany has however provided assistence in Afghanistan, so its not simply a matter of being awkward, (as I suspect is the case with France) but more a matter of conscience.
They certainly have an idea of it, since they fought a revolution or two over the matter, but what it actually means to them, I can't be sure.
From my Anglophile perspective, France seems to resent everything Britain and America stand for, but whether this is due to a lack of empathy, or to a bloated sense of self importance I do not know. But as my Father says, the French are bloody useless because they are always in the way, and never help out.
To some extent I agree with him, because right now, I can't think of a single instance where success was reached because France helped out...
As for the Germans, well they are some what easier to understand (at least for a Dane). Germany still bears the stigma of the second world war, and most of the population are pacificist by nature because of this.
Germany has however provided assistence in Afghanistan, so its not simply a matter of being awkward, (as I suspect is the case with France) but more a matter of conscience.
Once again Moif, this is your opinion. And I mean what I mean.
QUOTE(moif @ Nov 5 2003, 11:25 AM)
Frankly, I don't know if the French have ever believed in the same ideas of freedom and democracy as the Americans/ British.
I don't think they do. Chirac is an egotistical nut who threatened EU candidates about supporting us in Iraq (which goes to show his view of Democracy and personal liberties).
QUOTE
As for the Germans, well they are some what easier to understand (at least for a Dane). Germany still bears the stigma of the second world war, and most of the population are pacificist by nature because of this.
They are pacifists for 2 reasons. 1: You already stated it. 2: Because they can not do a thing militarily unless the UN says so, as part of post-WWII treaties.
QUOTE
But as my Father says, the French are bloody useless because they are always in the way, and never help out.
A wise man he was!
QUOTE
To some extent I agree with him, because right now, I can't think of a single instance where success was reached because France helped out...
American revolution. The French were there...partly. And then, when the Brits decided to torch D.C. in 1812, the French were there again with their pitchforks.
I wonder then Horyok, why did France (from a purely humanitarian stance) see the moral justification in trading with, defending and otherwise facilitating Saddam Hussein and regime to stay in power knowing full well that this regime was raping, torturing, shoving people feet first in shredders, killing off family members of political opposition, attempting to attain wmd, denying any freedoms while using france's money from "oil for food" programs if France believed in Democracy AND freedom?
there's the split in ideology Horyok. It's not happened once but throughout the last couple of decades.
I don't hate french people btw, I just find france's govt despicable
there's the split in ideology Horyok. It's not happened once but throughout the last couple of decades.
I don't hate french people btw, I just find france's govt despicable
Well this really isn't another bash the french thread, but lets get some things straight. France traded with Saddam, and so did the U.S. Nations act in their own self-interest all the time. The idea that we should despise them for this (or show gratitude) is perplexing. Sure, America helped Europe after WW2. Lets not forget the fact that this was largely a part of containment.
I choose to demonstrate gratitude when a nation acts ABOVE it's own interests. There are cases of Americans doing that for sure; but I don't see any clear evidence of the American government doing that recently.
I choose to demonstrate gratitude when a nation acts ABOVE it's own interests. There are cases of Americans doing that for sure; but I don't see any clear evidence of the American government doing that recently.
has nothing whatsoever to to do with bashing "the french." your reading comprehension is short circuiting. Read the post again.
you have pretty much made it clear in content and that you have no love lost for america. that's fine. we'll survive.
the thread is about gratitude to america by those who america has helped. France being one of them. My point is that based on differences in what Freedom and Democracy mean to the US govt and France's govt, France, ie: Chirac has taken the low road to that end. That being said this "difference" as it presents itself in the policies of Chirac in dealing with Saddam and the like, would most likely prevent gratitude ever being shown as our paths have now divided.
Whatever the reason for Chirac taking this low road is moot. That our governments differ drastically on the meaning of democracy and freedom is the larger issue.
gratitude from France is really not expected.
you have pretty much made it clear in content and that you have no love lost for america. that's fine. we'll survive.
the thread is about gratitude to america by those who america has helped. France being one of them. My point is that based on differences in what Freedom and Democracy mean to the US govt and France's govt, France, ie: Chirac has taken the low road to that end. That being said this "difference" as it presents itself in the policies of Chirac in dealing with Saddam and the like, would most likely prevent gratitude ever being shown as our paths have now divided.
