Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Vile Betrayer, New Superpower, or Both?
So, how did that whole Fuck-France publishing boomlet go? Not so good, if you risk karmic blowback by looking at Amazon sales rankings. The four main titles to come out in the last two years are not exactly flying off the virtual shelves:
#31,014:
Our Oldest Enemy: A History of America's Disastrous
Relationship with France, by John J. Miller and Mark
Molesky (October 2004).
#111,921:
The Arrogance of the French: Why They Can't Stand Us--and Why
the Feeling Is Mutual, by Richard Chesnoff (April
2005).
#202,288:
The French Betrayal of America, by Kenneth R.
Timmerman (March 2004).
#203,729:
Vile France: Fear, Duplicity, Cowardice and Cheese, by
Denis Boyles (March 2005). (Despite a glowing testimonial from
Victor Davis Hanson!)
Compare that to the genre's inverse -- Why Europe Is Gonna Kick Our Ass, Despite Decades of Evidence to the Contrary. The four recent examples of note are faring significantly better:
#10,103:
The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future Is
Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream, by Jeremy Rifkin
(August 2004).
#16,059:
The United States Of Europe: The New Superpower and the End of
American Supremacy, by T.R. Reid (November 2004).
#59,669:
Why Europe Will Run the 21st Century, by Mark Leonard
(February 2005).
#182,868:
The Next Superpower?: The Rise of Europe and Its Challenge to
the United States, by Rockwell A. Schnabel and Francis X.
Rocca (September 2005).
Twelve months ago, I argued against the significance of the Transatlantic Rift here.
|12.27.05 @ 8:14AM|#
The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future Is
Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream, by Jeremy Rifkin (August
2004).
Rifkin... Why am I NOT surprised?
|12.27.05 @ 8:18AM|#
Is it really any surprise that the people with the "Boycott France" bumper stickers aren't big on books?
|12.27.05 @ 8:45AM|#
anybody looking at Europe's fertility rates should quickly realize a "kickass" Europe is a pipe dream...
|12.27.05 @ 8:58AM|#
None of them are selling very well. The only thing that this proves is that there are more left-wing pointed-headed intellectuals then there are right-wing pointy-headed intellectuals. No surprise there.
|12.27.05 @ 9:03AM|#
amen, hillbilly. leftwingery still sells better worldwide. what does this prove again?
|12.27.05 @ 9:09AM|#
Considering that Jared Diamond's Collapse is ranked #7 in political books, I wouldn't put too much credence in the buying habits of Amazon buyers.
Matt Welch|12.27.05 @ 9:17AM|#
jf, Hillbilly, rob -- It's a laff; I don't think it proves a
thing.
rob -- It's Something I Know. A quick Google News search will
confirm it, though I'd thought the birth rate was more like 2.3 per
woman than 1.9.
|12.27.05 @ 9:17AM|#
And while Europe and America are bickering over whose the best,
the Chinese are gonna rise up and kick everyone ass. At least
that's what these fine folks have to say...
#1,255 - China, Inc. : How the Rise of the Next Superpower
Challenges America and the World
by Ted C. Fishman
#23,648 - China: The Gathering Threat by Constantine C.
Menges
#3,702 - The Chinese Century : The Rising Chinese Economy and
Its Impact on the Global Economy, the Balance of Power, and Your
Job
by Oded Shenkar
|12.27.05 @ 9:19AM|#
Matt Welch --
France's fertility rate in 2004 was 1.85 children per woman, well
below replacement (2.10). And that's including immigrant
populations, which tend to have higher fertility rates than ethnic
French.
More ominously, it looks like the US has just dipped below
replacement as well (at 2.08).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate
|12.27.05 @ 9:23AM|#
Matt, 1.9 children per woman is not "popping out babies in pretty good style," it's more like "depending on immigration to prevent depopulation."
Brad Spangler|12.27.05 @ 9:31AM|#
@joe
Is it really any surprise that the people with the "Boycott
France" bumper stickers aren't big on books?
Books are fine -- just as long as they have lots of pictures.
MP|12.27.05 @ 9:35AM|#
More ominously, it looks like the US has just dipped below
replacement as well (at 2.08).
Other than how this will eventually undermine the social welfare
system (a good thing, IMHO), so what?
|12.27.05 @ 9:43AM|#
My Republican inlaws served brie and gouda on Christmas
Day.
The European plot to take over our country is obviously much more
advanced than we realized.
Matt Welch|12.27.05 @ 9:44AM|#
crimethink -- Not if births outnumber deaths, as they've been
doing by a sizeable and growing margin the past few years. Also the
"cumulative birth rate" -- whatever the hell that is! -- is
currently above 2 per female. And the trend lines suggest that
calling this recent production a "baby boom" might not be as silly
as it sounds.
More crap here.
|12.27.05 @ 9:55AM|#
Matt,
If births outnumber deaths, but you still have a below-replacement
fertility rate, that means your population is steadily aging.
Which, callously speaking, is even worse than depopulation, since a
small, young population is economically preferable to a large, old
one.
The cumulative birth rate is the fertility rate of women who were
born 50 years ago, and is irrelevant to this discussion as far as I
can tell.
I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I was kind of put off by how
you dismissed rob's question by saying that Google news
confirmed your assertion, when in fact it refuted
it.
MP|12.27.05 @ 9:59AM|#
Not if births outnumber deaths, as they've been doing by a
sizeable and growing margin the past few years.
Sounds like the French need more heat waves. They should welcome
GW.
|12.27.05 @ 10:08AM|#
Why am I not supposed to dismiss this entire argument with an observation about immigration keeping the country both populated and young?
Matt Welch|12.27.05 @ 10:12AM|#
crimethink -- I said France is "popping out babies in pretty
good style," not that it's "maintaining a birth rate sufficient to
ensure population growth regardless of immigration figures." I said
I "know" this, because 1) I was asked how I know this, and 2) I'm
surrounded by French people in my daily life, especially those of
child-rearing age, and this is one of many things they talk about;
and 3) I am supposed to be working on something else right now, and
was hoping someone else might do the heavy lifting of clicking
www.google.com.
Nevertheless, at your good-spirited urging, I looked at Google
News, and indeed "confirmed" that France has the highest birth
rates in continental Europe, that it's gaining population, that
births outnumber deaths, that these trends are increasing, and that
the phenomenon is widely referred to as a "baby boom." Apparently
this does not satisfy your definition of "popping out babies in
pretty good style." I guess good people will have to disagree.
(Assuming for the sake of argument that I'm good.)
|12.27.05 @ 10:21AM|#
These people who say France is our "enemy" because they
disagreed with us on matters like the Iraq War--do these fools ever
think before they speak? Who really thinks that France would invade
and destroy us, even if they could? Who seriously thinks that
France wouldn't help us if we ever faced a genuine emergency?
Jesus, save me from people who think that anyone who ever disagrees
with me on anything must therefore be my "enemy." Save me from
people who can't distinguish between a friend and a yes-man.
I am supposed to be working on something else right
now
Oh, hell, don't let that stop you. It never stops any of
us.
|12.27.05 @ 10:22AM|#
The whole question of "why is France the way it is" is an interesting one, though. I think you can trace it back at least to Napoleon: Napoleon stomps on Prussia; the Prussians kick French ass in the Franco-Prussian war; the French gleefully stick it to Germany after the Great War; the Germans humiliate France in WWII and then the French feel humiliated by everybody; they still had the colonies to kick around but then even that starts going sour. That would be enough to make any country feel defensive. And I'm sure you can trace it back further - why was Napoleon able to rise and lead the country to war? - but my knowledge of French history isn't that good.
|12.27.05 @ 10:38AM|#
Who seriously thinks that France wouldn't help us if we ever
faced a genuine emergency?
They're helping us in Afghanistan. They're helping us crack down on
Al Qaeda cells in the West, and sharing intelligence.
The French are our oldest ally, even if it has been a strained
alliance at times. They helped us kick the asses of the British.
When I went to a physics lecture at their embassy in September,
outside their auditorium they had a display on the Statue of
Liberty.
|12.27.05 @ 10:54AM|#
Jennifer, They're the same people who think that they are being
"persecuted" when they're not allowed to use the government to
advance Christianity. They consider the expansion of their power
(that of the God-endorsed Christian United States of America) to be
their right, and interference with that expansion to be a violation
of their rights.
And I mean this literally. They're the same people. Just ask
them.
MP|12.27.05 @ 11:07AM|#
(that of the God-endorsed Christian United States of
America)
If it wasn't for that endorsement, Santa would be in jail right
now.
|12.27.05 @ 11:20AM|#
I actually read "our oldest enemy" and I found it very
interesting. Clearly, it is selective in its examples, but how many
people know that the French Army actually blasted apart an
American/British landing force in Africa? Then charged the
survivors a "landing fee"...
It's an overstatement to say that France is an active enemy, but it
would be helpful for more people to realize that France is a
sovereign nation that acts only in its own interests. Only in its
own interests.
I am amused when an individual can point out all the self-serving
flaws in the US (War for Oil!) but claim that France has only noble
motivations when it acts against our foreign policy
interests.
I believe it was Patton who said he'd rather have a German division
in front of him, than a French division behind him.
|12.27.05 @ 11:21AM|#
With respect to Frances birth rates, aren't they expected to be majority Arab/Muslim within 40 years?
|12.27.05 @ 11:27AM|#
It's an overstatement to say that France is an active enemy,
but it would be helpful for more people to realize that France is a
sovereign nation that acts only in its own interests. Only in its
own interests.
