CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The British-French duel
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The British-French duel

post #1 of 21
3/25/03 at 3:23pm
Thread Starter 
<a href="http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030324-015735-4638r" target="_blank">It was a Machiavellian strategy rooted in political reality and with a prospect of success. To the sophisticated diplomats of the Quai d'Orsay, it must have seemed that the only obstacle to its realization was those naïve Americans led by an inexperienced cowboy.</a>

--------------

<img src="http://www.iceforest.com/usa_banners/random17.jpg" alt="" />
Reply
post #2 of 21
3/25/03 at 3:44pm
That's interesting, and actually seems written pretty evenly (although my distate for Chirac may be tainting that).
Reply
post #3 of 21
3/25/03 at 4:00pm
Wow, more French-bashing, "anti-American" labeling propaganda. How many times can you rewrite this stuff?
Reply
post #4 of 21
3/25/03 at 4:09pm
Quote:
A-Pathetic:
(although my distate for Chirac may be tainting that).
Yes, it is.
Reply
post #5 of 21
3/25/03 at 4:33pm
That was a very astute article. Thanks for posting it.

Why is anyone who attributes any motive to French foreign policy besides "saintly altruism" automatically dismissed? How is this article French-bashing? People, particularly on these boards, dissect every action of the current administration in a search for hidden agendas or less then ideal motivations. All this is well and good - a government should be scrutinized. Why is it unacceptable to attempt to analyze the actions of anti-war governments in the same way?

I am not a foreign policy expert. I do, however, know a large number of people who specialize in IR and several whose particular field of expertise is the EU. I thought it was fairly widely accepted that the struggle for control of the EU and its subsequent relationship with America was a large part of the subtext behind France's recent actions.
Reply
post #6 of 21
3/25/03 at 4:34pm
So France's motives weren't pure? Their only concern wasnt about people dying. I thought they were the moral superior to the U.S.
Reply
post #7 of 21
3/25/03 at 4:38pm
Quote:
Al Manheim (wedway17):
That was a very astute article. Thanks for posting it.

Why is anyone who attributes any motive to French foreign policy besides "saintly altruism" automatically dismissed? How is this article French-bashing? People, particularly on these boards, dissect every action of the current administration in a search for hidden agendas or less then ideal motivations. All this is well and good - a government should be scrutinized. Why is it unacceptable to attempt to analyze the actions of anti-war governments in the same way?

I am not a foreign policy expert. I do, however, know a large number of people who specialize in IR and several whose particular field of expertise is the EU. I thought it was fairly widely accepted that the struggle for control of the EU and its subsequent relationship with America was a large part of the subtext behind France's recent actions.
The reason this is propaganda isn't because it looks at France's self-focused political maneuvering for what it is.

The reason is because it does so while ignoring Britain and the United States' every iniquity and while casting us heros who've prevailed against the nefarious French, whose evil scheme has now gone up in smoke as their "power" floats away.

And it does this while ignoring several facts that contradict it.
Reply
post #8 of 21
3/25/03 at 4:52pm
Quote:
mikah912:
The reason this is propaganda isn't because it looks at France's self-focused political maneuvering for what it is.

The reason is because it does so while ignoring Britain and the United States' every iniquity and while casting us heros who've prevailed against the nefarious French, whose evil scheme has now gone up in smoke as their "power" floats away.

And it does this while ignoring several facts that contradict it.
I didn't think the article cast Britain as heros at all, I thought it was more the differing ideas on exactly what the EU should become (a counter-balance to the US or a partner). It certainly doesn't make Blair appear all that savvy, and in some cases impotent to make some decisions that may be necessary. That France, Britain and the US are all acting in a manner they believe to be best for themselves in undeniable. Looking at why each country thinks their course of action is correct seems an easy enough concept, and the idea that everything that recently happened in the UN may have trumped a few of France's ideas is fairly solid.
Reply
post #9 of 21
3/25/03 at 4:58pm
Propaganda works both ways. Just for reference...

Propaganda: The spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
Propaganda: Ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect.
Reply
post #10 of 21
3/25/03 at 4:59pm
Quote:
A-Pathetic:
I didn't think the article cast Britain as heros at all, I thought it was more the differing ideas on exactly what the EU should become (a counter-balance to the US or a partner). It certainly doesn't make Blair appear all that savvy, and in some cases impotent to make some decisions that may be necessary. That France, Britain and the US are all acting in a manner they believe to be best for themselves in undeniable. Looking at why each country thinks their course of action is correct seems an easy enough concept, and the idea that everything that recently happened in the UN may have trumped a few of France's ideas is fairly solid.
When only British and French politicans who differ with US policy are called "Anti-American" when those who vehemently opposes France's position are called....nothing, it is propaganda.

When a conspiracy theory to "tie down Uncle Sam" is actually seriously bandied about as if it's fact, it's propaganda.