Whatever the reason for Chirac taking this low road is moot. That our governments differ drastically on the meaning of democracy and freedom is the larger issue.
gratitude from France is really not expected.
QUOTE(moif @ Nov 2 2003, 08:12 PM)
Here's a simple question thats never really been answered...
Since America has helped so many other nations, (mine included) what do all these nations (morally?) owe in return?
I'm asking this on the back ground of the war in Iraq of course, but also because I watched 'Saving Private Ryan' this night. In the film, Captain Miller as he's dying, tells Ryan, to 'earn this'.
Ryan does this by doing the best he can, but is unsure as he stands before Millers grave, fifty years later, if he has succeeded.
Have we, Europeans, succeeded because we have kept the peace? (Did we fail in the Balkans?)
Or do we owe more?
Since America has helped so many other nations, (mine included) what do all these nations (morally?) owe in return?
I'm asking this on the back ground of the war in Iraq of course, but also because I watched 'Saving Private Ryan' this night. In the film, Captain Miller as he's dying, tells Ryan, to 'earn this'.
Ryan does this by doing the best he can, but is unsure as he stands before Millers grave, fifty years later, if he has succeeded.
Have we, Europeans, succeeded because we have kept the peace? (Did we fail in the Balkans?)
Or do we owe more?
The only thing that countries that the US [or any country, for that matter] has helped should owe us is the MONEY that we have either loaned or GIVEN those countries, it is ridiculous how much money we just give away and don't really ask for back, we should start doing that.
CP
Horyok
Now I get you. For a while I couldn't tell if you were actually agreeing with me...
GoAmerica
Why are you refering to Chirac in specific if you are talking about the French in general?
Chirac only represents the focus of the French government. You cannot use him as a gauge for the French people...
er... he's still alive actually...
Conservpat
Thats it? your concerned about the money America is owed??
How about the money America owes?
Should you not be more concerned about that?
QUOTE
Once again Moif, this is your opinion. And I mean what I mean.
Now I get you. For a while I couldn't tell if you were actually agreeing with me...
GoAmerica
QUOTE
I don't think they do. Chirac is an egotistical nut who threatened EU candidates about supporting us in Iraq (which goes to show his view of Democracy and personal liberties).
Why are you refering to Chirac in specific if you are talking about the French in general?
Chirac only represents the focus of the French government. You cannot use him as a gauge for the French people...
QUOTE
A wise man he was!
er... he's still alive actually...
Conservpat
Thats it? your concerned about the money America is owed??
How about the money America owes?
Should you not be more concerned about that?
QUOTE(SoCaliente_1 @ Nov 5 2003, 10:53 AM)
I wonder then Horyok, why did France (from a purely humanitarian stance) see the moral justification in trading with, defending and otherwise facilitating Saddam Hussein and regime to stay in power knowing full well that this regime was raping, torturing, shoving people feet first in shredders, killing off family members of political opposition, attempting to attain wmd, denying any freedoms while using france's money from "oil for food" programs if France believed in Democracy AND freedom?
there's the split in ideology Horyok. It's not happened once but throughout the last couple of decades.
I don't hate french people btw, I just find france's govt despicable
there's the split in ideology Horyok. It's not happened once but throughout the last couple of decades.
I don't hate french people btw, I just find france's govt despicable
There may be a difference in how France and America view freedom and democracy. I doubt it, but maybe. What I do know is that your example makes no sense. Why? Because then how do you justify our trading with and support of
Suharto
The Saud Family
Uzbekistan
Pakistan
Pinochet
Look, I could go on, but is it necessary? We've all done "deals with the devil." Am I justifying France's deals with Saddam? No. I am saying that people living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Everyone owes everyone gratitude. That's my take.
QUOTE(SoCaliente_1 @ Nov 5 2003, 06:53 PM)
I wonder then Horyok, why did France (from a purely humanitarian stance) see the moral justification in trading with, defending and otherwise facilitating Saddam Hussein and regime to stay in power knowing full well that this regime was raping, torturing, shoving people feet first in shredders, killing off family members of political opposition, attempting to attain wmd, denying any freedoms while using france's money from "oil for food" programs if France believed in Democracy AND freedom?
there's the split in ideology Horyok. It's not happened once but throughout the last couple of decades.
I don't hate french people btw, I just find france's govt despicable
there's the split in ideology Horyok. It's not happened once but throughout the last couple of decades.
