Is France "stingy"?

OK, Lash, i have no brief to support any "idiot" at the UN (is that a clinical determination or just a little ad hominem going on there?), but let's do the math.

The French government--above and beyond whatever the French people privately, and French business, and non-governmental agencies operating in France donate--is giving just over 27.75 million Euros: 22.16 million in direct aid, and 5.6 million pledged to the EU aid. The United States is giving $15,000,000. Converted into Euros at the rate quoted in the original post, that is just slightly over 11 million Euros. The United States has a population of nearly 300 million; France has a population of less than 60 million--yet the direct aid commitment of France, exclusive of the aid which they are providing under the auspices of the EU, is twice that amount.

Now, if some Americans were offended by the remarks of a Norwegian-born UN official, how do you contend that this should automatically lead to criticism of France?

My original objection stands--for at least two years now, many Americans have missed no opportunity to slam the French. In particular, this is noticeable among supporters of the current administration, who are pissed because the French wouldn't back our play in the dirty little war in Iraq.

<Since I don't want the above to be my last post in [our] 2004>


HAPPY NEW YEAR to all!

Horseshit, O'Bill. I am objecting to a thread bashing France. I am perpetuating no double-standard, because it does not logically follow that if someone criticizes the United States, someone else should automatically criticize France. See my response to Lash. Why does the remark of a Norwegian-born UN official critical of the United States authorize slamming the French? This thread is a classic example of "Frog-bashing"--lately, one of conservative Americans favorite passtimes.

Try to apply a little logic to your thesis, O'Bill. Just because someone criticizes the United States, it is not axiomatic that the French should then be criticized. I submit to you that Tico has an axe to grind about the French, and took this as an opportunity to set the grinding wheel aspin.

And a happy New Year to you, Walter!
And everyone else too!

Glad Set doesn't support the idiot. This is good enough for me.

Glad Walter sees that US citizens and corps are sending an assload of money.

I guess this story ended as well as most.

Set-- The reason for the pile-on of France in light of idiotic statements from a Norseman: They're FRENCH. (Hope you understand, now.)



Have A Safe, Happy New Year!!

No shortage of logic to my thesis, Set. I agree that one you conjured up doesn't work. Here's my point: If someone uses a bit of news about this horrific disaster to take a pot shot at France, that disgusts you... but if someone uses a bit of news about this horrific disaster to take a pot shot at the U.S., that doesn't. That is a double standard, Set.

No, O'Bill, you have absolutely no idea whether or not criticism of the United States disgusts me, because i have not commented on that topic. You make the assumption, because it supports your "logic." The thread to which you referred was started by Gus. I have as much respect for Gus' intelligence and objectivity as i do for the Shrub. You can understand then, why i did not respond to that thread. I took a look at it, considered the source, and moved on.

Once again, you suggest that because Gus started a thread criticizing the United States aid effort, that Tico is justified in bashing the French on the same topic. It does not follow. However, it is good evidence that many Americans will miss no opportunity to bash the French, no matter how far the stretch. I came here and posted, as i usually do when people bash the French, because it disgusts me. Were the criticisms of France well-founded, i would not be disgusted. But they aren't, and neither is this thread.

As for whether or not criticisms of American aid efforts are well-founded, i might respond if someone other than Gus started a thread, and had a compelling argument. Lest anyone think i am just willy-nilly bashing Gus, i would point out that logical debate and participation in political threads is not typical of Gus, so i don't look for much in such an example. When Gus indulges in humor, he can at times be quite good, and i will often read those threads with relish.

You don't know anything about my opinion on criticism of the United States, so you have no logical basis to accuse me of applying a double-standard. Futhermore, the Shrub's administration is not synonymous with the United States, so that even if i remained silent during criticism of the current administration, or criticized it myself, that would not be evidence of a complancency toward, or a will to criticize the United States.

Try to get your mind around the concept that the current administration and the United States are two different things.

Republicans...they just can't keep from bashing the French...remember...102 other countries didn't fall for the bush/criminals lies. Maybe its just that the ignorant republicans only recognize france...its easy to remember. France and the rest of the world know that senile raygun and bush sr armed Iraq and Iran....remember???...no probably not. AND.....unlike 46% of Americans (repubs) they know Iraq didn't attack us on 9-11. Wake up red states.....your ignorance is astounding!!!

Nonsense Set. Since I happen to admire your historical knowledge and your unusual talent for writing about it, I've read countless thousands of your posts. I know more about you than you think, apparently. For instance; I know your fondness of absolute terms is a huge weakness when you get into a debate, because it leaves you defending absurd positions that you're usually too stubborn to abandon.