Those motherfuckers. How dare they act in their own interest,
rather than keeping our needs first and foremost in their
minds?
|12.27.05 @ 11:29AM|#
France-bashing is almost as fun for us as America-bashing is for the French, but most people are too dense to get that it's more a joke than anything serious. Sure, both countries rub the other the wrong way fairly often, but we're actually pretty strong allies. Even if we really hated each other, they have very close ties with the UK--just like we do. So what if they're obstinate about their independence? That doesn't sound familiar to anyone living in the U.S.? Besides, they make great cheese and wine :) And they gave us the setting for Casablanca.
|12.27.05 @ 11:39AM|#
Jennifer, They're the same people who think that they are
being "persecuted" when they're not allowed to use the government
to advance Christianity.
Doesn't stop with them, Joe. I've got plenty of conservative
friends and family who are agnostic or atheist who are just as
likely to feel 'persecuted by liberals.'
I also know plenty of...well, I'll call them 'opportunity
Christians'. They don't go to church or practice any lifestyle that
comes close to according itself with any conservative Christian
discipline. (In my former partyin' days, they were some of the
biggest drinkers). But give them an opportunity to weigh in on a
moral issue and they are all of a sudden ad hoc bible
scholars.
They can't quote scripture, mind you. Nor do they know anything
about Christian thought that they didn't get from Bill O'Reilly (a
towering voice in Christian circles, let me tell you). And their
bible (if they even have one) is rarely - if ever - opened.
No...the Republican Persecution Complex doesn't end - or even
start, mind you - with Christian zealots (Full Disclosure: I am
very much a Christian).
Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the pundit-sphere has
gained remarkable traction with Conservative Christians despite
being almost devoid of any Christian message or example. Most of
these guys don't even mention Jesus or quote him let alone go to
church or write books with Christian messages.
The saddest of all, is that most of the "Conservative Christians"
are completely unable to tell that they are being played like
fiddles by cynical bastards who rile them up for ad revenue.
|12.27.05 @ 11:45AM|#
madpad, you mean like people who think it's an insult to
Christians not to have a Christmas tree?
They're not working to advance a school of philosophy and theology.
They're working to mark more turf for their gang.
|12.27.05 @ 11:49AM|#
bubba,
Out of curiosity, did "Our Oldest Enemy" mention that the Germans
were holding 1,000,000 Frenchmen as POWs as hostages at the time?
Or that the cease fire that ended the Germans' rampage through the
country included the condition that the French military defend the
territorial integrety of its holdings against foreign
militaries?
These would seem to relevant facts when considering the French
army's actions in 1942, and I'm wondering if the author considering
them, or even presented them to his readers for their
consideration.
|12.27.05 @ 12:02PM|#
Joe,
Exactly.
Pentacostal Christians tend to pray for "gifts of the Holy
Spirit."
I can't find a list of these gifts in the bible but some
Charismatics can bust out with a list of 7 or 8 at the drop of a
hat.
On most lists is the gift of 'discernment' which I've always been
told is an ability to tell what's righteous or not.
As many of the Charismatic, Pentacostal or Assembly of God
followers tend toward conservative politics (while I tend toward
more moderate and less intrusive views) I occassionally wonder...is
it them that's got it wrong? Or me.
In every case, I eventually decide it's them.
|12.27.05 @ 12:10PM|#
By the way, the guy posting as "rob" - down to the same lower-case "r" is not me.
|12.27.05 @ 12:17PM|#
Merry Christmas and Happy Chanukah, by the way.
Look, I like the French, with the exception of some snotty
Parisians (and I feel the same way about the East Coast and New
York).
But let's face it, joe is seriously wacky with some of his
statements:
"the Germans were holding 1,000,000 Frenchmen as POWs as hostages
at the time?"
Yeah, because when the other side takes POWs and holds them as
hostages, that means you are dealing with an enemy who can be
negotiated with, therefore you should surrender.
Speaking of surrender: "Or that the cease fire that ended the
Germans' rampage through the country included the condition that
the French military defend the territorial integrety of its
holdings against foreign militaries?"
Cease-fire? You meant surrender, right? I know you're probably
thinking that surely there's some less-offensive term? There's not.
Why not just go whole hog and call it a French "victory"? Orwell is
spinning in his grave...
|12.27.05 @ 12:25PM|#
Rob, what is your point? Are you saying we should view France as an enemy because they surrendered to the Germans in World War Two?
|12.27.05 @ 12:27PM|#
I didn't think I would have to explain this any simpler, but
then, there's always rob.
rob, the continued holding of 1,000,000 Frenchmen, conditioned upon
the French army's agreement to fight off an allied invasion, made
that army's efforts to resist the Torch invasion more
undertandable, as the cost of failing to fight could have been the
mass slaughter of those hostages. Did you get it that time, or
would you perfer monosyllabic words and hand gestures?
And, military genius, a cease fire and surrendur are two different
things. First the French surrendured, then they and Germans signed
a cease fire.
For the life of me, I can't understand how you manage to work a
computer.
|12.27.05 @ 12:31PM|#
Why is it that any discussion of France on this forum must involve somebody defending France while calling another person stupid?
|12.27.05 @ 12:32PM|#
Jennifer,
I believe rob's point was, "joe coward not say cheese-eating
surrender monkey."
|12.27.05 @ 12:43PM|#
Sorry for OT comment. I think you all will like this, and the
"War on Christmas" threads are all dead:
I flew from O'Hare to Charlotte, NC on Friday. As we landed, the
pilot welcomed us to Charlotte, thanked us for choosing United, and
then said, "I'd like to wish you a Merry Christmas, or, if not, a
Happy Hanukkah. And if any of you are offended by that, then have a
Happy Festivus!"
|12.27.05 @ 12:46PM|#
joe: And the Germans executed Case Anton anyway, despite the Vichy fighting the Allies. The Germans did not, however, as far as I have ever heard, execute their thousands of French prisoners. It's really not at all clear what the actions of the Vichy forces against the Allies bought France.
|12.27.05 @ 12:48PM|#
Jennifer - No, it just creeps me out to see someone call what
was essentially a complete capitulation a "cease fire." You must
have missed the part where I said that I LIKE the French, in
general.
joe - "as the cost of failing to fight could have been the mass
slaughter of those hostages." Yep, I'm thinking my only option at
that point is to continue to fight, since it's obvious that I'm
dealing with an enemy that isn't remotely open to rational
negotiation. Since when does a nation surrender because it's
soldiers are being held hostage? Ah, when it's France during
WW2.
joe, you're wrong.
A cease-fire is a cessation of hostilities while an attempt to
reach some sort of an accord is made. Surrender can be one of those
accords, however, the negotiation to do so is negotiatedDURING a
cease-fire.
Here's how it works: Combatants are shooting at each other.
Cease-fire is declared. Negotiations ensue. Successful negotiations
= no more shooting. Unsuccessful negotiations = more shooting. And
you're calling ME an idiot?
Part of the acceptance of the French surrender was, undoubtedly,
"conditioned upon the French army's agreement to fight off an
allied invasion."
|12.27.05 @ 12:58PM|#
"A ceasefire is a temporary stoppage of a war, or any armed
conflict, where each side of the conflict agrees with the other to
suspend aggressive actions.
Ceasefires may be declared as part of a formal treaty, but they
have also been called as part of an informal understanding between
opposing forces. For example, on December 25, 1914, during World
War I, there was an unofficial ceasefire as both the Germans and
the British sought to observe Christmas (the "Christmas Truce").
There was no treaty signed, and after a few days the war resumed. [
1 ]" Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cease-fire
Either way, I'm right, joe's wrong.
Just because the French had reason to be ashamed of a big chunk of
its citizens & soldiers in WW2, doesn't mean that they didn't
also have a big chunk of its citizens & soldiers to be proud
of. That's true of the U.S., as well, and of any nation during ANY
conflict.
For the record, it's not a sweeping indictment of the French, but
of joe's bizarre terminology and sloppy, backwards thinking.
|12.27.05 @ 1:02PM|#
Either way, I'm right, joe's wrong.
Perhaps Joe used a word incorrectly. But does that refute his
primary point--namely, that the French had a damned good reason for
shooting at us in Africa? Or would you rather indulge in linguistic
nit-picking and hope that this will confuse some people into
thinking that his primary point was also incorrect, and
the French shot at us purely for the hell of it?
|12.27.05 @ 1:12PM|#
Cowboy
Capitalism: European Myths, American Reality (which is mostly
pro-American) ain't doing so bad...
Amazon.com Sales Rank: Today: #14,630 in Books
|12.27.05 @ 1:16PM|#
Who really thinks that France would invade and destroy us,
even if they could? Who seriously thinks that France wouldn't help
us if we ever faced a genuine emergency?
I'm working on my on sci-fi RPG setting where the EU intervernes on
during a second American Civil War. Does that count?
|12.27.05 @ 1:18PM|#
rob, you either excel at playing dumb, or you shouldn't be
allowed to use a fork.
1. The cease fire and the surrender were seperate events. One
occurred several days after the other. Which means,
2. The Germans' announcement that they were going to continue
holding those prisoners came several days after the French had
already surrendered.
"however, the negotiation to do so (surrender) is negotiatedDURING
a cease-fire." Uh, no, not in this case. The French surrendered,
and the Germans agreed to a cease fire afterwards, threating to
continue fighting all the time.
I'm sorry you don't know anything about the subject, but that
doesn't make me wrong. In reality, the Germans continued to
advance, to attack enemy positions, and to shell their cities while
the terms were drawn up. There are numerous history books you could
consult, if you decided you would like to understand something
you're posting about, for a change.
|12.27.05 @ 1:24PM|#
Jennifer - I never said that the French shot at us "for the hell
of it."