I don't hate french people btw, I just find france's govt despicable
This is almost like the pot calling the kettle black. Sure France has done some things that I disagree with,but should we as Americans cast stones,if we live in a glass house. And most assurely we do.
America has done so many things underhanded for years such as
Killing the president of South Vietnam and having someone we picked to replace him
Helping Iraq during the Iraq and Iran war and giving them arms
Selling to Iran to get money to help the contras in Central America
Propping up the Shah in Iran for decades
Helping Nazi escape Europe after wwII, to get their brain power
Massacring the Indians way back in the 1800's and repeatedly lying and breaking our treaties when it benefited us.
So, we can't say about France what we have aren't done ourselves. We don't need to show arrogance(such as Bush as indicated)to the French. That is no way to act in a civilized world.
quarkhead:
Of course America has made mistakes in ythe past. We have to learn from those mistakes. And of course we trade with the wrong people. Blame the bureacrats and the politicians (they are one in the same sometimes) not the people of the US. We deal with Pakistan because they hate the Taliban (now) and we put up with the Saudis because of oil.
Anyways, not everyone owes everyone gratitude. Do we owe the UN gratitude for taking over the business in Afghanistan? No. Why? because ever since then, Afghanistan has been deteriorating and all the UN does is make reports about it.
Of course America has made mistakes in ythe past. We have to learn from those mistakes. And of course we trade with the wrong people. Blame the bureacrats and the politicians (they are one in the same sometimes) not the people of the US. We deal with Pakistan because they hate the Taliban (now) and we put up with the Saudis because of oil.
Anyways, not everyone owes everyone gratitude. Do we owe the UN gratitude for taking over the business in Afghanistan? No. Why? because ever since then, Afghanistan has been deteriorating and all the UN does is make reports about it.
I hate to ask that, but do you deliberately find ways to disparage the U.N. without providing any proof? Because that comment certainly seems like a non sequitor.
This is not true. The two are entirely groups that work in close proximity. They often act like one another but they are NOT the same.
Aside from the U.N., who "owes" gratitude?
QUOTE
Blame the bureacrats and the politicians (they are one in the same sometimes)
This is not true. The two are entirely groups that work in close proximity. They often act like one another but they are NOT the same.
QUOTE
Anyways, not everyone owes everyone gratitude.
Aside from the U.N., who "owes" gratitude?
Gratitude to America sends us straight back into the memories of wars of the 20th century.
We will always remember the foreigners who fell on our soil, whether they were Americans, Canadians, English and all others. They gave their life into the war and the result of their sacrifice is that we are free nations in Europe today. We remember our own dead too, if they were civilians in the Resistance or soldiers on the front. We remember the Germans too, who died for a wrong cause.
Where I live in Northern France, there are around a hundred military graveyards spread out throughout the entire region. This means that thousands are there. You can recognize them because of all the white crosses and the impeccable cleanliness of each places.
My county has suffered horribly from the two world wars. During WW1, the front was spreading on miles and miles. Hundred of thousands died of their wounds, gas, cold, disease, food deprivation and despair. That happened less than a century ago. When you look at the wheat fields and the meadows under the sun, it's hard to imagine. But it happened nonetheless.
21 years later, WW2 came. During that time, Northern France was part of the Red Zone, a land spreading from there and including Belgium and the Netherlands (maybe Denmark, but I'm not sure). Hitler thought that we locals could be 'reshaped' to become part of the Arian race. The result was that the occupation was horrible and the Resistance, fierce. Again, too many died. Some died in sabotage acts, some died in combat, some died because of German retaliation, some were arrested by the Gestapo (my grandfather) and deported to camps, some were deported as workforce in Germany. Families were split for months or years, without news or hope...
Today, we remember the dead. On the 11th of November, we remember WW1. On May the 8th, we remember the second one. We remember the ones that were lost in the war, and we share the memories because the generation of my grandparents lived it.
Today, I'm grateful to the Americans who came and helped put an end to the madness. And I'm equally grateful to those who came along with them. And moreover, I'm grateful to all who resisted when all hope was gone.
In the end, I don't think French people are "bloody useless". How can someone say that of anybody? That's from someone who doesn't know us enough. Actually, there are a few of these "bloody useless" I would die for, even if I'm "bloody useless" myself.
