Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why the French behave as they do
wnd.com ^ | March 5, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern | Patrick J. Buchanan

Posted on 03/08/2003 12:36:33 PM PST by Destro

Why the French behave as they do

Posted: March 5, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Having rescued France in two world wars, Americans are puzzled. Why are they organizing the Security Council against us? Why are they sabotaging the president's plan to bring democracy to Iraq, as we restored democracy to France? Why are they doing this?

What the French are up to, however, is not unreasonable, if one can see the world from the perspective of Paris.

To understand what France is about, and perhaps deal with our French problem with more maturity than dumping champagne in the gutter, let us go back five centuries.

In 1500, there was born in Ghent a future king who would come to dominate the world as we do today. At six, the death of his father Philip of Hapsburg gave Charles the crown of the Netherlands. At 16, the death of his grandfather Ferdinand made him Charles I of Spain and of all its dependencies in Italy and America. At 19, the death of his grandfather Maximilian brought Charles all the hereditary lands of the Hapsburgs and the expectation of being elected Holy Roman Emperor.

In 1519, that title had been in the Hapsburg family four generations. Yet it remained an elective office. And two young and ambitious rulers challenged Charles for that title: Henry VIII of England and Francis I of France. Francis was by far the more formidable.

He set about bribing the electors. But Charles had access to the Medicis and the Fugger bank of Jacob the Rich, the strongest in Europe. Charles bought up more electors and was chosen Charles V, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.

France was surrounded. Charles ruled almost all of what is today's Spain, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Germany, Hungary and Italy, except for the Papal States. What did Francis, seething with resentment, do? Exactly what balance of power politics dictated. He began making alliances with the nations not under Charles' control, and went to war.

In 1525, Charles' armies crushed the French Army at Pavia and captured the French king. "Nothing is left to me," Francis I wrote to his mother, "except honor and life."

By agreeing to humiliating peace terms, Francis won his freedom and returned to France. There, he began preparing at once for a new war, winning the support of the pope and the Italian states that were coming to resent the dominance of the hegemonic Charles.

Defeated again, Francis made alliances with Scotland, Sweden and Denmark, with rebellious princes in Germany, even with the infidel Turks, an unprecedented act for a Christian king. Francis fought Charles until his death in 1547. Point of this history: For Francis I, read Jacques Chirac; for Charles V, read George W. Bush.

Again, consider the world from the Paris point of view.

French was once the language of every court in Europe. I speak German only to my horses, said Frederick the Great. But now, because the Americans speak English, English is the language of diplomacy, of the Internet and the Global Economy.

Once, French culture was predominant. Today, it is not even competitive. It is American television and cinema Europeans watch, American books, magazines and newspapers they read. The Cannes Film Festival cannot compete with the Academy Awards.

Jealous they have been displaced, resentful of having had to be twice rescued by the Americans, France is following the dictates of balance-of-power politics, trying to form up and head up a coalition of the resentful, who equally oppose America's military, economic and cultural hegemony.

When Americans began braying about being the "last superpower" and the "indispensable nation," and tossing our weight around all over the world, it was predictable that this would happen.

Now, the French are trying to assume the leadership of the anti-Americans, and there are hundreds of millions worldwide who would relish seeing the haughty Americans taken down. And with the Red Army back in Russia, France no longer needs us to defend her, nor does she need NATO as a constant reminder of her past dependency.

We brought this on ourselves. Had we packed up and come home after the Cold War, and dissolved NATO and other outdated alliances, America would today be the most courted country on earth.

Instead of our bribing nations to fight their wars, they would be begging us to defend them. Instead of our spending national treasure on bases all over the world, other nations would be buying our arms to defend themselves. Instead of yelling "Yankee, go home," they would be pleading, "Yankee, come back."

As has been said before, we Americans are lousy imperialists.

The sole consolation of our mismanaged diplomacy is that it is the harmless French who have taken up the anti-American banner, not a more formidable strategic rival like the Russians or Chinese.

Related Offer:

Buchanan's latest book is here! "The Death of the West" is an eye-opening exposé of how immigration invasions are endangering America. Both autographed and unautographed copies are now available at WorldNetDaily's online store!

