Rice - getting away from "Punish France, ignore Germany..."?

Lash wrote:

Damn! Give that woman a beer!

France sucks.

Uhhhhhhh ... I'll take the beer (Labatt's?) despite my lack of estrogen, ovaries, etc. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Francis has exploited an awkward juxtaposition in the somewhat intemperate post above to make an effective and wry criticism, but I think he knows very well the real truth of the matter.

George: And speaking of awkward juxtapositions, isn't "European Ally" something of an oxymoron in itself?

0 Replies

Damn. I always get the sex parts wrong. One foamy Labatt's--coming up.

Cheers!!

0 Replies

WhoodaThunk wrote:

George: And speaking of awkward juxtapositions, isn't "European Ally" something of an oxymoron in itself?

No offense intended. It was awkward, and he did exploit it, but the criticism didn't really hit home.

Yes in some cases 'European ally' has an odd, very ironic ring to it. That's what I intended.

0 Replies

But - to attempt to return to serious discussion, rather than the usual tired insults being thrown at France and Europe - it DOES seem that the rhetoric of a couple of weeks ago is being followed up with some diplomatic initiatives - I wonder if this could mean the dawning of a truly more reasoned and nuanced foreign policy approach by this administration?

This is a bit off topic - but I have noticed a very quick response, for instance, to Abbas' moves in Palestine. I wonder if pressure behind the scenes is being placed on israel as the second part of a sort of pincer movement?

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

- it DOES seem that the rhetoric of a couple of weeks ago is being followed up with some diplomatic initiatives - I wonder if this could mean the dawning of a truly more reasoned and nuanced foreign policy approach by this administration?

These are hardly the first diplomatic initiatives of this administration. What is different now is that there is nothing much on the table - nothing to disagree about. Contrast this with the discussions and diplomacy leading up to our intervention in Iraq. The governing political figures in France and Germany haven't changed their world view and neither have we.

This is just a time to speak nicely to each other and to give France and Germany some chance to adapt to the possibility that our intervention in Iraq and our two state policy in the Mid East might just pay off. We are going through the motions of taking them seriously, but with little hope they will have anything serious to say.

Frankly I believe it is making the French & Germans decidedly uncomfortable. Their real policy is to do all they can to retain leadership of an EU that can challenge the United States and thus restore their lost glory and prestige. The last thing they really want is cooperation with the United States on any prominent issue of general import, and they certainly don't want to see us dealing more with the new members of the EU.

You imply that our policy to date has not been "truly reasoned" or "nuanced". I profoundly disagree. Unlike our disagreeable 'allies' we have focused squarely on the fundamental need to change the political trajectory of the nations of the former Ottoman Empire and establish a just two state solution in Israel/Palestine. This while our critics were taking bribes from Saddam and selling him weapons, wringing their hands over Hans Blix' latest WMD report, and protesting that things will work out allright if we just talk more, take more bribes, and pass more meaningless 'last chance' resolutions.

'Nuance' is mostly the stuff of the practicioners, and of little significance with respect to fundamental issues. It is much more important for those who wish to appear seriously engaged when they are not, or are merely playing for time. I guess we aren't very nuanced.

0 Replies

I'll still like to live in old Europe.

And when you think, "European Ally" is an oxymoron: well, tell that Blair and your other 'allies' in Iraq: they really will be surprised.

0 Replies

I'm sure it is good Walter. It is here too - most of the time.

I don't think anyone here has Poland, Italy or even the Netherlands in mind when they speak of all this. Most of the references are to France first and Germany second.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I don't think anyone here has Poland, Italy or even the Netherlands in mind when they speak of all this. Most of the references are to France first and Germany second.

So you think, the US (or at least some of their citizens) refer to a minimized Europe when calling it "Europe"?

How do you (they) call then the continent, what others name 'Europe'?

(My response was referring to " "European Ally" is an oxymoron")

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

But - to attempt to return to serious discussion, rather than the usual tired insults being thrown at France and Europe ... I wonder if this could mean the dawning of a truly more reasoned and nuanced foreign policy approach by this administration?