We will always remember the foreigners who fell on our soil, whether they were Americans, Canadians, English and all others. They gave their life into the war and the result of their sacrifice is that we are free nations in Europe today. We remember our own dead too, if they were civilians in the Resistance or soldiers on the front. We remember the Germans too, who died for a wrong cause.
Where I live in Northern France, there are around a hundred military graveyards spread out throughout the entire region. This means that thousands are there. You can recognize them because of all the white crosses and the impeccable cleanliness of each places.
My county has suffered horribly from the two world wars. During WW1, the front was spreading on miles and miles. Hundred of thousands died of their wounds, gas, cold, disease, food deprivation and despair. That happened less than a century ago. When you look at the wheat fields and the meadows under the sun, it's hard to imagine. But it happened nonetheless.
21 years later, WW2 came. During that time, Northern France was part of the Red Zone, a land spreading from there and including Belgium and the Netherlands (maybe Denmark, but I'm not sure). Hitler thought that we locals could be 'reshaped' to become part of the Arian race. The result was that the occupation was horrible and the Resistance, fierce. Again, too many died. Some died in sabotage acts, some died in combat, some died because of German retaliation, some were arrested by the Gestapo (my grandfather) and deported to camps, some were deported as workforce in Germany. Families were split for months or years, without news or hope...
Today, we remember the dead. On the 11th of November, we remember WW1. On May the 8th, we remember the second one. We remember the ones that were lost in the war, and we share the memories because the generation of my grandparents lived it.
Today, I'm grateful to the Americans who came and helped put an end to the madness. And I'm equally grateful to those who came along with them. And moreover, I'm grateful to all who resisted when all hope was gone.
In the end, I don't think French people are "bloody useless". How can someone say that of anybody? That's from someone who doesn't know us enough. Actually, there are a few of these "bloody useless" I would die for, even if I'm "bloody useless" myself.
QUOTE
In the end, I don't think French people are "bloody useless". How can someone say that of anybody?
Thats the opinion my father apparently holds. What he bases it on, I'm not entirely sure, but I understand it to mean the French nation rather than individual French people.
Many other people say the same about the Americans (that they are an awful nation, but very nice people)
For my own part, I've heard of far too many stories, both from individuals (including French) and from the media, regarding the attitude (arrogance?) of France (You must bear in mind though, that I also grew up in England) to draw any other conclusion but that these stories are based in truth.
For example, I've heard several times, from different sources, that the reason why Europe does not have a more developed space industry is because France has monoplozied the ESA and the Arianne project and continues to resist any outside influence. Its been said to be easier for other European nations to send payloads into orbit on American and Russian lifters rather than have to put up with the arrogance and obstruction of the French beaurocratic nightmare.
Another example, is when France blocked Britains entrance into the EEC, twice, for no apparent reason but Charles de Gaul's (sp?) apparent desire to control the union.
Another example, is France's insistance that all EU matters be transposed to French, despite the fact that few other people in the EU actually speak French, where as just about every one speaks English, or have at least a rudimentry understanding of it. If the EU is to be a single federal union, then it will need an official common language, that language should be English, because English is more practical.
In many ways, France has given the impression that it does not feel the kinship which is so obvious between other EU nations and America.
As you quite rightly point out, this is only conjecture and opinion, but to be brutally honest, I would not miss France if she were to leave the EU, in my mind, that nation is the biggest obstacle to true European, and western unity.
quark -
no doubt america does have some skeletons and have been admitting to them something France has yet to do.
What I am talking about is IRAQ. Going tit for tat on every relationship with violators of international law and the worst of the worst in human rights, France would STILL come out on top.
Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein. I could go on also, but why bother. In many instances where France COULD have been helpful in eliminating these rouges, they've embraced them. why is that? I'm curious.
for 12 years...need I continue? If "Saddam" can be compared to the aforementioned men in brutality...and I challenge any to explain how he could not... his desire to dominate a region and hatred of democracy and freedom then HE is what France chose to side WITH as opposed to the US and UK who represent Democracy and Freedom. There has been an anti-americanism sentiment within the French Govt that is not new.
As to the other countries you've mentioned. Pinochet being the worst and yet Pinochet came to power by overthrowing Allende who was propped up by the Communist party and was no angel himself where it came to killing off landowners and the middle class. that aside those countries, for the most part had not the history of a Saddam. 12 years contentious, murderous expansionist behavior, terrorist support and so on. France in '90 (the Gulf War 1), to the LAST minute, rallied to Saddam's defence while Kuwaitis were being butchered. How was he to be contained? The French govt was unconcerned as it continue to push for lifting sanctions and NOT for the sake of the Iraqi people. THIS is an ally for democracy and freedom? I would have to disagree.
