So why all the French hate?

EXPLAIN!!!

Or is it just because the french were such an ass for not going to war with US?

Well, yes.  That, and they have absolutely no credibility in international affairs (UNSCAM anyone?).  It's painfully obvious to americans that they are out for their own good (which isn't neccesarily a bad thing, except politically) and nothing else.

I am an american who is right wing economically, and left wing socially.  I really kind of wish that except for the egalatarianism we'd be more like france.

It's painfully obvious to americans that they are out for their own good

Everyone is out for their own good. This is news?

do you expect france to suck americock or what?

I like France just fine... I'd like to retire there. The only reason I don't live there at the moment is because it's so hard to make a buck there. That aside, I detest Gaullist foreign policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaullism

Everyone thinks the French owe us because we saved their ass. I think we owed THEM for the statue of liberty and when we saved them the debt was repaid. Do you know how much that much copper would cost back then? Nowadays we don't even make pennies of 100% copper because it is so expensive.

>>6

The French and the Americans are even.  They saved our asses in the Revolutionary War.  We saved their asses in World War II.  We're cool.

>>6
>>7

"Lafayette, here we are."

There's no reason to hate the French. The French *Canadians*, on the other hand, annoy Canadians, French, and Americans all alike.

There is no rational reasoning behind it. Hatred of the French by your average American stems from both disgust of intellectualism and liberalism. Americans don't hate the French, they hate smart liberals, they've just chosen the French to embody them. They would use any other no-show in the Coalition of the Willing, but Canada is too close to home and Germany reminds us too much of the fact that they know all about tyrannical governments, false pretenses, and justifying war.

liberals are fucking fags but i like the French

>>9

I think my dislike of Gaullist foreign policy is pretty rational.

>>11
explain. what's wrong with France wanting to be not aligned to anyone, be independant of other countries, be a relatively powerful country.

>>12
jealousy.

>>12

"France should not have to rely on any foreign country for its survival (thus the creation of the French nuclear deterrent)"

"the policies of grandeur — that is, the insistence that France is a major power in the world scene and the establishment of military and economic forces to back this claim."

Those are two principals of Gaullist foreign policy. They encourage nuclear detente, and intend to foster a sort of insoluble frisson between great powers of the world. I don't have anything against France... I couldn't even write a criticism of them without using borrowed-French in my critique.

Regardless, I can't see how it is not rational to hate a country's foreign policy, when the country's foreign policy is explicitly designed to sew dissention and create strife, for that country's sole benefit.

Don't try and retort with "oh yeah, so does the US! hurhurhur!", because I hate that aspect of US foreign policy too. I think that in the age of nuclear arms, any foreign policy that is intentionally divisive is retarded.

So don't patronize me. Do not claim that there is no rational reason to hate France and the things they do. Because the Gaullist system of international balkanization is deranged.

when the country's foreign policy is explicitly designed to sew dissention and create strife, for that country's sole benefit.

Last I checked, France was doing quite well at not creating strife.

>>14

Nuclear weapons as deterence seem a sensible policy to me. I don't see it creating friction between countries that would not already have been there had France not had nuclear weapons.

As for 'policies of grandeur'...well it's France we are talking about here. France and Britain will always have policies of grandeur.

The Gaullist system of international balkanization...are you talking about France's opposition to the EU? The want for balkanization probably started when countries began to ally and then attack France lol.

>when countries began to ally and then attack France

Yes I am talking about France's obstructionism in the EU, among other things. And I don't know what you mean when you say that other countries were "attacking" France.

>France was doing quite well at not creating strife.

In 2002 and 2003, France participated in military interventions in multiple military interventions in Côte d'Ivoire, Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

In the 1960s under De Gaulle, France supplied Israel with Mirage fighter jets and large quantities of small arms, along with being Israel's staunchest supporter in the UN. France also provided Israel with nuclear weapons (great idea!). There was also, you know, the Algerian war of independence... between those two things I think that France did more to create anti-western Islamic terrorism than the US ever did.

France is constantly stomping around invading people. I have no idea why you think they are doing "quite well at not creating strife", just because they opposed one war.

the 1960s under De Gaulle

We're talking about today, not 40 odd years ago.

ALGERIA IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF FRANCE!!!11

By the way, the Gaullists wanted France out of Algeria.

Anyway, you can't blame anyone for Islamic terrorism. The West has always fought Islam but now Islam doesn't have a coherent state.