I have no idea why you'd slam on Gus and I'm now very sorry I used his thread for my example. Sorry Gus. That being said, historically, you haven't limited yourself to responding only to threads who's author you respect anyway. That's a cop out Set. Farmerman and Dlowan were both present in Gus's thread, and I doubt you'd slam either of those fine people the way you did good ole Gus.

I made my case for a double standard in spades before your arrival and you've since perpetuated it by continuing the trend of only objecting to conservative deviations from the tragic topic at hand. I see no need to further elucidate, as your diversionary tactics are obvious enough to have only strengthened my point.

Have a Happy New Year!

Welcome to A2K Richard! This is a funny post.

Maybe the obvious absurdity you point out should give you pause and cause you to check your premise. Obviously, that can't be the only reason the French get bashed.


Who's ignorance is astounding?

We are fortunate to have many very learned people from all over the globe, who frequent A2K. We do not all understand many aspects and cultural traditions of various countries represented here, but it is quite an honor that most of the people who assemble here respect and tolerate others' customs.

Setanta, it is clear to me, despite his illustrious education and far-reaching knowledge, has not been properly taught about, quite frankly, an intrinsic American tradition. If this basic information has eluded him, it is quite probable the rest of you are lacking in this department.

I want to share with you a treasured American tradition; one that has threaded through the tapestry of American history, almost since our founding. To understand America, one must understand that France sucks. Quoting that insightful American Tom Joad, '"Where ever there's a guy saying France sucks, there I'll be, saying "Your damn right!" Where ever there's a guy from France, there I'll be, saying "France sucks."' A poignant moment in filmdom that spoke to us all.

Hopefully, you too can gain a deeper understanding of why France sucks. Then, many of the world's ills will be immediately explained.

Please peruse this explanatory site. I will avail myself to questions, if there are any, but I'm pretty sure most of the answers will be "France sucks."

http://www.francesucks.net/reasons.html

No thanks, i don't care to spend my time with jerkwater idjits whose notion of humor is to slur, indiscriminately, every member of a particular nation, no matter what nation that might be. However, it does not surprise me to learn that you consider such drivel amusing.

You know precious little about me indeed. About the only time that i have an argument with my girl is when she hurls blanket condemnations at the Americans, simply because they are Americans. As for your remark about absolutes and being too stubborn to abandon a position--especially in light of the ludicrous weakness of what passes for agumentation on your part--i suggest you repeat that passage while standing in front of a mirror. You haven't the least notion of how i react to criticism of my nation--you only have your biased opinion of what my political views are. As you also make no distinction between what the Shrub and his unthinking followers want to believe about themselves and what actually constitutes America, this is understandable. You've become so partisan that you define America and Americans in terms of your political views. Apparently, those who are not white, middle-class, conservative (and often fanatically religious) members of the community don't get taken into consideration when you think of America and Americans--although this is going to make your world narrower and narrower as time goes on, because the white middle class is shrinking. The bible belt is currently able to weild a considerable political influence, but minority political tyrranies are nothing new in our history, and this too shall pass. I love my country, which in no way obliges me to love this administration, or the narrow, minority political block which supports that administration, being duped into specious beliefs about what the administration wants for them--failing to recognize that their political adherence is being exploited to serve the needs of even narrower minority interests--you know, the folks who round up the money to buy the best (in their view) government currently on offer?



You can cheer on "good ole Gus" to your heart's content, but it won't alter the fact that the thread you linked demonstrates that Gus has nothing rational to offer in the way of political commentary. Your very objections to the content of the thread make the case that it is lame.



You throw the term "double standard" around as though the use of it were a talisman to absolve you of making your case. I responded to this thread to object to slamming France. For whatever Gus, or a United Nations official born in Norway, may have to say about the aid offered by this administration--you have neither proven that such remarks constitute criticism of the United States, as opposed simply to criticism of this administration's response to the southeast Asian crisis; nor have you demonstrated (something which you will be unable to do) that i, personally, tolerate blanket criticism of the United States (remember, the current administration and the United States are two, entirely different things) while objecting to criticism of France.