Not only did joe use a word incorrectly, he's arguing with someone
else, that he believes is arguing "joe coward not say cheese-eating
surrender monkey."
Which makes him look like a (to quote Capt K
irk) "double dumb-ass," since he's wrong on terminology, wrong on
analysis of my post.
I'd think that if someone is going to mock someone else's "military
genius," and call them an idiot for pointing out that he's wrong,
then try to claim I'm making some sort of cliched surrender monkeys
argument makes me think joe is arguing with someone in his head,
rather than reality.
|12.27.05 @ 1:31PM|#
joe,
Either way, the French surrendered. The Germans may have brokered a
cease-fire after their surrender, but that's pretty much part of
any surrender deal. "We surrender! Stop shooting at us!" is not a
cease-fire. It's a surrender.
In other words, your argument boils down to parsing it so that
there wasn't a cease-fire until after the surrender.
What does it matter? The surrender is certainly more important than
the cease-fire. Besides, it's certainly not uncommon for battles to
be waged after a cease-fire has been called, or even a surrender
declared. Communication is tricky in war... And apparently in
communicating with people like you, joe.
|12.27.05 @ 1:31PM|#
How high do books about the future of geopolitics usually rank on Amazon? How high did books about Bin Laden rank on Sept 10, 2001? I'm not sure this is a very useful method of determining what will matter in the future.
|12.27.05 @ 1:35PM|#
""We surrender! Stop shooting at us!" is not a cease-fire. It's
a surrender." Exactly right. First the French surrendured. Then
they negotiated the terms of a cease fire. That's my point.
"What does it matter?" It matters, rob, because you made the
accusation that the French decided to surrender knowing that the
Germans were going to hold 1,000,000 of their POWs as hostages.
They did not, as that little item was "negotiated" after the
surrender took place.
|12.27.05 @ 1:39PM|#
So, we all agree that the French surrendered to the Germans. joe
referred to the formal agreement as a "cease fire". This may or may
not be the correct usage of the word (maybe Cathy Young could write
an article about it?) but everybody here, joe included, agrees that
the French gave in, surrendered, ceased firing, capitulated, rolled
over, or whatever term you like.
Does that settle it?
If not, could we at least agree that when danger reared its ugly
head they bravely turned their tails and fled?
|12.27.05 @ 1:41PM|#
Jennifer - I never said that the French shot at us "for the
hell of it." Not only did joe use a word incorrectly, he's arguing
with someone else, that he believes is arguing "joe coward not say
cheese-eating surrender monkey."
That doesn't answer my question, Rob: even assuming Joe used the
word incorrectly, does that negate the point he was trying to
make?
|12.27.05 @ 1:43PM|#
If not, could we at least agree that when danger reared its
ugly head they bravely turned their tails and fled?
Just like we did in Vietnam! That makes us pathetic
hamburger-eating surrender monkeys, right? After all, once a nation
has suffered a military defeat it need never, ever be taken
seriously again, right?
|12.27.05 @ 1:48PM|#
Forgive a possible triple post, but I just wanted to make a friendly reminder to all reading this: you, personally, contributed to our victory in World War Two. So you are quite justified in feeling proud of yourselves, seeing as how this reflects upon you. Likewise, modern Frenchpersons (with the exception of the lovely and talented Mrs. Matt Welch) are personally responsible for their country's having done poorly in World War Two. Feel free to insult them for it. "Cheese-eating surrender coward" is a good one; I guarantee they've never, ever heard it before.
|12.27.05 @ 2:10PM|#
Those motherfuckers [France]. How dare they act in their own
interest, rather than keeping our needs first and foremost in their
minds?
I have no problem with France acting in its best interests. That's
only reasonable. I just can't take seriously the bizarre argument
that France is some loyal, boon ally of the United States. Or vice
versa.
Think about it this way: France is that guy over there, America is
this guy here, and sometimes they work together on things that will
benefit them both. Both are willing to do things that will
inconvenience the other if their interests conflict and they won't
piss the other one off too much (or are willing to deal with the
flak).
We're talking about a series of relationships that date back to
when the French monarchy thought helping the American Revolution
would be a pain in the British ass. Through bloody revolutions,
dictatorships, conquests, and republics, various French governments
have happened to find more areas they wanted to work with the US
than areas they wanted to oppose or compete with the US. That's
all it is, and it's irrelevant to whether the French like the
Americans or vice versa.
|12.27.05 @ 2:13PM|#
Forgive a possible triple post, but I just wanted to make a
friendly reminder to all reading this: you, personally, contributed
to our victory in World War Two....Likewise, modern Frenchpersons
(with the exception of the lovely and talented Mrs. Matt Welch) are
personally responsible for their country's having done poorly in
World War Two.
That's the sort of argument that would make a lot of sense to the
people who gave impassioned paeans to how the French helped America
and how we should be grateful. :)
|12.27.05 @ 2:14PM|#
so what happened to "of paridise and power"
i always thought that was the most reasoned anti-french book.
|12.27.05 @ 2:27PM|#
That's only reasonable. I just can't take seriously the
bizarre argument that France is some loyal, boon ally of the United
States. Or vice versa.
They may not be our strong ally, but they damn sure aren't our
enemy. And these "virtue-in-hating-the-French" fools need to learn
the difference between an enemy and a disapproving friend.
|12.27.05 @ 2:42PM|#
Never mind the meaning of cease-fire, joe's actual argument is
nonsensical. If a madman were holding your family hostage, and
threatening to kill them unless you kill someone else, would you be
justified in killing that person?
More to the point, if the roles were reversed, can you even imagine
the US firing on an ally's troops to (possibly) save some of our
POWs? At the very least, the incident reeks of French cowardice, if
not malice.
|12.27.05 @ 2:44PM|#
Why is it that any discussion of France on this forum must
involve somebody defending France while calling another person
stupid?
The Bart Effect? ;-)
|12.27.05 @ 2:57PM|#
They may not be our strong ally, but they damn sure aren't
our enemy.
Never said they were. They're just not a "friend" in any meaningful
sense.
And these "virtue-in-hating-the-French" fools need to learn the
difference between an enemy and a disapproving friend.
There is virtue in realizing that "France" is not any sort of
friend, but just another country watching out for itself. Many
people moralizing about or mocking the "mistreatment" of the French
by irked Americans need to learn that difference just as much as
the melodramatically irked do.
|12.27.05 @ 2:59PM|#
Crimethink--
Can you think of any warfare situation wherein innocent people were
not killed? Even our country is currently (albeit accidentally)
killing various innocent foreigners to protect our own country. By
that way of looking at it, you could say that at least the French
were shooting at people who had the ability to shoot back.
Not that what they did was admirable; just that the situation is
not as cut-and-dried as you might make it out to be.
|12.27.05 @ 3:01PM|#
There is virtue in realizing that "France" is not any sort
of friend, but just another country watching out for
itself.
Is there any country, including our own, whose primary concern
isn't "watching out for itself?"
If nothing else, our country has enough legitimate enemies in the
world, by which I mean people who really would destroy us if they
could. I don't know what the Francophobes hope to gain by trying to
invent more.
|12.27.05 @ 3:02PM|#
For some reason, there seems to be an assumpton here that all the "pro-European" books are by leftists. Look carefully at the Amazon.com page for *The Next Superpower?: The Rise of Europe and Its Challenge to the United States*, by Rockwell A. Schnabel and Francis X. Rocca and you will see that for that book at least it is not true. (Most of the laudatory reviews are form conservatives, and one of the authors works for the *American Spectator*.)
|12.27.05 @ 3:09PM|#
Is there any country, including our own, whose primary
concern isn't "watching out for itself?"
That's exactly the point, Jennifer. I'm saying that we should be
looking as France as a country, not some anthropomorphic
stand-in like "asshole we helped out twice when he had trouble with
that Germany guy and who won't help us now" or "older,
sophisticated friend who's trying to counsel us out of unwise
decisions".
by which I mean people who really would destroy us if they
could. I don't know what the Francophobes hope to gain by trying to
invent more.
I can't speak for hysterical remainered cash-in books, but all the
times I've heard or read people bitching about France, even at
length in hawk blogs, I don't think I've ever
heard anyone suggest that France wanted to destroy the US. The
worst accusations I've heard have been that 1) France's opposition
to the Iraq invasion was based on that government's wish to
preserve oil-for-food trade and 2) the French government wants to
"trianguate" diplomatically between the US and militant Islam just
as it did between NATO and the Warsaw pact (before the Soviet Union
fell and France joined NATO).
|12.27.05 @ 3:15PM|#
Oops, and I almost forgot accusation 3) the French government is terribly scared of militant Islam (especially with all those not-terribly-happy Muslims in its own country) and would rather other nations be bigger targets and do most of the work in fighting that movement.
dhex|12.27.05 @ 3:16PM|#
"They're not working to advance a school of philosophy and
theology. They're working to mark more turf for their gang."
there's a difference?!?!?!
|12.27.05 @ 3:27PM|#
"They may not be our strong ally, but they damn sure aren't our
enemy. And these 'virtue-in-hating-the-French' fools need to learn
the difference between an enemy and a disapproving friend." -
Jennifer
Alliances aren't friendships, and they're not some sort of
elementary school "Best Friends 4-Ever!" deal. I think the French
have always been more an ally and very rarely an enemy. Having said
all of that, I just want to clarify that you're not including me in
this whole 'virtue in hating the French' routine.