In 2002 and 2003, France participated in military interventions in multiple military interventions in Côte d'Ivoire, Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Are all of these UN Peacekeeping missions by any chance?

We're talking about today, not 40 odd years ago.

That is the most insipid reply I've ever heard on this board. In political terms 40 years is a wink of an eye. All the major parties of French thought claim to be "Gaullist" parties. Jacque Chirac recently said, "If you do not understand De Gaulle, you do not understand France". You, are a fucking moron.

The West has always fought Islam

Indeed but Islam hasn't always fought the West. How many Crusades and invasions of Muslim-ruled countries have there been? Incalculable numbers I think. Conversely, how many Muslim invasions of Western nations have there been? Iberia, Italy, Poland. That's it. And _everyone_ invaded Poland at sometime or another.

Believe me, there is a new trend: Muslims are more aggressive now than they ever were, historically. They used to just be defensive.

Are all of these UN Peacekeeping missions by any chance?

a.) No, b.) So what if they were? My point is that France storms around the world invading countries, not that they don't bring food with them. I'm not insinuating that France is a 3rd world dictatorship. What I am saying is that they are 1st world adventurists every bit as misguided as the bloody Americans, AND that they do it out of a *desire* to inculcate anti-globalist sentiment in the international community.

>>21
I'm not even following this thread, but just wanted to chime in and say that 40 years is a LONG FUCKING TIME in politics.

Muslims are more aggressive now than they ever were, historically. They used to just be defensive.

I don't think Muslims are more aggressive now. Maybe the world is less agressive.

The Arabs invaded the whole of North Africa, which used to have very close ties to Europe. The Ottomans took over South Eastern Europe. Muslims had Central Asia, India, South East Asia. They were pretty agressive.

Now Muslims are just annoying little terrorists. The most they can do is kidnap someone. They are not as powerful as they used to be.

This is more like death throes than anything to me.

>>22

Even if you're right (and I urgently and completely disagree), please read the rest of the paragraph. Even if in general you are correct (and I reiterate my opinion that you are not), you are obviously incorrect in the specific instance of France and Gaullist political philosophy.

In political terms 40 years is a wink of an eye.

No. No, it isn't. Look to east Europe or a lot of Asia. Been to ex-Yugoslavia or Singapore recently?

If anyone's an idiot here, it's not me. I've traveled enough to know better.

You, are a fucking moron.

Ouch. Your brilliant wit and piercing ad hominems have completely crushed any argument.

hahaha

>>25

My brilliant wit crushed your argument, hence your inability to retort outside of "I've traveled enough to know better". Congratulations asshole, we're all happy that you're a globe-trotting rich kid. How is it exactly that travel taught you that you weren't an idiot? Is it because you aren't as dirty and uneducated as all the yokels? Haha! They're washing dishes for a dollar a day! Fucking hicks! Something like that, right? Intelligence doesn't really count for much you know.

It is insanely stupid that you criticize my conclusion that 40 years is slow in politics, without attempting to criticize my two premises I used to support it.

Ugh, ooh, aah, I'm dying. Stop it! Stop it! Aaaah!

without attempting to criticize my two premises I used to support it.

a) I must be blind. Point out these two premises.
b) Now how about criticizing mine? Explain away countries in Asia that have gone from dirt to being technical powerhouses in under fourty years? Or how about countries that once were in Yugoslavia? Or those that were previously Iron Curtain? Or, shit, how about South Africa and Rhode^H^H^H^H^HZimbabwe? I can come up with more "questions" if you like.

You can snarl like a dog all you like, or you can answer the above.

>>27

If Jacque Chirac reiterates the importance of Gaullist philosophy, and most mainstream French political parties self-identify as Gaullist, then in what sense is Gaullist philosophy antiquated?

As to your off-topic assertions, I'll handle them in the order they're comprehensibly presented:

"countries in Asia that have gone from dirt to technical powerhouses" is irrelevant, technology has nothing to do with political philosophy.

"countries that once were in Yugoslavia" the fall of Soviet political philosophy began inexorably with the death of Lenin.

Ditto Iron Curtain.

"South Africa" The fall of Apartheid in South Africa was a demographic inevitability from the time of the Boer War, but the writing was clearly on the wall since SAP and the National Party formed the United Party in 1934. Nelson Mandela gave it a "push" to be sure, but the "Great Man" reductionist theory of history is well a.) reductionist and b.) silly. One man never accomplished anything alone; everyone always has support. Nor has one man ever created his political philosophy out of whole-cloth. The roots of all political ideologies can be traced back decades if not centuries if not millenia. You think an idea is new? You think its a novel political development? You are simply not well-read enough. There is not a single political event which is new to the 20th century, let alone the 2nd millenium C.E. Disagree? Try and name a trend or philosophy that had never in recorded political history happened before 1001 C.E.