If you are going to accuse me of "diversionary" tactics, you ought at least have the wherewithal to demonstrate that, as well. In what manner do you contend that i have diverted anyone from a discussion of French aid to southeast Asia? In what way do you contend that i'm diverting anyone from a discussion of criticism of the United States? In fact, you are trying desparately to divert the line of debate from the very obvious circumstance that Tico--according to you, angered by criticism of the United States--went off on a wild hair, and is trying to prove that the French are stingy. He has failed to demonstrate as much, and even had he done so, that has no bearing on criticism of the adminstration's response to the crisis--whether the criticism is leveled by Gus, or a Norwegian-born UN official.

My criticism stands. This is just another witless conservative Frog-bashing spree, and deserves to be so described.

Sentana, when did I bash the French? You've made a lot of allegations about me, yet I'm pretty sure you know absolutely nothing about me.

Are you saying it was not a legitimate question that I asked in my initial post? $135K is miniscule, and particularly so in comparison with all the other pledges from the other countries as they had been reported at the time of my posting. That was the genesis of this thread.

Walter posted information not then widely available in the US, and answered my question. That ended it as far as I was concerned.

So I ask you again: where specifically did I bash the French? At least I didn't call them "frogs." That sounds a lot more derogatory than anything I've said.

Whuttinhell does it say about folks who feel some sorta need to play "Mine's bigger than yours" with a deal like this tsunami disaster? Nobody ... NOBODY ... caused it (unless ya wanna lay gods' wroth on the victims), for all sortsa reasons there was no effective regional warning system in place, and as events progress, the nations of the world are marshalling resources and effecting aid - the largest humanitarian effort in humankind's history is underway, and mere days following the event is having beneficial impact.

This isn't about my team is better than your team; its about what can be done, most efficiently and effectively, to help those truly in need. Wranglin' over who oughtta do how much doesn't do a damned thing to get anything that matters done.

Playin' politics with somethin' like this is about as cheap, low, and self-servin' as it gets. There's a job to be done here, not an argument to be won.

Can't say I disagree with you Timber. That being said, who the hell are you directing your comments to? I've read your post several times, and can only assume you are referring to me. If I'm incorrect, allow me to apologize in advance for what I'm about to say.

I for damn sure didn't intend to engage in any sort of "my dick is bigger than yours" game-playing as it has been tossed about. My post had little to do with "playin' politics," and everything to do with wondering where the French were in marshalling their resources to pitch in. O'Bill has linked earlier to the thread where politics seems to have been the prime motivation in the thread. In my case, I read a news article or two that mentioned the contributions of various countries of the world, and I was shocked to see the amount given by the French. It was then that I posted my thread. I wasn't trying to "bash" the French, or "play politics." I understand those that feel that I was, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it is amazing to see all the various opinions everyone seems to have as to my "motivations" for posting this thread. Has anyone considered for a moment that I just wanted to have my question answered? I appreciated getting Walter's information in response to my thread, and it put my mind at ease. But if you wish to continue to question my motivations, go right ahead.

I'll tell you what, though ... earlier today I defended a post you made in another thread. I did so based upon my belief that you were a little more thoughtful in your postings. But after seeing your backhanded post here and your incorrect judgment of my motivations in posting this thread, I am now questioning whether I was correct in my assessment of that post.

Nothin' was directed at you, at your thread, or at your position, Tico - no problem here with any of that. What ruffles my feathers is just as I said - partisan game playin' with the victims of a diaster of biblical proportions bein' the game ball. I figure focusin' on US and THEM whoever US or THEM might be is nothin' but an ego game that plays at the expense of those who really are what its about, and who sure as hell ain't playin' no games.

It is possible, Tico, that Timber - as with others - was referring more to how the thread has evolved, than what motivated it.

I, for one, because of a number of, in my view, utterly mindlessly prejudiced threads opened by others, specifically to pursue the odd hatred of the french that seems to consume a surprising amount of energy of some on the right, when I see a thread such as yours opened, tend to assume it is more of the same. Ditto with the similar Bush bashing threads.

I am happy to believe you when you say it was not your intention.

However, I do think it interesting that folk were examining aid in such a way - whether in criticising America, or France.

I think, given the agenda here, that it would have been hard to see these types of thread going anywhere else than the direction they have gone.

I have already commented on my feelings about the type of squabbling that has gone on - in the face of this disaster.

And I still think it a pity that any such threads were opened.

Here is a teeny bit of good news.

There has been a debate in Oz about whether New Year celebrations - like fireworks - should go on.

They were proceeded with - and, in Sydney, Care Australia quickly arranged to take donations at the event.

Raised over $1 mill.

Of course, it is in Oz play money - not real $US, or Euros - but still.....

The Wabbit is wise.