"just wanted to make a friendly reminder to all reading this: you,
personally, contributed to our victory in World War Two. " -
Jennifer
BTW, no one here is claiming that they personally had some hand in
winning WW2, what is that all about? Or are you just creating that
absurd argument so you can slap it down?
"That doesn't answer my question, Rob: even assuming Joe used the
word incorrectly, does that negate the point he was trying to
make?" - Jennifer
Which point was that? You mean your generous re-interpretation that
"--namely, that the French had a damned good reason for shooting at
us in Africa?"
Nope. I don't think I addressed that point. But crimethink's post
at December 27, 2005 02:42 PM does a good job of demolishing it.
For more on this, see my response to joe, below...
"you made the accusation that the French decided to surrender
knowing that the Germans were going to hold 1,000,000 of their POWs
as hostages. They did not, as that little item was 'negotiated'
after the surrender took place." - joe
I never made this claim. Just admit that you're arguing with some
delusional version of me that only exists in your head, as you so
often accuse others of doing.
What I actually wrote was "Yeah, because when the other side takes
POWs and holds them as hostages, that means you are dealing with an
enemy who can be negotiated with, therefore you should
surrender."
Sarcasm doesn't translate well, that's my bad.
What I should have said was - when the Germans hold your soldiers
as hostages rather than POWs, it means you really have no choice
other than to go back to war. Well, I suppose you COULD bend over
and grab your ankles like Marshal Philippe Petain, WW1 hero/Nazi
collaborator/French traitor, and start rounding up the Jews for
your Nazi overlords. Which option do you support, joe?
Surrendering under those circumstances is reprehensible, continued
failure to fight under those circumstances is also
reprehensible.
Of course, the U.S. letting the S. Vietnamese suffer the conquest
of the N. Vietnamese was pretty reprehensible in my opinion, too,
but apparently the defeat of the S. Vietnamese forces after the
U.S. pullout (because we wouldn't provide air power) is somehow a
U.S. military defeat in Jennifer's worldview:
"Just like we did in Vietnam! That makes us pathetic
hamburger-eating surrender monkeys, right? After all, once a nation
has suffered a military defeat it need never, ever be taken
seriously again, right?"
|12.27.05 @ 3:35PM|#
Of course, the U.S. letting the S. Vietnamese suffer the
conquest of the N. Vietnamese was pretty reprehensible in my
opinion, too, but apparently the defeat of the S. Vietnamese forces
after the U.S. pullout (because we wouldn't provide air power) is
somehow a U.S. military defeat in Jennifer's worldview:
Are you saying it was a U.S. military victory?
|12.27.05 @ 3:45PM|#
Not that what they did was admirable; just that the situation is
not as cut-and-dried as you might make it out to be." -
Jennifer
You and joe are working the same "equivocation isn't the same as
lying" angle. Is any situation cut and dried? No. Are there fairly
clear moral choices that require courage and sacrifice to make?
Yes. But the Vichy gov't is an example of people (not an entire
country!) failing to make that moral choice.
Doesn't mean that France is the enemy of the US, or that all French
are a bunch of "surrender monkeys." But some of them failed the
test of history for certain, and some of them passed because they
fought on bravely.
Here were the choices available to France:
1) "Surrender. Then help the Nazis round up France's Jewish
citizens for extermination, because hey, this isn't a cut and dried
situation and they're holding our soldiers hostage!"
2) "Hey, we're going to have to go back to war with these guys
because they want us to round up our Jewish citizens for
extermination AND they're holding our soldiers hostage!"
I'm starting to think you and joe would choose #1 because it's a
more NUANCED position...
"Can you think of any warfare situation wherein innocent people
were not killed? Even our country is currently (albeit
accidentally) killing various innocent foreigners to protect our
own country. By that way of looking at it, you could say that at
least the French were shooting at people who had the ability to
shoot back." - jennifer
Sheesh. It's amazing. I call out joe for claiming the French had a
"cease-fire" not a "surrender" and people think I'm being picky.
Jennifer argues that it's OK to turn over your own citizens for
execution because there are nuances like soldiers being held
hostage? And shooting at your allies is actually somehow nobler
than what the US is doing in Iraq because the US soldiers were able
to shoot back at the French?
Un-be-freaking-lievable.
I guess there's an apologist for everyone. I suppose there are some
people who will say that Stalin guy wasn't so bad after all... Why
should this be a surprise?
|12.27.05 @ 3:46PM|#
"Are you saying it was a U.S. military victory?" -
Jennifer
Nope. Are you claiming that the N. Vietnamese won a military
victory against the U.S.? Because I'll gladly school you on the
inaccuracy of that claim just like I did joe's "military genius"
claims regarding surrender vs. cease-fire.
|12.27.05 @ 3:47PM|#
Jennifer argues that it's OK to turn over your own citizens
for execution because there are nuances like soldiers being held
hostage?
No, I have not, and I don't know where you got that from.
Nor do I particularly care, truth to tell.
|12.27.05 @ 3:54PM|#
"No, I have not, and I don't know where you got that from." -
Jennifer
So you're NOT arguing it was understandable for the French to
surrender to the Nazis? You're not posting here helping joe try to
defend the reprehensible position that POWs mean you never have to
say you're sorry for capitulating to the Nazis? Well, even France
did that - sort of -when they convicted Petain of treason after the
war.
|12.27.05 @ 4:34PM|#
So you're NOT arguing it was understandable for the French
to surrender to the Nazis?
The Nazis had a stronger army, and they could have completely
destroyed France. You may as well insult a small, skinny woman for
being unable to fend off a would-be rapist twice her size.
Also, remember to insult those Americans who became POWS in the
first Gulf War. Just because they were vastly outgunned and
outnumbered doesn't mean they should have surrendered, I
suppose.
|12.27.05 @ 5:14PM|#
Just for the record,
French People I Think Are Groovy, or, Why I Could Never Hate the
French:
Good Science:
Henri Becquerel (Physics Nobel prize laureate in 1903 who ushered
in the nuclear age.)
Marie Curie
Renee Descartes
Louis Pasteur
Jean Bernard Leon Foucault
Beautiful Actresses:
Julie Delpy
Bridget Bardot
Isabella Adjani
Juliette Binoche
Brilliant Architects, Sculptors, Authors, Philosphers:
Gustave Eiffel
Frederic Auguste Bartholdi
Albert Camus
Gaston Leroux
Michel Foucault
Bertrand Russell
Etc etc etc...
Even on this list there are people I admire for their contributions
in one arena, but who fall sadly short in other areas. Humans being
fallible and imperfect and all... and nations being made up of
humans, well, I think you can see where I'm going with this:
The French people, like those in the U.S., aren't perfect.
So what's wrong with praising those who deserve it (when it's
deserved) and criticisizing similarly - even if they happen to be
French? Just because I don't think that it's cool to downplay the
wrongs that the French have committed, I don't think it means they
are "surrender monkeys" or some other silliness. But the defense of
the actions of the Vichy gov't and claiming that those who decry
them (which include many of the French) is just silly.
"The Nazis had a stronger army, and they could have completely
destroyed France. You may as well insult a small, skinny woman for
being unable to fend off a would-be rapist twice her size." -
Jennifer
So Jennifer, you ARE arguing that it was OK? I'm sorry I need a
scorecard. You are or aren't for Option #1?
"Also, remember to insult those Americans who became POWS in the
first Gulf War. Just because they were vastly outgunned and
outnumbered doesn't mean they should have surrendered, I suppose."
- Jennifer
And no, Jennifer, just because you personally surrender on the
battlefield doesn't mean your entire nation bends to the will of
the enemy. That only happens when you allow spineless traitors to
start running your country. Even so, there were plenty of French
people with the backbone to fight on despite the Vichy gov't.
Also, stop trying to equate my position to things it simply isn't.
Those analogies are TERRIBLE. Maybe it would help you to think of
the relationship between the US and France as that of ALLIES,
rather than FRIENDS. Maybe it would help you to think of France as
a nation with its own Army, Navy, and ass-kicking Foreign Legion
rather than as a defenseless rape victim... Like I said, your
analogies SUCK.
Surrender can be honorable, and the US has repeatedly accepted the
honorable surrender of its enemies - and some of our soldiers have
been forced to surrender during various conflicts. Honorable
surrender is what allows surrender to take place at all, after
all.
However, I certainly expect that the US would fight on - regardless
of consequence - if the terms of surrender were as unthinkable as
those France were faced with. Any other option is reprehensible,
and calling it that is something that even many French people are
comfortable with. Remember the guy who orchestrated that whole
surrender thing? Yeah, convicted as a traitor by the French:
Marshal Henri Philippe Benoni Omer Joseph Pétain (24 April 1856 -
23 July 1951), generally known as Philippe Pétain or Marshal
Pétain, was a French general and war hero, later Head of State of
Vichy France, from 1940 to 1944. Due to his military leadership in
World War I, he was viewed as a hero in France, but his actions
during World War II resulted in his being convicted and sentenced
to death for treason, which was commuted to life imprisonment by
Charles de Gaulle. In modern France, he is generally considered a
traitor, and pétainisme is a derogatory term for certain
reactionary policies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petain
|12.27.05 @ 5:20PM|#
The Nazis had a stronger army, and they could have
completely destroyed France. You may as well insult a small, skinny
woman for being unable to fend off a would-be rapist twice her
size.