Patrick J. Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party’s candidate in 2000. He is also a founder and editor of the new magazine, The American Conservative. Now a commentator and columnist, he served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national television shows, and is the author of seven books. See what else Pat Buchanan is doing these days.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: france
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-124 next last
To: muggs
France is a third rate military power.
101 posted on 03/09/2003 4:44:51 PM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
No--Vietnam was a long time ago...Kosovo is today and I can use it as a real time example...and a spectacular failure for America.
102 posted on 03/09/2003 4:59:37 PM PST by Destro (Fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: bobi
"The votes that tipped the balance were the Albanian votes."
    One could just as well say that a large block of orthodox Christian votes tipped the balance for Trajkovski. As you have pointed out, the Albanians are less than a third of the population. Where did Trajkovski's other 23% come from if not from the Christians? (And please don't start in about "election rigging" again. There is very broad agreement that the cheating that did occur was not enough to account for Trajkovski's victory margin.)

"The promise that was made it was support for the Albanian dreams of Greated Albanian that would include the western part of the Republic of Macedonia, Kosovo and Albania."

    I could have sworn that Trajkovski sent troops into the Albanian areas of western Macedonia in 2000 and that they spent 6 months kicking Albanian butt until these Albanian guerillas (who demanded more autonomy and a "Greater Albania") agreed to be disarmed by the NATO forces invited in by Trajkovski. I believe this all occured right after Trajkovski had been elected President. If I am wrong about these facts, please correct me. If I am right, then how does this square with the claims you have made that Trajkovski promised the ethnic Albanians their own state?


103 posted on 03/09/2003 5:18:02 PM PST by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Destro
"Kosovo is today and I can use it as a real time example."

Not in comparison to Iraq. As I've said, the two places are as different as the sun and the moon.

104 posted on 03/09/2003 5:20:00 PM PST by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
yea--Kosovo is smaller and you have only 2 ethnics to deal with and her neighbors are not making weapons of mass destruction...Kosovo is easier...and it is a failure.
105 posted on 03/09/2003 5:41:36 PM PST by Destro (Fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
He did not send troops there. The troops were already there as they would be in any part of their own country.

The first to respond was the local police. All the units were later reinforced.

There was no kicking of Albanian butt because the troops did not go in an offensive at any stage but just defended certain areas.

One of the most single examples of presidental inaction was the closing down of the valves of the Lipkovo Artificial Lake. It provides water to Kumanovo a city of 50000 people. The lake was taken over by the Albanians the water supply was cut for 3 months and at no stage there was an attempt to take over the position by the army or even bomb their positions. The water was used as a bargaining chip during the negotiations for a ceasefire.

In the attack near Radusa, Trajkovski did not allow for the overflying Su-25 to bomb the Albanian positions. All they did is fly by to scare them away.

In Karpalak where some of my neighbours died in an ambush, Mi-24 helicopters were sent with no ammunition on them.

The peace plan was presented by Trajkovski to the waring sides as if he was a by stander in the whole war.

At this very moment only the Macedonian refugees have not gone home. All the Albanians are back in their restored homes.

There is one single difference between the wars in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia. Bosnia and Kosovo got their International UN Administrators to run the countries but Macedonia did not. Trajkovski is the NATO chosen administrator even before the actual war.

At this moment the only one who is opposed to replacing the American led NATO mission in Macedonia with a European force is Trajkovski.

As far as I am concerned the man is a traitor who sold his soul to the Americans.

106 posted on 03/09/2003 6:54:48 PM PST by bobi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Destro
We brought this on ourselves. Had we packed up and come home after the Cold War, and dissolved NATO and other outdated alliances, America would today be the most courted country on earth. Instead of our bribing nations to fight their wars, they would be begging us to defend them. Instead of our spending national treasure on bases all over the world, other nations would be buying our arms to defend themselves. Instead of yelling "Yankee, go home," they would be pleading, "Yankee, come back."

Sorry Pat, assumes facts not in evidence. Quite a leap, even for you.

107 posted on 03/09/2003 8:51:05 PM PST by Bob J (Join the FR Network! Educate, Motivate, Activate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro

More here...