"Rhode^H^H^H^H^HZimbabwe" pardon?

then in what sense is Gaullist philosophy antiquated?

Lip service perhaps? This is politics. You seem to have better awareness of what the French are up to, so point out some actions.

is irrelevant, technology has nothing to do with political philosophy.

Oh, really? I'm wouldn't be so sure about that. Technology doesn't exist in isolation, it comes with other things too. For example, higher education, increased communication, and a population that has more time to spend at leisure. People don't live in shitholes, they live in relative luxury. Even the economic struction becomes far different.

the fall of Soviet political philosophy began inexorably with the death of Lenin.

I think you underestimated the power Stalin had. The man massacred millions, but also pushed Russia from some third-rate feudal system to a nuclear superpower. And, uh, Stalin and Yugoslavia weren't that closely related. Tito liked to keep the USSR at arm's length.

But that doesn't matter. Before the 90s, USSR was a oligarchy. Now it's... well it's heading back that direction, but for a while it was distictly different from what came before.

The fall of Apartheid in South Africa was a demographic inevitability from the time of the Boer War,

So what? The political change there has been huge. Once it was functional society run by white men, now it's a free society (but in the shitter). If that's not politically different, then damn...

"Rhode^H^H^H^H^HZimbabwe" pardon?

Zimbabwe was formerly named Rhodesia. And the change there has been large too.

Are you also going to dismiss this with a wave of your hand? Whoops, a few white men running a functional society, but now it's run by a dictator who's busy starving his own people to death. Nope, nothing has changed there. Not at all.

>>29

We're not even arguing about the same thing.

I'm arguing that political concepts evolve at glacial rates.

You're arguing that political regimes change with regularity and frequency in tune with human generational cycles.

I concede your point, and actually, I have always agreed with it. I don't believe that it is relevant to mine. The underlying intellectual heritage and structures of methodology behind all the governments you mention are ancient almost beyond human reckoning. Not a single one of the good or bad rulers you mention invented his particular style or technique of governance on his own; it comes from a tremendously long historical tradition. That's my point.

Similarly, the Gaullist mutation of the French species of the political philosophy called Nationalism is only about 40 years old; compared to the history of French nationalism, it is yet new-born. And yet compared to the history of European nationalism, French nationalism is one of the new-comers... Spain, Great Britain, Italy, and Portugal all had strong nationalist movements before castles were made from stone. The idea of the "quintessential Frenchman", the forerunner to nationalism, is post-Feudal.

As far as your opinions on technology, I would say that it's all relative. The people who lived in the best caves, with little springs and little natural chimneys in the roof for the smoke to leak out of and a decided lack of bears... I would suggest that by no means did they think "well this is a shithole!". They preferred it immensely to the conditions of their neighbors.

Similarly, Stalin? Yes he killed a lot of people, but proportional to the estimated population of the world he killed less people than Genghis Khan, Alexander of Macedonia (not sure what's so great about him...), Xerxes, or Julius Caesar. Greek histories claim that Leonidas killed a million people in his life, which, proportionally speaking, is equivalent to the entire modern population of the United States (this is probably an exaggeration though).

Stalin was undoubtedly a tremendous murderer, but if you account for inflation, he's just in the top 5 or so. How is it that with all his modern technology neither he nor Hitler could top Genghis Khan? It's because the capacity for human technology to facilitate organized mass-murder has kept pace with the human technology to facilitate urban density.

it comes from a tremendously long historical tradition.

Oh, no doubt, but what does this have to do with current political spectra? When Franco turned over the reigns of his power and Spain became a democracy, there was a definite change in political structure, even if we can trace back the concept of democracy to ancient Greece.

I'm not really worries about political concepts; I'm more interested seeing them in action. How is a Gaullist philosophy affecting France's behavious, for example?

Stalin was undoubtedly a tremendous murderer, but if you account for inflation, he's just in the top 5 or so.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. It wasn't that he massacred millions, but rather that he had a vice grip and used it to turn Russia from a hovel to a world superpower. Leninism was stone dead the moment Stalin came to power.