The French govt has been at odds with democracy and freedom where the US was involved.
They are not allies of the US.
hmmm, off topic a little. sorry.
no doubt america does have some skeletons and have been admitting to them something France has yet to do.
What I am talking about is IRAQ. Going tit for tat on every relationship with violators of international law and the worst of the worst in human rights, France would STILL come out on top.
Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein. I could go on also, but why bother. In many instances where France COULD have been helpful in eliminating these rouges, they've embraced them. why is that? I'm curious.
for 12 years...need I continue? If "Saddam" can be compared to the aforementioned men in brutality...and I challenge any to explain how he could not... his desire to dominate a region and hatred of democracy and freedom then HE is what France chose to side WITH as opposed to the US and UK who represent Democracy and Freedom. There has been an anti-americanism sentiment within the French Govt that is not new.
As to the other countries you've mentioned. Pinochet being the worst and yet Pinochet came to power by overthrowing Allende who was propped up by the Communist party and was no angel himself where it came to killing off landowners and the middle class. that aside those countries, for the most part had not the history of a Saddam. 12 years contentious, murderous expansionist behavior, terrorist support and so on. France in '90 (the Gulf War 1), to the LAST minute, rallied to Saddam's defence while Kuwaitis were being butchered. How was he to be contained? The French govt was unconcerned as it continue to push for lifting sanctions and NOT for the sake of the Iraqi people. THIS is an ally for democracy and freedom? I would have to disagree.
The French govt has been at odds with democracy and freedom where the US was involved.
They are not allies of the US.
hmmm, off topic a little. sorry.
Okay Moif, point taken.
At least know that you're talking to a Euro-optimist and that if I were president of my country I would deal with European and international affairs in a slightly different way than Chirac does. I happen to agree with some of his ideas, but not all of them. And he's way too clumsy. Somehow, he's turned the European Union into the European Dispute.
For the record, I've heard some people over the years talking badly about England, with comments like : "they're all inbreds on their island", "them beer-drinking hooligans", "the Germans are not our enemy, the Brits are", "England is the little dog of America"... etc, etc. I have to say some comments have me smile because they're so stupid. But I stay away from the people who said that because they're ignorant and most of them never set a single foot in England.
I was lucky enough to live in London from 1990 to 1994 and believe me, I've met many English folks during that time! Some are genuinely nice, some are incredibly stupid. I had the same experience when I lived for 6 months in the US in 1997. And If I were English, I guess a stay in Paris would bring the same results too!
Edited to comment about SoCal's last post
I'm afraid you're raving SoCal. 'Embraced' them? How can you say that?!?
Since you're curious, I'm going to satisfy your curiosity :
Stalin : the communist party sure supported Stalin, the rest of the population didn't. The rule of the Soviets was the nightmare of many during the Cold War, and not only the Americans.
Hitler : the Vichy government was a puppet of the Nazis while the French Resistance fought and suffered for 6 years. The citizens of France were never given a choice about the Nazis or Vichy. It was being put onto them and those who disagreed were tortured and shot by the invader or the militia!!!
Saddam Hussein : ??? How could we support a tyran??? Do I have to explain our position over and again? France vetoed the American resolution and policies because they were too bold and they were bypassing the UN processes (inspections) taking place in Iraq. France never said : "Let us Saddam alone".
Maybe the use of local and personal references is beyond your understanding, although my answers are enough to prove that your point is wrong because it's far too generic and doesn't apply to all.
You have strong opinions and I respect that. But this time, you were wrong.
My advice : Read History books and stop watching FoxNews.
At least know that you're talking to a Euro-optimist and that if I were president of my country I would deal with European and international affairs in a slightly different way than Chirac does. I happen to agree with some of his ideas, but not all of them. And he's way too clumsy. Somehow, he's turned the European Union into the European Dispute.
For the record, I've heard some people over the years talking badly about England, with comments like : "they're all inbreds on their island", "them beer-drinking hooligans", "the Germans are not our enemy, the Brits are", "England is the little dog of America"... etc, etc. I have to say some comments have me smile because they're so stupid. But I stay away from the people who said that because they're ignorant and most of them never set a single foot in England.