ThoseShirts.com: Effing the ineffable since 1991

108 posted on 03/09/2003 8:57:39 PM PST by Riley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
oh no, Pat is right...NATO is dead. You think otherwise?
109 posted on 03/09/2003 9:01:29 PM PST by Destro (Fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
Not exactly. Russia and China are outdoing us by selling arms to the world while not getting engaged, with the exception being pipeline routes.

We could very easily be back on top if we went back to funding the federal government with the constraints of the constitution: duties, imposts and excises.

110 posted on 03/09/2003 9:01:37 PM PST by nunya bidness (I don't own any "assault rifles", just Homeland Defense Rifles. It's my patriotic duty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
Nation building is a key reason for the war in the first place.

It is? Please explain. We handed Afghanistan over to the UN with a lot of grumbling from the Germans and Dutch. There's lots of precedent for it.

111 posted on 03/09/2003 11:44:48 PM PST by Roy Tucker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Roy Tucker
Afghanistan was a different case. It was a national defense war (which I supported) and a direct response to an attack. Nation building was not the primary goal in that war, though you exaggerate the current UN role and minimize the involvement of the U.S. in the current nation building fiasco there.

The Iraq war is humanitarian intervention (a la Kosovo) as well as an attempt to put the squeeze on Saudi Arabia (and help Israel) by creating a Democratic Iraq. No links to 9-11 have been proven. At best, WMD is a side issue IMHO.

112 posted on 03/10/2003 5:50:55 AM PST by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: frei_staat
I am interested in whether Iraq was involved in 9-11, not whether it and fellow pariah Al Queda or "franchises" had low level contacts. Israel and South Africa during the early 1980s had far more than low level contacts. They cooperated on an active and consistent basis but that doesn't mean that Israel was responsible for Apartheid or the South Africa had an role in the Palestenian situation. Saddam is secular Mussolini wannabe. To argue that he is a soul-mate of Bin Laden simply does not hold water.

If you are looking for links to Al Qaeda, you are more likely to find evidence for such a link in Saudi Arabia.....but then nobody is going to war with that country! Certainly, the Saudi state more closely Bin Laden's utopia. Women wear the veil there. They don't in Iraq.

When I used the term "imminent," I meant imminent. Not even Powell or Rumsfeld have presented evidence that an attack on the U.S. by Iraq is imminent, certainly not if we stay the heck out. Basically, their claim is that Iraq might build WMD and these WMD "could" someday be used against us. I could make a similar "might" argument about China, Pakistan, India, or Brazil (which is contemplating building nukes) but that doesn't make it imminent.

113 posted on 03/10/2003 6:02:11 AM PST by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
I'm hearing you but I still disagree.

I don't think he is a soul mate of UBL either but that doesn't mean they don't share a common objective. Saddam has been in the business of assisting others to do his dirty work for him. Especially since the Gulf War.

Imminent is a relative term and I think that you and I have different concepts on that; however, I think more important than imminent is intent backed up by capability. I agree that no one has shown a timetable of when another attack will come but I don't know of anyone who argues that Saddam doesn't have intent or that he is aiding others with capability.

That only leaves opportunity. I don't know about you but intent and capability are enough for me to pre-emptively erradicate the threat before the scumbags find another opportunity.

We know Saddam kills, maims, rapes and tortures his own people. We know he uses chemical weapons against those he opposes. And we know that he has a hate toward Americans. To me, it doesn't take much of a leap of faith to see his hand in assisting others in terrorist attacks on us.

Prior to WWII and even throughout the war, there were rumors and accusations of the Nazi concentration camps. Not many believed such a thing possible until after the Americans discovered the camps. This situation with Saddam is, IMHO, similar and it won't be until after we have gone into Iraq and found the "smoking gun" that others will believe. And some won't even believe then.


114 posted on 03/10/2003 7:22:29 AM PST by frei_staat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: frei_staat
You're right. We have different views of imminent. I would argue that your version of the word (much like such slippery words as "the general welfare" or "affirmative action") provides a blank check to world policers. I am still too much of a Jeffersonian to do that!