I'm afraid that comparison doesn't quite work. One of the key
things investigators of rapes look for are signs of a struggle. In
other words, yes, the woman is expected to do her best to fight
back, escape, etc. It doesn't mean you blame her if she fails. But
if a woman just lies down and spreads her legs, that's not
rape.
|12.27.05 @ 5:31PM|#
Here's an example of a good analogy, Jennifer:
"Never mind the meaning of cease-fire, joe's actual argument is
nonsensical. If a madman were holding your family hostage, and
threatening to kill them unless you kill someone else, would you be
justified in killing that person?" - crimethink at December 27,
2005 02:42 PM
linguist makes a decent point, as well.
Here's a good analogy if you were to use France as a defenseless,
frail woman:
If you fail to fight off a rapist when you have the opportunity,
would you also then fail to fight when the rapist decides to
slaughter your children (Jewish French citizens)? Or would you help
the rapist/murderer bare your children's throats for the
knife?
Even were I a defenseless, physically frail person, I'd fight like
hell to protect my family. Hey, I'd fight like hell to protect
YOURS.
There's simply no defending French surrender to Germany under those
terms. Using POW hostages as an excuse for lining up your civilians
for the extermination camps just makes it worse, not more
understandable.
|12.27.05 @ 5:32PM|#
In other words, yes, the woman is expected to do her best to
fight back, escape, etc. It doesn't mean you blame her if she
fails. But if a woman just lies down and spreads her legs, that's
not rape.
Suppose the woman just lies down and spreads her legs because the
man is holding a gun to her head or a knife to her throat?
just because you personally surrender on the battlefield
doesn't mean your entire nation bends to the will of the
enemy
So in addition to hating France because they surrendered to the
Nazis, should we also hate the Netherlands, Belgium, Poland,
Norway, the former Czechoslovakia (those fuckers never fired a
shot), and all the other countries who surrendered to the Nazis? Or
is it only France that deserves such scorn, do you think?
|12.27.05 @ 5:34PM|#
rob, you did fine with your list of french celebres until you
got to Bertrand Russell, who was English not French.
Other than that minor quibble your list is fine. my list would
include my cousins, the sons of an Hungarian father and American
mother, as 100% French as they come, and fine fellows too.
linguist, I'm not sure your example works either. After all the
French covered the retreat and evacuation of the British and then
held on for almost another month against one of the most
unrelenting military assaults in history.
|12.27.05 @ 5:40PM|#
In other words, yes, the woman is expected to do her best to
fight back, escape, etc. It doesn't mean you blame her if she
fails. But if a woman just lies down and spreads her legs, that's
not rape.
yeah that is completely stupid.
|12.27.05 @ 5:45PM|#
I'm too lazy to actually do the required clicking, but I'll bet
anything that the "Lord of the Rings" cycle is far outselling any
of the books cited above.
Therefore, what we really should be worried about is the looming
threat from the Sauronofascists. (Anyone know the current
birthrates in Mordor?)
|12.27.05 @ 5:48PM|#
anyway i always thought we are supposed to pretend to hate the
french but in reality eat thier food drink thier wine watch their
movies and listen to thier music...just like they do to us.
The problem now is that thier culture has stagnated and all there
is left is our pretend hatred.
I mean god pull your head out of your ass france...Le fem nakita
and the delecatesin came out like 15 years ago.
My suggestion would be to go get some of those second generation
french africans you have living in the suburbs of paris and give
them some pots, a few viniards, some cameras and musical
insterments.
oh yeah and abolish the minsistry of lanuage.
|12.27.05 @ 6:00PM|#
You know, a few years back our hawkish posters used the phrase
"drain the swamp."
What about the Dead Marshes?
And didn't Ar Pharazon declare that you're either with him or
against him?
|12.27.05 @ 6:02PM|#
I find all these endless debates over the legacy of the Second
World War awful tiresome. Not only do they seem awful meaningless
(after all, if we are still going to castigate the French, then why
on earth did we support German reunification?) but I seem to recall
that the United States sat on its ass for three years after the
French were overrun before we decided to lend a hand.
I did note with interest though, that the Tribunal on the Rwandan
Genocide began a formal investigation of the collaboration between
French forces and Hutu Power this week. Whether or not they are
cheese-eating surrender monkeys, they do have about 100,000 dead
Tutsis to answer for.
|12.27.05 @ 6:10PM|#
if we are still going to castigate the French, then why on
earth did we support German reunification?) but I seem to recall
that the United States sat on its ass for three years after the
French were overrun before we decided to lend a hand.
Excellent points.
the Tribunal on the Rwandan Genocide began a formal
investigation of the collaboration between French forces and Hutu
Power this week. Whether or not they are cheese-eating surrender
monkeys, they do have about 100,000 dead Tutsis to answer
for.
THAT is worthy of criticism, but not stuff that happened sixty
years ago. It's like the difference between people criticizing
America because they dislike the Iraq War, versus criticizing us
because we didn't give full citizenship rights to black people in
the 1940s. The former may reflect badly upon Americans now alive,
but the latter does not.
|12.27.05 @ 6:12PM|#
Stevo-
As far as birthrates in Mordor, you obviously haven't spent any
time on a Tolkien message board. (I used to, long ago.) Otherwise,
you would know better than to raise the thorny question of how Orcs
reproduce.
Hell, you might as well just go to Hit and Run and declare that
Democrats are the lesser evil. The response would be equally
civil.
|12.27.05 @ 6:29PM|#
thoreau-
What I would have liked to know is why the elves seem so reluctant
to breed. Galadriel and Celeborn are immortal and beautiful, are
married for hundreds if not thousands of years, and have two kids.
Sure, I understand the passion goes out of a marriage after the
first couple centuries, but c'mon! Do your patriotic duty to
Lothlorien and get in on already!
|12.27.05 @ 6:32PM|#
Yeah, but their pregnancies last for the Elvish equivalent of 9
months. Which works out to be decades.
Hence the first device invented by the Noldor was actually a
condom. But Tolkien was a Catholic, so he deliberately kept it out
of the Silmarillion.
|12.27.05 @ 6:32PM|#
"So in addition to hating France because they surrendered to the
Nazis, should we also hate the Netherlands, Belgium, Poland,
Norway, the former Czechoslovakia (those fuckers never fired a
shot), and all the other countries who surrendered to the Nazis? Or
is it only France that deserves such scorn, do you think?" -
Jennifer
Why do you continue to act like I've said I hate France? I haven't,
you know.
I'm not a fan of the Vichy gov't, or their surrender to the Nazis,
or any of the collaborationist crap that French traitors got up to
including turning over Jewish Frenchman to be killed off (which you
are oddly silent about). The French still had the capability to
fight, and should have. Were someone to invade the US and run me
out of DC I'd probably not only thank you for it (just kidding!)
but I'd come back with all of my friends from the Resistance
Americain to make it hell for them.
You know what, tho? I've probably spent more time with the French
military than Jennifer. For the record, I spent 50+ days working
alongside coalition forces during the most-recent Haiti debacle
when Aristide was forced out of the country. That coalition
included the French Army and the French Foreign Legion. I've got no
complaints about either, they are professional military
organizations of the first order. They're excellent in the field
and actually spoke one of the two primary languages of the locals.
Well, sadly, that was because it was their former slave colony but
the French did a lot to help during this go-round despite a lot of
angry Haitian cries for reparations and even modestly took down
their flag to keep from offending Haitians.
Of course, the US forces could definitely learn about how to eat
(and drink!) during a deployment from the French!
"If you are English and someone says to you, 'The French are your
brothers', your first instinctive feeling will be, 'Nonsense. They
shrug their shoulders, and talk French. And I am even told that
they eat frogs.' If he explains to you that we may have to fight
the Russians, that, if so, it will be desirable to defend the line
of the Rhine, and that, if the line of the Rhine is to be defended,
the help of the French is essential, you will begin to see what he
means when he says that the French are your brothers. But if some
fellow-traveller were to go on to say that the Russians also are
your brothers, he would be unable to persuade you, unless he could
show that we are in danger from the Martians. We love those who
hate our enemies, and if we had no enemies there would be very few
people whom we should love."
- Bertrand Russell, Englishman not Frenchman (as I thought)
|12.27.05 @ 7:07PM|#
I'm not a fan of the Vichy gov't, or their surrender to the
Nazis, or any of the collaborationist crap that French traitors got
up to including turning over Jewish Frenchman to be killed off
(which you are oddly silent about).
I'm also oddly silent about the Spanish Inquisition, since neither
topic was previously mentioned on this thread. Yes, the French
collaborators were loathsome, as were the collaborators in Norway
(which gave our language the word 'Quisling'), Poland,
Czechoslovakia, Belgium, the Netherlands. . . but let me rephrase
my earlier question. Whatever negative feelings you have toward the
French due to World War Two, do you share these feelings with all
the other European countries which capitulated to the Nazis? What
makes France so special?
|12.27.05 @ 8:13PM|#
"I'm also oddly silent about the Spanish Inquisition, since
neither topic was previously mentioned on this thread." -
Jennifer
It's funny, you seem to be saying that just because you haven't
come out against something doesn't mean you're defending it. So
what is it that you ARE defending so vehemently here?
But the REALLY key thing about your Inquisition example: We're
discussing France, NOT Spain's shameful Inquisition. If you or joe
were equivocating about the Inquisition, trying to cut Spain or the
Catholic Church slack for the Inquisition by citing mitigating
factors, I'd take issue with you on that.
BTW, you know I've been bringing up the extermination of Jewish
French citizens with the willing help of the Vichy for a while on
this thread, and you've studiously ignored it until now.
Despite the fact that we're talking about France and not Spain,
(smokescreens aside), if someone mentions the Spanish Inqusition, I
usually have something negative to say about it, especially if
asked pointedly about it.
