they kiss and make up

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by fourdc
This is reminiscent of the bombing attack on Libya during Ronald Reagan's presidency. The planes flying from the UK had to fly around France and Spain and come in through Gibraltar.

People were pissed at the French for that too. However Francois Mitterand was a better statesman than Chirac, and was able to smooth things out.

---

Very true - on this occasion France said it objected in principal to the attack on Libyia, which is fair enough. I, for one, don't expect the UK or any other European country to agree automatically with everything that the US says :p

However, at that time France didn't indulge in anti American rhetoric, and pointed out the moral & practical reasons for its refusal. Which is exactly how countries like Belguim responded to the latest Iraq war - a position that I respect, even though I might not agree with it.

In reply to FrameWorks comment about France's position in NATO, France does not want anything to do with the US at a military level, which is why it refuses to join, except as an observer. In fact in a French ideal world, they would rather not have any dealings with the US period, unless of course it is US tourists visiting France.

Mind you the French paid the price for that when they tried to block a NATO resolution on Iraq.
The president of NATO used an interesting constitutional ploy of putting it to a vote of the full members (i.e. all the countries in the EU except for France), and the resolution was duly passed.

Quote:

---

In reply to FrameWorks comment about France's position in NATO, France does not want anything to do with the US at a military level, which is why it refuses to join, except as an observer. In fact in a French ideal world, they would rather not have any dealings with the US period, unless of course it is US tourists visiting France.

---

In a perfect world with no war, France would thrive, but that's just not the way things are. All i can say is that i will always love the French for that great deal on the Louisiana Purchase. ;)

The key issue to the problem may be in addressing the French feeling of a better time gone by. They believe they were called for greatness and perhaps have trouble with reconciling their current minor power status with that image.

Something tell's me the French will have an even larger role to play in the EU over the next few years.

Louisiana purchase was a great deal but let's not forget that France was a motivated seller. Its was going broke supporting Napolean's empirical fantasies.

In similar vein, I'm sure Russia regrets selling Alaska :)

One interesting report coming out of the UN at the moment is that the UK is suggesting the permanent members of the security council are expanded to include Germany, Japan, and India. The British ambassador stated the reason was to "try and re-establish the credibility of the UN".

Seems logical to me, as the security council would then more or less reflect the makeup of the G8, who are the leading industrial democracies in the world, although of course it would dilute the power of the existing 5 members.

I expect France will veto that as well :D

Quote:

---

In similar vein, I'm sure Russia regrets selling Alaska

One interesting report coming out of the UN at the moment is that the UK is suggesting the permanent members of the security council are expanded to include Germany, Japan, and India. The British ambassador stated the reason was to "try and re-establish the credibility of the UN".

Seems logical to me, as the security council would then more or less reflect the makeup of the G8, who are the leading industrial democracies in the world, although of course it would dilute the power of the existing 5 members.

I expect France will veto that as well

---

Alaska was a great bargain. :p

I'm with you on that darkes, the French will probably veto that one. It wouldnt matter though if we(U.S.) had Japan and India anyway, because of the mighty "veto".

As for re-establishing the UN's credibility, that will never happen. The UN's credibility has gone straight out the window, and has landed on the lap of the EU :( (I'm no fan of the EU), but this is the reality of the situation.

<spelling edited>

Maybe we need a new international body then. The Eu won't suffice completely because it is continent specific. The UN was supposed to, in principle, respresent the world interest.

Ah, theory as opposed to practice... There are many things that in theory would be very beneficial to Man but in practice those same things do nothing but harm....

Religion being one of them. Great in principle, but when you leave it up to men/women to implement it, it makes almost everyone suffer.

Quote:

---

There are many things that in theory would be very beneficial to Man but in practice those same things do nothing but harm....

Religion being one of them. Great in principle, but when you leave it up to men/women to implement it, it makes almost everyone suffer.

---

I dont think religion does nothing but harm. It's only the fanatics that do most of the harm. ;)