Really, deb? A discussion that does not hold France & Germany accountable for their ulterior motives is a return to serious discussion? And an American administration which falls in step with the interests of two ex-colonial powers is a more reasoned and nuanced one?

Please forgive me for never fully appreciating your omniscience. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

I don't think anyone here has Poland, Italy or even the Netherlands in mind when they speak of all this. Most of the references are to France first and Germany second.

So you think, the US (or at least some of their citizens) refer to a minimized Europe when calling it "Europe"?

How do you (they) call then the continent, what others name 'Europe'?

(My response was referring to " "European Ally" is an oxymoron")

Actually, Walter, most of us over here are pretty familiar with our geography despite what you read in the media about how ignorant, uncivilized, and greed-driven we are. Nope, as long as them mapmakers keep color-coding them maps, we 'Mericans try to keep up on where you Yurrpeeans are living. Germany's that blue country shaped like my SUV, ain't it?

Plus ... a couple of world wars and unimaginable genocide helps to drive home that whole geography thing, too.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

And when you think, "European Ally" is an oxymoron: well, tell that Blair and your other 'allies' in Iraq: they really will be surprised.

On a slightly more serious note, and it is odd now that you mention it, we do seem to view the British as technically European, but different. The Channel seems to make a world of difference somehow. Not just because the Brits, too, took a difficult stand in the Gulf Wars, but long before that. It's probably a cultural/historical thing or maybe because Britain distanced itself so long from the European union, but it seems our two countries tend to agree to disagree on certain issues and actually work at engaging in mutual diplomacy.

It would be a real shock to see Britain grandstanding on the world stage, openly jockeying for power and prestige like France and Germany did in the days prior to the Iraq invasion. Does a true ally gleefully revel in a friend's discomfort? Does the word abstention translate into French and German?

So, yes, Rice is in Europe to mend fences, but only out of necessity. I believe this administration is fully aware of who our real allies are ... and who are "friends" eagerly awaiting our misfortunes.

And now, a return to serious discussion ...

0 Replies

WhoodaThunk wrote:

It's probably a cultural/historical thing or maybe because Britain distanced itself so long from the European union,...

I've heard that quite often - and really can't understand it.

And this especially, because facts are against it, like
- in 1957 the six members of the ECSC (Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, France and Germany) formed the European Economic Community (EEC);
- since 1957, the EEC has seen five stages of enlargement: in 1973, the United Kingdom joins together with Denmark and Ireland
the (than named) European Communities
- the term "European Union" was introduced by the Maastricht Treaty in November 1993.

I really wonder what makes some think, that Britain distanced itself so long from the European union:

Quote:

Steps towards UK membership

1961
Four years after the Treaty of Rome had been signed by the original six members, the United Kingdom applied to join. Ireland and Denmark also submitted applications, followed in 1962 by Norway.
1963
Negotiations went on until 1963 when President de Gaulle of France vetoed the United Kingdom application. This caused negotiations with all the applicants to be stopped.
1967
The four countries applied again but the French refused to allow negotiations.
1973
Following further successful negotiations the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark joined the Community on 1 January. Norway did not join because a majority of its people voted against it in a referendum.
1975
In 1975 a referendum was held in the United Kingdom which confirmed our membership

Source

However, back in the good old days, when the Thames estuary was still aside the river mouth of the Rhine ...

http://www.ex.ac.uk/sogaer/archaeology/images/slide18.jpg

0 Replies

Walter, why do you suppose France bent over backwards to keep Britain out of that union for 12 years?

The E.U. should be dosing French drinking water with Paxil for the sanity of the rest of us "allies."

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

So you think, the US (or at least some of their citizens) refer to a minimized Europe when calling it "Europe"?

How do you (they) call then the continent, what others name 'Europe'?