When the person who does these things is the editor-in-chief of a major "news" organization, it's reason to be more than a little bit skeptical and wary.
Reply
post #11 of 21
3/25/03 at 5:00pm
Quote:
Los Kronos Californios:
Propaganda works both ways. Just for reference...

Propaganda: The spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
Propaganda: Ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect.
I agree. Propagandists of every stripe imaginable. But I just don't see very much leftish propaganda posted here unless you count Tom Tommorrow's This Modern World comic strip.
Reply
post #12 of 21
3/25/03 at 5:04pm
Even facts can be propaganda if used in such a way as to gather support for one's cause or are intended to gather support for one's cause.

note: gether? heh...

Reply
post #13 of 21
3/25/03 at 5:07pm
Quote:
Los Kronos Californios:
Even facts can be propaganda if used in such a way as to gather support for one's cause or are intended to gather support for one's cause.

note: gether? heh...
Again...I absolutely agree. By its textbook definition, there is nothing derogatory or demeaning about propaganda.

But in our current popular definition, you certainly wouldn't want to have legitimate opinion or journalism written off as such, but I don't see how anyone can call this name-calling, storybook drama of an editorial anything but propaganda.
Reply
post #14 of 21
3/25/03 at 5:16pm
Quote:
But in our current popular definition, you certainly wouldn't want to have legitimate opinion or journalism written off as such...
Yet there's the CNN/FOX News paradigm in play. Look very carefully at the two and you'll find they are both propagandizing for their particular sides.

It's an interesting study all by itself.

Maybe I'm just too detached from this whole entire thing. I guess that's the way I feel these days...
Reply
post #15 of 21
3/25/03 at 5:43pm
Quote:
Los Kronos Californios:
Yet there's the CNN/FOX News paradigm in play. Look very carefully at the two and you'll find they are both propagandizing for their particular sides.

It's an interesting study all by itself.

Maybe I'm just too detached from this whole entire thing. I guess that's the way I feel these days...
I have never understood the equating of CNN and Fox.

CNN does not have a news show that attacks guests of but ONE political ideology and then has columnists later that same night invite the news show guest on to celebrate how they "handled that problem."

CNN does not have a single show wherein a columnist continually berates conservatives and blames the problems of the world on them in one way or another.

CNN is not owned by Roger Ailes, who bows at the feet of the Bush admin.

Now, you may feel that CNN is a liberal news network for whatever reason, but if it's partisan, it is certainly not as feverishly so as Fox is.
Reply
post #16 of 21
3/25/03 at 6:35pm
Fox needed an enemy and a clear agenda. Pretty simple concept. You come on the block and beat-up the biggest guy around and let everybody know you did it. Then you profess to be about everything they're not. They took two organizations made up of untold individuals and boiled them down to two things, good and evil. You'd think they were running for office.
Reply
post #17 of 21
3/25/03 at 6:50pm
Quote:
mikah912
CNN does not have a single show wherein a columnist continually berates conservatives and blames the problems of the world on them in one way or another.
Ever see Crossfire. They have a conservative and liberal constantly blaming the other side.
Reply
post #18 of 21
3/25/03 at 6:55pm
CNN has been passing off US propaganda as fact for days now. Their imbedded reporters constantly talk about how brave our boys are. They parade the families of American POWs in front of the camera every chance they have. They have ex-military guys as their only experts. How is this left leaning at all?

Wait, I forgot, they did say that the majority of the anti-war protesters are pro-troop but against the war. That's the communism!
Reply
post #19 of 21
3/26/03 at 12:03pm
Quote:
mikah912:


CNN does not have a news show that attacks guests of but ONE political ideology and then has columnists later that same night invite the news show guest on to celebrate how they "handled that problem."
You're referring to one incident when Sean Hannity brought on the Fox News Live guy to celebrate him ripping on Garofolo, right? That was a single incident, not indicative of every night on Fox or even on Hannity and Colmes.
<strong>
Quote:
CNN does not have a single show wherein a columnist continually berates conservatives and blames the problems of the world on them in one way or another.
O'Reilly? I've seen him bash both sides.
<strong>
Quote:
CNN is not owned by Roger Ailes, who bows at the feet of the Bush admin.
Ailes doesn't own Fox News. He does run it for Murdoch, though. Nevertheless, he was in charge of CNBC before Fox News - I don't recall it being blasted for being partisan.

Reply
post #20 of 21
3/26/03 at 12:04pm
Murdoch didn't own CNBC. He's a superpartisan. GE is much smarter with their bias. They're subtle about it.
Reply
post #21 of 21
3/26/03 at 1:05pm
Quote:
george w. sorro:
You're referring to one incident when Sean Hannity brought on the Fox News Live guy to celebrate him ripping on Garofolo, right? That was a single incident, not indicative of every night on Fox or even on Hannity and Colmes.
</strong>

How many times does it have to happen before it's "indicative" of that network? It's a symptom of a larger problem, not the problem itself.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The British-French duel