Glad to finally hear that you're against that, at least.
"Whatever negative feelings you have toward the French due to World
War Two, do you share these feelings with all the other European
countries which capitulated to the Nazis? What makes France so
special?" - Jennifer
The only thing that makes France special is that we're discussing
it here. We're not discussing Norway, Poland, Czechoslavakia,
Belgium, the Netherlands, altho we have discussed nations
represented as bad analogies to rape victims.
Since you mention those nations, I also have a deep disdain for the
govts of any nation that would surrender to terms like those France
agreed to, ameliorated only by the reality that unlike the French,
some were more truly conquered rather than surrendering when they
could have (and actually did for a while) continue the fight.
We all know that many of the French resisted their new Nazi
overlords, rather than welcoming them as some did. Other countries
also had resistance movements, and they were also worthy of
respect.
Hell, I'm not the one who even broached the shameful affairs of
France during WW2. I just pointed out that trying to cut the French
Vichy gov't slack for surrendering, attacking US forces, and
turning over for slaughter its own citizens was unequivocably
loathsome. Oh, I also pointed out that in addition to making the
ludicrous equivocating claim that there were mitigating factors,
joe doesn't understand the concept of a cease-fire vs. a
surrender.
I took issue with how you and joe seemed happy to nuance the French
collaborationists, their surrender and subsequent use of their
military against their US allies, for quite a while on this thread.
Is it really that important for you to attack a "surrender monkey"
straw man that no one has actually put forth on this board? If so,
why is France so uniquely deserving of your support?
Why do you readily condemn them the French for possible (but as yet
unproven, I think) complicity in Rwandan massacres, but give them a
free pass in helping the Nazis with turning the Holocaust onto
French citizens?
I've also pointed out that I've got great respect and affection for
France - which you seem to selectively be unable to read. I'm not
some knee-jerk "surrender monkey" bumper sticker guy, but you don't
really seem prepared to discuss this with someone who doesn't
espouse bumper sticker philosophical strawmen for you to club
down.
You and joe seem to have the "rob that exists only in your head"
thoroughly sketched out. Too bad that creation bears no resemblance
to reality.
|12.27.05 @ 8:25PM|#
Why do you readily condemn them the French for possible (but
as yet unproven, I think) complicity in Rwandan massacres, but give
them a free pass in helping the Nazis with turning the Holocaust
onto French citizens?
Please quote me, as to where I said that.
you seem to be saying that just because you haven't come out
against something doesn't mean you're defending it. So what is it
that you ARE defending so vehemently here?
I am not defending anything; I am attacking the notion that France
deserves to be singled out for special disdain (which is, you'll
remember, the original topic of this thread), especially based on
its actions in World War Two.
Since you mention those nations, I also have a deep disdain for
the govts of any nation that would surrender to terms like those
France agreed to, ameliorated only by the reality that unlike the
French, some were more truly conquered rather than surrendering
when they could have (and actually did for a while) continue the
fight.
Great. That wipes out most of Europe, though it's nice to know
you'll have more sympathy for those who allowed their cities to be
destroyed before giving in to the inevitable. Just as linguist, in
her earlier remark, has more sympathy for a rape victim who lets
herself get beaten up before she gives in.
I just pointed out that trying to cut the French Vichy gov't
slack for surrendering, attacking US forces, and turning over for
slaughter its own citizens was unequivocably loathsome.
Of course Vichy France was loathsome, but what has that to do with
this thread's topic? Vichy France is not the ancestor of the modern
French government; that's like criticizing the modern Virginia
state government because Virginia was the traitorous capital of the
Confederacy.
|12.27.05 @ 8:29PM|#
By the way, Rob, what percentage of a country's cities must be destroyed by a more powerful invader, and what percentage of its citizens either killed or made homeless by a more powerful invader, before they can respectably surrender, in your view?
|12.27.05 @ 8:34PM|#
What makes France so special?
It's a convenient propaganda symbol for all things
un-redneck.
...It fits in well with the latte-swilling, french-like,
sophisticate caricature some people love to hate.
It seems strange because the charge isn't really focused on the
French, I think. Rather, I suspect, the associate the enemy with
France tactic has a domestic target in mind. ...See last campaign's
references to Kerry as "French looking" as an example.
Speaking of WWII, they used to use such caricatures for war posters
way back when. Our PC sensibilities keep us from making blatant
physical depictions of such people now; still, the sophisticate
caricature scores big points with people who are swayed by such
things.
|12.27.05 @ 9:02PM|#
"Please quote me, as to where I said that." - Jennifer
Here you go: "THAT is worthy of criticism, but not stuff that
happened sixty years ago. It's like the difference between people
criticizing America because they dislike the Iraq War, versus
criticizing us because we didn't give full citizenship rights to
black people in the 1940s. The former may reflect badly upon
Americans now alive, but the latter does not."
Sound familiar? Especially that first sentence? That's all you...
"Posted by Jennifer at December 27, 2005 06:10 PM"
Now, find a post from me where I argue "the notion that France
deserves to be singled out for special disdain (which is, you'll
remember, the original topic of this thread), especially based on
its actions in World War Two."
Good luck with that one... And no, sorry, I won't hold my breath
while I wait.
"Great. That wipes out most of Europe, though it's nice to know
you'll have more sympathy for those who allowed their cities to be
destroyed before giving in to the inevitable." - Jennifer
If you have to scuttle your own Navy, and have enough of an Army
left to attack your former allies, you have the ability to continue
the fight. Not to do so, when faced with such reprehensible
surrender terms, is worthy of disdain - not to mention all the
genocidal assistance crap the Vichy got up to.
Also worthy of disdain: joe's claims that there were mitigating
circumstances for the French firing on their US allies, or that
France's Vichy govt's acceptance of the German terms of surrender
were not reprehensible when they had the capability to continue the
fight.
"Of course Vichy France was loathsome, but what has that to do with
this thread's topic?" - Jennifer
Ok, now we're getting somewhere, since we agree about the Vichy!
Can we also agree to the paragraph above where I just quoted
you?
"By the way, Rob, what percentage of a country's cities must be
destroyed by a more powerful invader, and what percentage of its
citizens either killed or made homeless by a more powerful invader,
before they can respectably surrender, in your view?" -
Jennifer
Depends on the terms of surrender. Give me the terms that Nazi
Germany offered France, and my response is the planned Japanese
resistance to US invasion: To the last man, woman and child. Give
me the terms the US offered Germany and France? I'll take those and
save my cities and its people as best I can.
Let me make myself clear: I'm not claiming that France should be
vilified because of the actions of the Vichy govt. Haven't ONCE
claimed that France should be vilified AT ALL. (Ok, not on this
thread... I may have made a joke or two elsewhere, but ONLY in
jest.)
My problem was with equivocating claims of mitigating circumstances
regarding the actions of the Vichy govt, made by joe and (at least
apparently) defended by you. I bear no animosity to France because
of the Vichy. That would be silly. But I've got a problem with
apologists for the Vichy - like joe - just like I would with
apologists for the Inquisition or Stalin's purges.
|12.27.05 @ 9:04PM|#
Oops. Previous should have read: "Give me the terms the US offered Germany and JAPAN?"
|12.27.05 @ 11:12PM|#
Not that I care about any of the arguments here, but the
government of Norway never surrendered.
It's something they like to rub in the faces of the Swedes.
|12.28.05 @ 2:16AM|#
OK, rob, holding it against the French for surrendering is one thing, but holding them especially responsible for having enabled the Holocaust ends up with everyone except the Danes sharing blame. The United States turned back boatloads of Jews from Europe - the lucky ones sank at sea before they reached the crematoria. Hating the Jews is hardly a game the French played by themselves.
Matt Welch|12.28.05 @ 6:20AM|#
All those who really care about the French behavior during World
War II, especially its quick capitulation to Herr Nazi Dude, should
really read William Shirer's "The Collapse of the Third Republic."
He makes a pretty convincing case that amazing military
incompetence, societal malaise, political rot & suchlike played
crucial roles in leading to an avoidable catastrophe.
And Jennifer, the comparison with Czechoslovakia, for one, is not
apt. The Czechs were ready to fight, and thought they had the West
on their back with treaty-level commitments, but then the West sold
'em down the river. I forget who if any countries failed to rally
around the Maginot Line (probably Britain), but even that failure
(if my memory isn't playing tricks on me) was due in no small part
to French incompetence.
Anyway, whatever. I think the Galadriel/Celeborn reproduction
riddle, like many things in the affairs of Elves & wearers of
the Three, were simply Tolkein's way of explaining how material
success leads to drastically reduced population rates. Though I
spose hobbits disprove that rule.... Unless of course the point was
that Elrond & Co. were *too* successful, and wrote themselves
out of the plot of the Fourth Age, while the sturdy, more humble
hobbits showed that by smoking pipeweed, drinking ale, and sensibly
slaying a dragon now and then, you can perpetuate the species and
slay the Dark Lord.
|12.28.05 @ 8:42AM|#
And Jennifer, the comparison with Czechoslovakia, for one,
is not apt. The Czechs were ready to fight, and thought they had
the West on their back with treaty-level commitments, but then the
West sold 'em down the river
Just to clarify, Matt: I think no less of the Czechs for
having been overrun by a superior (in military terms) power; the
point I was trying to make was that it's ludicrous for Rob or
anyone else to hold a country in contempt for surrendering to a
considerably more powerful army without first allowing said army to
bomb them into dust.
Had the French put up what Rob deems a worthy fight, what
difference would that have made? The Nazis still would have taken
over France, only threre would have been far more dead or homeless
Frenchmen, and more destroyed French cities.
|12.28.05 @ 8:52AM|#
Chickenhawk rob assures us that HE would never would have
surrendered. (Takes gulp of Slurpee). HE would have kept fighting,
no matter how much destruction Germany kept raining down on French
cities. (Scratches generous ass). No way would HE have been a
Surrender Monkey (Opens up another Twinkie). And he would have
hidden Jews in his attack, joined the Resitance and (Belches up Mr.
Pibb) distributed leaflets.
The French were beat. The gave up, because the other choice was the
annihilation of their military and the destruction of their
country. But there are always American like rob, willing to fight
to last Frenchman.
|12.28.05 @ 8:59AM|#
I have explained the difference between France's surrender and
the cease fire conditions the Germans imposed about five times
alread, rob.
If you don't, or won't, understand them by now, I'm not going to
explain them again.
But everybody else reading this understands the point just fine,
and you look mighty silly when you keep drawing attention to your
ignorance.
|12.28.05 @ 9:01AM|#
...And no one has come within a thousand miles of defending
collaboration with the Gestapo, you reprehensible piece of
crap.
When you're losing, I guess playing the Nazi card is a good last
resort.
|12.28.05 @ 11:51AM|#
I forget who if any countries failed to rally around the
Maginot Line (probably Britain),...
I recall hearing somewher that a lot of the blame goes to Belgium
for not allowing French and British forces to move into forward
positions in Belgium earlier to aid the Belgian defence. Apparently
the Belgian government believed that there was still a chance the
Germans would not attack and that allowing the French and Brits to
cross the border would be a provocation to Hitler.
It didn't help that the King surrendered while the military
leadership believed they could still mount a credible defense. This
led to the King's abdication and in fact created a crisis for the
whole Belgian royal family. (Some say it also led the Swiss
leadership to issue orders to batallion and company commanders to
treat any stories of surrender by the National govt as propaganda
and to fight to last man in the event of a German invasion.)
The Vichy regime might have been contemptible and the collaborators
simply beneath contempt, but it is hard to fault the French for
capitulating having been left alone after Dunkirk to face the
German onslaught.
It is also hard to fault the British for withdrawing to safety
across the Channel in the face of the same onslaught.
Second guessing history might be fun but many people simply made
the best choices they thought were available under the
circumstances.
|12.28.05 @ 12:07PM|#
...the point I was trying to make was that it's ludicrous
for Rob or anyone else to hold a country in contempt for
surrendering to a considerably more powerful army without first
allowing said army to bomb them into dust.
In a
recent thread, I asked rob whether "waterboarding" was torture
or "cruel, inhuman or degrading"...
...his response was, "Nope."
Once, when arguing the meaning of an infamous document, rob
suggested that I made an appeal to authority for quoting the
document.
|12.28.05 @ 12:19PM|#
Jennifer's questions regarding the comparability of France to
other European nations at the time seems a valid one to me. If not
Czechoslovakia, what about Denmark? Sure, the Danish people
resisted from the grass roots during the occupation, but weren't
there only a handful of Danish soldiers killed during the
invasion?
...Why don't would be populists here in America smear the Danish as
eager to surrender?
I still think the smear has little to do with the facts and more to
do with the feeling that French culture is something
sophisticated--something repulsive, that is. ...I think the smear
has to do with appealing to those who find sophistication
repulsive, President Bush's affected drawl being an excellent
counter-example.
|12.28.05 @ 1:10PM|#
"Chickenhawk rob assures us that HE would never would have
surrendered." - joe
You're a funny guy, joe. Ever been under fire? No? Then I know a
few things about myself that you don't know about yourself.
Personal insults about whether or not I'm brave enough to do what I
say I will aren't winning your pathetic claims. It just makes you
look more like a "double-dumb ass" than being wrong about the
difference between a surrender and a cease-fire.
"The French were beat. The gave up, because the other choice was
the annihilation of their military and the destruction of their
country. But there are always American like rob, willing to fight
to last Frenchman." - joe
No, the French surrendered tho they had the capacity to fight on
(they scuttled their own Navy and had enough of an Army to fight
Operation Torch.)
"it's ludicrous for Rob or anyone else to hold a country in
contempt for surrendering to a considerably more powerful army
without first allowing said army to bomb them into dust." -
Jennifer
For the last time, in all caps, so you can read it: I DON'T HOLD
FRANCE IN CONTEMPT, particularly not for something that happened
during WW2. But defending the Vichy gov't, its decisions and its
collaboration IS contemptible. And Jennifer, if capitulation to a
superior force was the only option, you'd probably be a British
citizen right now. Sometimes you have no better choice than to
fight on against insurmountable odds. For the French, the odds
weren't insurmountable, they were just unpleasant. In fact,
surrender wasn't inevitable, there were other options, and in this
case surrender was a BAD idea because of the terms.
"Had the French put up what Rob deems a worthy fight, what
difference would that have made? The Nazis still would have taken
over France, only threre would have been far more dead or homeless
Frenchmen, and more destroyed French cities." - Jennifer
Had the French put up more of a fight, rather than being sold out
by the traitorous Vichy, a lot fewer of their citizens might have
been turned over to the Nazis.
"Once, when arguing the meaning of an infamous document, rob
suggested that I made an appeal to authority for quoting the
document." - Ken Shultz
No, I claimed that the document didn't support your claims. That's
been borne out repeatedly. Get over it.
"...And no one has come within a thousand miles of defending
collaboration with the Gestapo, you reprehensible piece of crap." -
joe
Really? So defending surrender to the Nazis, when all of the
collaborationist crap is the natural outcome isn't the same as
defending collaboration? Dude, the only reprehensible person here
is you, defending the Vichy. Even the French despise the Vichy, and
convicted Petain of treason.
joe, you seem to be spending a lot of time and effort on what
amounts to name-calling, lately. It seems like you're calling
people morons on other threads, pieces of crap on this one... Are
the holidays not going well for you?
|12.28.05 @ 1:17PM|#
Some say it also led the Swiss leadership to issue orders to
batallion and company commanders to treat any stories of surrender
by the National govt as propaganda and to fight to last man in the
event of a German invasion.
Not to cast a judgement on any country invaded at the time, but
that is hard-ass. Just saying.
|12.28.05 @ 1:28PM|#
I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a quote from this
thread that shows me being contemptuous of the French, rather than
the Vichy.
Over to you, Jennifer?
Or maybe joe could quote me saying something that remotely
justifies his claim that what I say boils down to "joe coward not
say cheese-eating surrender monkey."
I guess his claims that I'm a cowardly chickenhawk seem a bit more
reasonable if you assume that he thinks I was calling him a coward
first... But he's the first guy on this thread to use the term
coward, so I guess it's just the voices in his head again.
|12.28.05 @ 1:30PM|#
"Not to cast a judgement on any country invaded at the time, but
that is hard-ass. Just saying." - Eric the .5b
"Not that I care about any of the arguments here, but the
government of Norway never surrendered. It's something they like to
rub in the faces of the Swedes." - Happy Jack
Well, there's two govt entities that, unlike the Vichy French,
passed the test of history.
Why do the French and the Swedes always get the historical short
straw?
|12.28.05 @ 1:36PM|#
I DON'T HOLD FRANCE IN CONTEMPT, particularly not for
something that happened during WW2.
Then why are you working yourself into such a froth over people
here who are saying we shouldn't hold France in comtempt for what
happened in World War Two? Particularly considering how much of
your anger is based on false pretenses; I say "I can see why the
French fired on us in Africa" and you translate that as "I don't
blame France for turning Jews over to the Gestapo."
Had the French put up more of a fight, rather than being sold
out by the traitorous Vichy, a lot fewer of their citizens might
have been turned over to the Nazis.
But a lot more of their citizens would have been dead. Do you
actually think the French had a chance of beating the Nazis? If
not, then why are you criticizing them for backing out of a futile
fight?
It's like the "rape" analogy I used earlier; if I face a would-be
rapist who is far bigger than me and also has a weapon, I know I'm
screwed (pun intended), and so I would go for the Path of Least
Resistance and hope the sonofabitch didn't kill me. Whereas anyone
who held me to the same standard that you are holding the French
would say I shouldn't have given in until after I suffered
a few stab wounds, broken bones or knocked-out teeth. (And Linguist
would apparently say that my lack of injury proves I wasn't really
raped at all, but that's another matter.)
|12.28.05 @ 2:00PM|#
"Then why are you working yourself into such a froth over people
here who are saying we shouldn't hold France in comtempt for what
happened in World War Two?" - Jennifer
I'm not. I'm just not cool with apologists for the Vichy.
'I say "I can see why the French fired on us in Africa" and you
translate that as 'I don't blame France for turning Jews over to
the Gestapo.'" - Jennifer
Is that a direct quote of something I've written? No. Just like
everything else you've taken issue with, it's something I DIDN'T
say.
"But a lot more of their citizens would have been dead. Do you
actually think the French had a chance of beating the Nazis? If
not, then why are you criticizing them for backing out of a futile
fight?" - Jennifer
They had a better chance than Norway and Switzerland.
I've already pointed out that your rape analogy doesn't work, and
I've given you the counter analogy, that is essentially this: Is it
OK for you not to fight the rapist when you know that he's also
going to require that you allow him to kill off your
children?