(My response was referring to " "European Ally" is an oxymoron")

Perhaps a careless use of the word. The fact is that France and Germany have long exercised a dominant role in the leadership of continental Europe - or at least its Western Part. It is only in the last twenty or so years that the gulf between their ambitions and ours have become increasingly apparent. Now, in the absence of a unifying external enemy divisions appear between us and also occasionally among the European countries themselves. Thus Great Britain, Italy, Poland, and (at least initially) Spain all supported our actions. These things ebb and flow with the prevailing political currents.

A byproduct of all this is that people on both sides of the Atlantic make increasingly sweeping judgements about the other. One manifestation of this is a growing suspicion of Europe generally among many Americans.

0 Replies

WhoodaThunk wrote:

Walter, why do you suppose France bent over backwards to keep Britain out of that union for 12 years?

You see, I've been both in France and in the UK around those years - and before that time, and afterwards - quite often.

In the 60's, Britain really was anti-European, as strong as it is today.
And not only France thought so - I suppose, the others were glad that they didn't have to it.

Besides, 12 years is a rather good time period between appliance and actually becoming a member. (Others took longer - and nowadays it lasts even much more years.)

0 Replies

WhoodaThunk wrote:

Actually, Walter, most of us over here are pretty familiar with our geography despite what you read in the media about how ignorant, uncivilized, and greed-driven we are. Nope, as long as them mapmakers keep color-coding them maps, we 'Mericans try to keep up on where you Yurrpeeans are living. Germany's that blue country shaped like my SUV, ain't it?

I was amused by GWB expounding on plutonium and enriched uranium programmes in Iran during his latest major speech. Just a few short months ago he couldn't pronounce the word "nuclear". His grasp on geography east of Maine seemed to be equally shaky. And didn't he tell us recently that WWII started at Pearl Harbor?

Stereotypes stick, don't they, and sometimes because they are reinforced. On quite a few occasions for example while in America, I have been complimented on how well I speak English.

0 Replies

For us, WWII did start in Pearl Harbor. Bush was speaking to the American people, not you, and, in that context, he was entirely correct.

Quote:

Stereotypes stick, don't they, and sometimes because they are reinforced. On quite a few occasions for example while in America, I have been complimented on how well I speak English.

You construct this so as to imply they didn't realize it is your language too. That is implausible. Far more likely the comments reflected your British usage and the differences in accent. Do you find that remarkable?

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Stereotypes stick, don't they, and sometimes because they are reinforced. On quite a few occasions for example while in America, I have been complimented on how well I speak English.

Bush the elder was frequently imitated by comedians for his odd speech patterns and word choices ... "the vision thing" comes to mind. I've noticed a marked similarity among GWB, his brothers, and the father when it comes to this. I really think it's a matter of how the brain is hard-wired for verbal skills, especially the ability to speak-on-one's-feet, rather than I.Q. As for the Bushes, maybe it's a genetic thing -- who knows? I don't remember anyone ever questioning the father's mental capacity, but as you see, it's great fun to mock when the target has opposing political views.

I've often admired the turn of the tongue when it comes to spoken English, McTag. Many here mock the Appalachian dialect ... the "yonders" and so forth ... because they associate the dialect with the region which is one of the poorest economically in the country. In reality, the area's isolation has actually preserved some of the purest forms of the tongue from your side of the pond.

You singled out "nuclear." Hmmmmmm ... I remember the first time I learned it was not "new-ku-ler." Probably right around the same time I learned the capital of the country wasn't "Warshington." Recently my students asked me why I said "Tues-dee" instead of "Tues-day." I didn't think I had, but I've been paying attention lately, and you know .... hmmmmmm. Embarrassed

I'm guessing there are very few of us who ought to be totally secure in our mastery of the language to the point we can mock others and question their ability to walk erect.

I suspect the compliments for your mastery of the language were just that, awkward compliments for the turn of the tongue they were hearing. I also suspect those dishing up the compliments would have been hurt had they known you were laughing at how they reinforced your image of the Ugly American.

0 Replies

Damn. Whooda's hot.
Where have you been all my (A2K) life?

0 Replies

Rice - getting away from "Punish France, ignore Germany..."?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know