I was lucky enough to live in London from 1990 to 1994 and believe me, I've met many English folks during that time! Some are genuinely nice, some are incredibly stupid. I had the same experience when I lived for 6 months in the US in 1997. And If I were English, I guess a stay in Paris would bring the same results too!
Edited to comment about SoCal's last post
QUOTE
Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein. I could go on also, but why bother. In many instances where France COULD have been helpful in eliminating these rouges, they've embraced them. why is that? I'm curious.
I'm afraid you're raving SoCal. 'Embraced' them? How can you say that?!?
Since you're curious, I'm going to satisfy your curiosity :
Stalin : the communist party sure supported Stalin, the rest of the population didn't. The rule of the Soviets was the nightmare of many during the Cold War, and not only the Americans.
Hitler : the Vichy government was a puppet of the Nazis while the French Resistance fought and suffered for 6 years. The citizens of France were never given a choice about the Nazis or Vichy. It was being put onto them and those who disagreed were tortured and shot by the invader or the militia!!!
Saddam Hussein : ??? How could we support a tyran??? Do I have to explain our position over and again? France vetoed the American resolution and policies because they were too bold and they were bypassing the UN processes (inspections) taking place in Iraq. France never said : "Let us Saddam alone".
Maybe the use of local and personal references is beyond your understanding, although my answers are enough to prove that your point is wrong because it's far too generic and doesn't apply to all.
You have strong opinions and I respect that. But this time, you were wrong.
My advice : Read History books and stop watching FoxNews.
as much as you would like to Horyok, you really shouldn't take or make my opinions of your govt so personal. 
defend your country by all means. don't take it out on me by being insulting. grow up a little.
Raving?
fox watching?
too funny.
defend your country by all means. don't take it out on me by being insulting. grow up a little. Raving?
fox watching?
too funny.
Horyok & SoCal - don't force me to close this thread because you want to turn it into a personal spat. Keep it to the issues.
DEBATE QUESTIONS:
Since America has helped so many other nations, (mine included) what do all these nations (morally?) owe in return?
::::::::
Have we, Europeans, succeeded because we have kept the peace? (Did we fail in the Balkans?)
Or do we owe more?
DEBATE QUESTIONS:
Since America has helped so many other nations, (mine included) what do all these nations (morally?) owe in return?
::::::::
Have we, Europeans, succeeded because we have kept the peace? (Did we fail in the Balkans?)
Or do we owe more?
QUOTE(SoCaliente_1 @ Nov 6 2003, 03:53 PM)
quark -
no doubt america does have some skeletons and have been admitting to them something France has yet to do.
What I am talking about is IRAQ. Going tit for tat on every relationship with violators of international law and the worst of the worst in human rights, France would STILL come out on top.
Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein. I could go on also, but why bother. In many instances where France COULD have been helpful in eliminating these rouges, they've embraced them. why is that? I'm curious.
for 12 years...need I continue? If "Saddam" can be compared to the aforementioned men in brutality...and I challenge any to explain how he could not... his desire to dominate a region and hatred of democracy and freedom then HE is what France chose to side WITH as opposed to the US and UK who represent Democracy and Freedom. There has been an anti-americanism sentiment within the French Govt that is not new.
As to the other countries you've mentioned. Pinochet being the worst and yet Pinochet came to power by overthrowing Allende who was propped up by the Communist party and was no angel himself where it came to killing off landowners and the middle class. that aside those countries, for the most part had not the history of a Saddam. 12 years contentious, murderous expansionist behavior, terrorist support and so on. France in '90 (the Gulf War 1), to the LAST minute, rallied to Saddam's defence while Kuwaitis were being butchered. How was he to be contained? The French govt was unconcerned as it continue to push for lifting sanctions and NOT for the sake of the Iraqi people. THIS is an ally for democracy and freedom? I would have to disagree.
The French govt has been at odds with democracy and freedom where the US was involved.
They are not allies of the US.
hmmm, off topic a little. sorry.
no doubt america does have some skeletons and have been admitting to them something France has yet to do.
What I am talking about is IRAQ. Going tit for tat on every relationship with violators of international law and the worst of the worst in human rights, France would STILL come out on top.
Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein. I could go on also, but why bother. In many instances where France COULD have been helpful in eliminating these rouges, they've embraced them. why is that? I'm curious.
for 12 years...need I continue? If "Saddam" can be compared to the aforementioned men in brutality...and I challenge any to explain how he could not... his desire to dominate a region and hatred of democracy and freedom then HE is what France chose to side WITH as opposed to the US and UK who represent Democracy and Freedom. There has been an anti-americanism sentiment within the French Govt that is not new.
As to the other countries you've mentioned. Pinochet being the worst and yet Pinochet came to power by overthrowing Allende who was propped up by the Communist party and was no angel himself where it came to killing off landowners and the middle class. that aside those countries, for the most part had not the history of a Saddam. 12 years contentious, murderous expansionist behavior, terrorist support and so on. France in '90 (the Gulf War 1), to the LAST minute, rallied to Saddam's defence while Kuwaitis were being butchered. How was he to be contained? The French govt was unconcerned as it continue to push for lifting sanctions and NOT for the sake of the Iraqi people. THIS is an ally for democracy and freedom? I would have to disagree.
The French govt has been at odds with democracy and freedom where the US was involved.
They are not allies of the US.
hmmm, off topic a little. sorry.
Do other countries owe a gratitude to America. How far back do we need to go. In our recent history we have come to the aid of Europe during 2 world wars. But was that to help Europe or because he were brought into the war because of flagrant accidents against us by the Germans and Japanese.
If we go back further in history, we probably would not be who we are today without the help of France during the American Revolution.
So are we keeping a tab on who owes who,like children,or continuing to do what ever we consider is the correct response.
Yes American has some skeletons,but how many have we admitted. Very very few. But yet replying that France has yet to do. That almost sounds like games I used to play when I was a kid. Well I will go on and say it. It is childish.
I don't desire to even guess who owes who. That is not ,in my opinion, how a mature person or country(can i say that?)should think.
It probably is just a figment of my imagination that all countries and individual will one day talk to each other with respect and well intentions.
QUOTE
What I am talking about is IRAQ. Going tit for tat on every relationship with violators of international law and the worst of the worst in human rights, France would STILL come out on top.
I would like to see info to back up the statement 'that France would still come out on top.
I believe I answered the question thusly:
there are countries who, right now, do not see eye to eye with this sentiment. Those among the coalition of the willing, named and unnamed, DO understand the sentiment and have now allied themselves to that goal. Those who are not a part of the coalition of the willing probably DO NOT agree with the sentiment.
QUOTE
SoCal: great question moif.
my only response to this is that these countries please, ensure that your people retain their freedom that americans have died helping them achieve. That is the ultimate goal of america. First and foremost. Freedom from Nazis, freedom from communism and other brutal tyranny that has taken the lives of thousands of americans and continues to do so this minute.
<---- obviously meaning the WOT.my only response to this is that these countries please, ensure that your people retain their freedom that americans have died helping them achieve. That is the ultimate goal of america. First and foremost. Freedom from Nazis, freedom from communism and other brutal tyranny that has taken the lives of thousands of americans and continues to do so this minute.
there are countries who, right now, do not see eye to eye with this sentiment. Those among the coalition of the willing, named and unnamed, DO understand the sentiment and have now allied themselves to that goal. Those who are not a part of the coalition of the willing probably DO NOT agree with the sentiment.
QUOTE
Conservpat
Thats it? your concerned about the money America is owed??
How about the money America owes?
Should you not be more concerned about that?
Thats it? your concerned about the money America is owed??
How about the money America owes?
Should you not be more concerned about that?
Uh, moif, that's kinda what I said:
QUOTE
The only thing that countries that the US [or any country, for that matter] has helped should owe us is the MONEY that we have either loaned or GIVEN those countries...
[Underlined for emphasis]
Keep in mind as well that the title of the thread is Gratitude for America, so it is appropriate for me to speak of what gratitude is owed to the US.
CP
Conservpat
Thats quite alright by me. I was just surprised you didn't think more was due. May I burden you for an answer?
Do you believe Europe has lived up to the debt incurred by, for example, the second world war?
Thats quite alright by me. I was just surprised you didn't think more was due. May I burden you for an answer?
Do you believe Europe has lived up to the debt incurred by, for example, the second world war?
To be perfectly honest with you moif, I'm not sure, I'll just say that if any money is owed [probably France owes the most] then I think whatever country owes money should pay it back, you don't take a loan and not pay it back, especially if the country who loaned it to you is an ally, it's just disrespectful.
CP
CP
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.