>How is a Gaullist philosophy affecting France's behaviors

See my comments in >>14 and >>17. But then again I disagree with the premise of your question; the causation behind the behavior of a nation are inscrutable. There are millions of people moving a modern nation, and they don't all move for the same reasons. Some of them may not even have a distinguishable political philosophy at all.

Either you accept the ideological statements of people as they give them until they give you reason to believe otherwise, or you are reduced to skepticism, and I use that in the philosophical sense.

Also... I don't really think that there is anything particularly unique about Stalin's ideology or his methodology. As to your claim that Leninism was stone dead the moment Stalin came to power... as I said in my previous post, I completely agree that regimes change with some frequency. Political philosophies do not.

or you are reduced to skepticism

I prefer to be the skeptic. Take a look at the two primary parties in the United States. They certainly don't behave according to the ideals they claim to hold. Parties say what they know people want to hear. Sometimes they carry through, but only when it's in their interest.

Having said that, I'm now out of my realm of experience. I've been too busy watching the US and the Middle East, so what France is doing at the moment is beyond me.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html

>>33

The problem with skepticism is that it removes the ability to make decisions based upon logic. In fact, that's what it was designed to do, historically.

Skepticism doesn't just presuppose that no-one is telling the truth; it presupposes that they don't even know what the truth is, and neither do you.

Skepticism is a philosophy with no maxims, because it does not "affirm" anything. It only negates existing statements. Skeptics are nihilists. Most skeptics are also hypocrites because they only question some things. I can't remember the last time I heard a skeptic question the cardinality of numbers, like in the old days...

it removes the ability to make decisions based upon logic.

As opposed to taking everything at face value? If the premises are false, then what? Sound arguments fall apart. In other words, you can't have any confidence in the conclusion either... just like a skeptic.

Science also is based on skepticism. "It does that because of X." "Oh, really? Please support that, and then I'll go replicate it."

Skepticism isn't either/or. It's a continuous spectrum, just like most things in life. I don't know anybody who abides by its most extreme forms.

>>36

Not to belabor the point, but you're not describing skepticism, you're describing empiricism.

Skepticism is the belief that absolute truth is indeterminable, and relative truth is situational.

Empiricism is the belief that absolute truth is determined through observation.

Guilty as charged. I just noticed now that you said you were using it in the philosophical sense. Whoops.

Let's run with that then. Why do we have to take their statements at face value? Their statements usually don't exist in a vacuum. We can judge based on past statements and actions, not just of the politician in question, but politicians as a group.

Just because X says they'll cut taxes, increase funding to education/medicare/whatever, doesn't make it true. Just because X says they've won the war has little bearing on reality.

>>38

Well... call me naive, but I think that politicians rarely "lie", as in present counter-factual information as true. Most of the time they "spin". That's why words like "colonialism", "terrorism", "extremism", "dictator", etc., with no rigid or concise denotative definition are so overused.

But even that aside, I think that a.) past actions are often not strong predictors for future actions. You mentioned you are interested in middle east politics... well, look at Ariel Sharon... very unpredictable. Yet from a perspective of real politik, where you identify his goals and ignore his ethics, opinion, and statements, and then imagine the most effective way of pursuing his goals, there is nothing random about his behavior.

And to be honest, I think this real politik method is the way real people work, not just politicians. The idea of a person whose functioning ethics exist outside of their goals is misguided. Ideology defines methodology, or as Marx would have it "the mode of production is the mode of government".

Just as when you're pushing or carrying something so heavy that you're near to the limits of your strength and endurance, you cannot procede gently, ethics are a luxury afforded to those who will get their way anyway.

tl;dr? assume all actors are rational, identify a rational goal; proceed with this assumption until behavior contradicts pursuit of hypothetical goal.

Most of the time they "spin".

The point being? You still have to sift through the connotational cruft. Spin is just another word for propaganda, and I'm certain we can both agree it's best to distill a statement and consider what is being said before deciding. We both know the wonders of accepting propaganda at face value.

past actions are often not strong predictors for future actions

"Often"? Oho, they usually are, and when you have little else to go on, they make as useful a predictor as any. Better than random chance, and definitely an important consideration when considering what is being said. If someone says something that's contrary to their history, beware.

Ariel Sharon is just one example (and not a very compelling one). I'll point to someone else: GWB. So much for anecdotal evidence.

deology defines methodology, or as Marx would have it "the mode of production is the mode of government".

lolocaust, is that you? I swear I've been here before. >.>;

Other than that, I don't see how this is relevant when considering what is being said by a politician. Ethics has little to do with the relationship betwee words and reality.