I'm still waiting for you to quote me on some of the things you
claim that I've said. You and joe didn't happen to go off your meds
at the same time, did you?
|12.28.05 @ 2:15PM|#
Rob, considering the way you keep shifting arguments and taking quotes out of context I have to ask: are you a troll? Or are you really thatg incapable of understanding opinions that differ from your own? (To say nothing of the concept of the "paraphrase.")
|12.28.05 @ 2:34PM|#
Initially, I thought he was just another garden-variety,
propaganda victim/troll myself--he doesn't seem to understand any
argument that--I'm guessin'--he hasn't heard on the radio or
somethin'.
...but he's so willfully persistent in his mistakes. ...I started
wondering, after a while, maybe somebody does pay him to do this.
...That would explain some things.
On the other hand, if you were the one payin' him, wouldn't you
expect a little more for your money?
...and besides, who says trolls have to make sense? I'm stickin'
with troll. ...with Ferrous
Cranus being the dominant trait.
R C Dean|12.28.05 @ 2:41PM|#
the point I was trying to make was that it's ludicrous for
Rob or anyone else to hold a country in contempt for surrendering
to a considerably more powerful army without first allowing said
army to bomb them into dust.
Except the German Army was not considerably more powerful than the
French. Just considerably better led. The French (with their
British allies) had many more men under arms, more tanks, more
artillery, etc. than the Germans. Where French commanders actually
adapted to blitzkrieg and put up a fight (DeGaulle distinguished
himself here) they did quite well.
No, the French weren't hopelessly overmatched by the Germans in any
military sense. Sorry, but their surrender can't be justified on
that basis, Jennifer.
|12.28.05 @ 3:06PM|#
No, the French weren't hopelessly overmatched by the Germans
in any military sense.
Except for leadership, morale and tactics...
And while there was no literal element of surprise the
Germans certainly kept striking where least expected.
It is possible that a credible defense might have been mounted had
the British, French, Belgians and Dutch gotten their acts together
and formulated a coherent united front.
By the time the French surrendered they had few choices.
|12.28.05 @ 3:22PM|#
Another thing that is overlooked is the appeal that
Nazism/Fascism had in Europe after the perceived decadece and decay
of the 20s and 30s. Especially among the young.
This left many european countries with sizable fifth columns
looking to be "liberated" by the Germans. By the time those who had
any qualms about it realized the full implications of the bizarre
racial/militaristic elements of Nazism (to be fair anti-semitism
was absent from Mussolini's fascism untill it became utterly
dependent on Hitler and Il Duce was reduced to a puppet) it was too
late.
The Germans were able to recruit 3 or 4 Regiments of special SS
troops in Denmark alone (even more in France and more again in
Eastern European countries). These were some of the hardest
fighting troops in the German War Machine. One Danish Regiment
fought to very last man at the fall of Berlin. Though, of course,
given the fate they faced if captured by the Russians it is likely
they decided they had no choice.
Combine the idealists with the usual opportunistic scumbags who
would turn over a jew or any of their other fellow citizens for
personal gain and you had a disaster.
|12.28.05 @ 3:29PM|#
Sorry, but their surrender can't be justified on that basis,
Jennifer.
I'm not sure Jennifer tried to justify surrender as much
as she tried to explain it. ...and in the context of other nation's
behavior around that time, I'm not sure I understand why a serious
analysis would single France out.
Don't like the question about Denmark? What about the Anschluss?
Why don't we hear American populists point fingers and laugh at the
Austrians? My answer is that it has little to do with the history
and more to do with the propaganda value. Are you familiar with
"Redneck Woman", that Gretchen Wilson song?
...I suspect the lyrics of that song do more to explain our present
attitudes toward the French than the history of World War II.
|12.28.05 @ 3:51PM|#
"Paraphrasing is the act in which a statement or remark is
explained in other words or another way, as to clarify the meaning.
Often, a paraphrase might substitute a euphemism for an actual
statement, in order to avoid offense."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphrase
Jennifer,
As you can see from this definition of paraphrase, you're actually
doing the opposite of paraphrasing - you're taking my statements
and willfully misrepresenting them to make it easier for you to
argue against it. (See also, "straw man.")
When Jennifer says this, I can only laugh: "Rob, considering the
way you keep shifting arguments and taking quotes out of context I
have to ask: are you a troll? Or are you really thatg incapable of
understanding opinions that differ from your own? (To say nothing
of the concept of the "paraphrase.")
I guess anyone who doesn't agree with her "paraphrasing" of their
posts is because that person is "shifting arguments." It wouldn't
be that she is twisting those arguments in order to better suit her
"people who say surrender monkeys are idiots" line of argument
(which I agree with) the better to apply it to people who haven't
espoused any such sentiment.
"...but he's so willfully persistent in his mistakes. ...I started
wondering, after a while, maybe somebody does pay him to do this.
...That would explain some things." - Ken Schultz
You mean willfully persistent about mistakes such as continuing to
link to documents that don't support your claims? Don't blame me
for the fact that you're still holding a grudge because nothing
you've posted about Abu Ghraib held up to simple scrutiny of the
documents you claim support your position.
When you're casting claims of troll about, make sure you don't
catch your reflection in the mirror. I don't get paid for this, but
since I do regularly rhetorically flog you for the simple joy of
the discussion, I'd be willing to take the money.
Why is it that anyone who persistently disagrees with you folks is
a troll, an idiot, etc.? Face it, casting accusations like that are
just another blind alley you try to run down when you're cornered
by your own buffoonery.
|12.28.05 @ 4:10PM|#
"Are you familiar with 'Redneck Woman', that Gretchen Wilson
song? ...I suspect the lyrics of that song do more to explain our
present attitudes toward the French than the history of World War
II." - Ken Shultz
McCarthy saw Red Commies under his bed, apparently Schultzie sees
Rednecks under his bed. Yep, rednecks sure are scary...
Booo-oooo!
|12.28.05 @ 4:18PM|#
"So defending surrender to the Nazis, when all of the
collaborationist crap is the natural outcome isn't the same as
defending collaboration?"
The straw! My God, the straw!
No, the French Republic's army's surrender to a superior force, to
prevent the destruction of their country, is not the same thing as
cooperating with the Gestapo in the deportation of French
Jews.
I agree that rob's density, his incapcity to understand simple
arguments and his eargerness to miscast them, are too contrived and
too selective to be genuine lapses in reading skills.
He's a troll. Buh bye, rob.
|12.28.05 @ 4:44PM|#
Ken did provide a great web-site tho.
There's joe:
"The most common variants of Ideologue are conservative and
liberal. Smug and self satisfied in their certitudes, Ideologue's
opinions are merely a loose collection of intellectual conceits,
and e is genuinely astonished, bewildered and and indignant that
his views are not universally embraced as the Truth. He regards the
opposing point of view as a form of cognitive dissonance whose only
cure is relentless propagandizing and browbeating. The conservative
iteration of Ideologue parades himself as a logical, clear thinker,
while the liberal version trumpets his higher level of mental,
spiritual and social awareness. Troglodyte is the natural ally of
conservative Ideologue, and for liberal Ideologue it is Weenie.
Ideologue is a fierce, but very predictable Warrior.."
There's Ken:
"Palooka will battle anyone, anytime, anywhere - he seems to love
it, even though he always takes a beating. After a terrific
pounding at the hands of, for example, Kung-Fu Master, he'll just
struggle to his feet and wobble back into the ring. His astonishing
ability to absorb punishment leads one to suspect that during his
long Warrior career Palooka has taken a few too many punches.
Often, as an act of mercy, Nanny will step in to stop the
fight."
Although he probably thinks of himself as one of the
"In a perpetual personal feud, Duelists generally don't menace
anyone but each other, unless, of course, another Warrior foolishly
gets between them. They may not even remember what started the
fight, but not they cordially loathe one another and seize every to
go at each other. When the other Warriors eventually weary of their
endless kvetching the Duelists will be shouted down or Nanny will
ban them. Even after getting the heave-ho from one forum, however,
it is not unusual for them to seeking each other in other forums to
renew their fight."
Sadly, he falls more along the lines of the classic "battle of wits
with an unarmed opponent."
I don't really know Jennifer well enough to pick out her
"type"...
|12.28.05 @ 4:55PM|#
"He's a troll. Buh bye, rob." - joe
Yep. Whenever joe & Company start jumping up and down and
pointing their fingers at someone claiming they're a troll, you
know they've run out of the ability to do anything except resort to
personal attacks.
Weak.
Oh, wait, I think I was supposed to write this instead:
"Gee, now that the tribunal has passed judgement on me, what can I
possibly do to get back in their good graces so that I can be
invited back into their "clique" and come back to the island??? I'm
sorry I ruined your Panther Party!" (It helps to read it with a
Forrest Gump accent.)
|12.28.05 @ 5:20PM|#
Rob, for your sake I hope you really are a troll. Because if the
misunderstandings and lack of ability to understand context that
you've demonstrated here are sincere, that is a terribly, terribly
sad thing.
I'll not waste my time in debating you anymore. Tell yourself
that's because you won, if it brings you happiness. And feel free
to direct personal insults at me, as well.
|12.28.05 @ 5:27PM|#
Jennifer,
I really hope that you're as sensible as you sounded in your last
post. As for not debating anymore, I can only say, "Cool." (I'll
even try not to break my own arm patting myself on the back that "I
won.")
My biggest complaint about the threads I argue with joe and Ken on,
is that they turn into flame wars where sensible discussion gets
drowned out by personal insults.
It only makes it worse when I fire back, and then we're off to the
races. It's more tiresome than anything else.
Besides, the time I've spent on this thread could've probably been
better spent at the gym, working off all the Christmas/Chanukah
grub I've eaten...
Cheers!
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245