Well...of course, Saddam is evil and tortures people. Thousands (sometimes millions) of people die in Africa every year from even worse political horrors. It doesn't follow from that, however, that we should be spreading ourselves thin in endless and (if recent history is any guide) futile interventionist rescue operations. The mission of the U.S. military is to defend the U.S. and its citizens. It only detracts from that missions if our troops are bogged down in "nation building" and policing operations. Such operations only serve to create new trip-wires for conflict.

Ultimately our best weapons are free trade (which tends to break down dictatorial regimes) and an an end to taxpayer support for these regimes. These weapons are not as "sexy" as the dream of creating a "Democratic Iraq" asap through through foreign bayonets...but they are ultimately more viable and realistic in the long term.

Now....the fact that Saddam is evil isn't proof (as is often implied on FR) that he he will use WMD. Saddam is not about to commit suicide if he doesn't have to. Mao and Stalin were evil too but they didn't use nukes to "take out" American cities though they certainly had that ability.

115 posted on 03/10/2003 8:13:46 AM PST by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte; Destro
'The USA is not an imperial power and does not have an "empire."'

The U.S. maintains 4,000 military bases on just about every continent of the world, plus we have had a standing army (in direct violation of the Constitution) getting into all kinds of mischief (like the Korean and Vietnam wars) for close to 60 years, since the end of WWII.

Oh no, of course we're not an empire.

116 posted on 03/10/2003 8:33:54 AM PST by Middle Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Destro
we are still "occupying" Germany and Japan 58 years after WW2 came to an end

Time to get 'em out - and send 'em to Iraq. Then on to Korea.

117 posted on 03/10/2003 8:42:39 AM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Middle Man
"...we have had a standing army (in direct violation of the Constitution)..."

    From the Constitution of the United States of America --

    [Preamble]We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    [Art I, sec 8, cl 1] The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    [Art I, sec 8, cl 12] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; (This clause specifically gives Congress the power to raise and support armies, the only limitation being that appropriations are limited to two years with no prohibition on renewing appropriations as often as Congress desires.)

    [Art I, sec 8, cl 13] To provide and maintain a Navy;

    [Art I, sec 8, cl 13] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

There is no Consitutional prohibition on the maintainence of standing federal military forces. In fact, Congress is expressly empowered to do so. It is only the several states that are prohibited from maintaining standing armies --

    [Art I, sec 9, cl 3]: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

___________________________________________________________

"The U.S. maintains 4,000 military bases on just about every continent of the world..."

Proof please. And after you provide proof of this claim, tell me how our presence in these countries constitutes an army of occupation and is used to colonize, annex or otherwise dictate to these countries.

118 posted on 03/10/2003 12:21:04 PM PST by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
I have no problem with a navy patrolling our shores constantly to protect us from invasion. That's the reason for a navy. A standing army is a different animal altogether.

The state militias were to be called up to form a standing army if and when the U.S. is threatened or invaded (read Section I, Clause 15). That is "providing for the common defense". Since Pearl Harbor, there has not been such a situation -- until 9/11.

So what has this standing army of ours been doing for the last 50 years? Invading countries whose politics we don't like (Korean War: 36000+ American troops dead; Vietnam War: 57000+ dead). Last time I looked there were still two Koreas, and Vietnam went communist in 1975 after we left anyway. Of course, we've taken to picking on smaller countries lately (Grenada, Sudan, Balkans, Mogadishu), since prolonged bloody "police actions" with many American soldiers and many more innocent civilians killed for no discernible national purpose get unpopular extremely fast.

The first and still most egregious victims of our empire have been the American people, who are seeing the bills finally coming due now from a half-century of misadventure by their elected (and unelected) officials.

And the "no prohibition" on continually funding a standing army after two years is something you're reading into the constitution; it's not enumerated there. Perhaps if we are in a "continuous state of emergency", but that has not been in the case ("orange" alerts and duct tape from the Homeland Security chief notwithstanding).

119 posted on 03/10/2003 2:52:47 PM PST by Middle Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
you exaggerate the current UN role and minimize the involvement of the U.S. in the current nation building fiasco there.

No I don't exaggerate but read this. There are more UN forces in Afghanistan than US forces. That is a good thing.

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AFGHAN_PEACEKEEPERS?SITE=OHCIN&SECTION=HOME

120 posted on 03/11/2003 12:20:30 AM PST by Roy Tucker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-124 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson