Comments on: The poulets are coming home to roost

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:10:09 +0000

Their wines soon won’t be even theirs, but imported.

By: Danny Lemieux

Danny Lemieux — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:52:46 +0000

To YM’s point, it is not coincidental to History that, when the Islamic empire was expanding into Western Europe between 1400 and 1700, that France was cutting side deals and betraying fellow Western Powers to the Muslims. Plus ca change….drink their wines,enjoy their food, but NEVER, NEVER trust the French Nation.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 20:46:52 +0000

The French self-interest is whatever they can bribe, backstab for, and cajole.

By: jg

jg — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 20:15:29 +0000

“Is this an insane nation?” (JJ asks.)

Most of us study in school some form of European history . English history came easily to me; Dutch, as well. German has begun to make sense lately; new insights brought on by the Islamic onslaught suddenly have brought patterns to Spain’s background. But France..

As all commenters seem to say, the French don’t make sense. I suspect even in the 18c., when the colonies welcomed French help, most Americans still didn’t understand them.

(T.Jefferson was the most bemused and bewitched, maintaining most of his life that the French Revolution was needed and welcome.)

neo seems just as bemused at times in her latest reportings. She does emphasize, they are not like us. Washington and Hamilton talked about the ’self interest of nations’ being paramount in international relations. In the case of the French, self interest is an absolute monarch.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:58:25 +0000

Overall, as much as we Americans detest the French, I do believe they detest us just as much. Hopefully this will make Chirac (Don’t ever use the English language in the same room as me) and Co go somewhere else, like Canada and Australia. Home of the usual “loyalists”.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:52:54 +0000

Speaking about Europe, Neo has up a very nice post about France and France 2’s court case.

It places the burden of proof in defending against a libel suit unconscionably– almost ludicrously–high.

Compare this to the American standard for defamation, particularly for public figures (and Charles Enderlin is nothing if not a public figure). The burden of proof in the US is entirely on the plaintiff to prove the statement was defamatory, false, and malicious. In New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964, the Supreme Court established the standard: the First Amendment protected “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” criticism of public officials, at least unless it could be proved that the critic was deliberately lying or showed “reckless disregard” for the truth.

It turns out the US is serious—very very serious—about protecting First Amendment freedom of speech rights. It’s also less concerned than a country like France about the power of insults, or with the need to prevent slurs on one’s honor. “Whatever,” says the US, we can take it; what’s most important is the right to free speech. What’s most important to the French seems to be that society be courteous at all costs, even to public figures. And in making accusations against public figures, even a private citizen must make sure he has conducted a thorough investigation.

Of course, the need for a thorough investigation doesn’t seem to apply to Charles Enderlin or France 2. He’s free to broadcast any charge he wants (at least, as long as it’s PC)—for example, that the IDF murdered Mohammed al-Durah. He needs neither to prove his assertion, nor to defend himself against the charges that he misrepresented the facts, nor to show that he was conscientious in his duty as a journalist when he jumped to that conclusion based on Talal’s tapes–which present a one-minute scene embedded in almost a half-hour of other scenes that are obviously faked, do not show either father or son being hit and bleeding, and give no indication that the gunfire making the bullet holes in the wall behind al-Durah was coming from the IDF position, much less that he was shot by them.

http://neo-neocon.blogspot.com/2006/10/behind-facade-of-justice-french.html

Btw, Danny, this is what America got for liberating France and fighting French troops in Africa. We got France 2 putting lies out in favor of our enemy, in the propaganda war. Nice.

By: Danny Lemieux

Danny Lemieux — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:14:34 +0000

I don’t have any trouble with the French leaving – it’s just that those most responsible for France’s decline into Third Worldism will be the first to abandon ship. Let them flee to Argentina or, even better, Ivory Coast. For the remainder, send them arms, send them intelligence but…not one drop of American blood!

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:01:30 +0000

The only option for the free French is to move out of the country. There is little they can do to fight inside of a nation that doesn’t even believe in itself. A nation is composed of believers, if 80% do not believe and only 20% believe, that 20% is not going to be able to do much to change the perceptions of others especially when they aren’t the ones in power.

I did say many many months ago when the French riots started happening, for people in France to get out of the country, if not to the US, then somewhere else. That was when Neo was covering the situation.

By: Danny Lemieux

Danny Lemieux — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:04:40 +0000

The important thing is that we control who we let into our own country. Do we welcome those French who created this situation only to flee somewhere elso to live the good life at their host country’s expense, or do we reward those French (and there are many) who will stay to defend what is left of their own country? I know all too well from my French side of the family that there are many that I do not want to allow into my country so that they can live off the blood, sweat and tears of those that have sacrificed to keep us free, not to mention overlooking the scorn that they have shed upon us over the years. Let them stay and fight and, if they won’t do that, then let them submit. Those not willing to fight for their liberty don’t deserve it.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 01:09:43 +0000

It didn’t work in 1870, it didn’t work in 1914, it didn’t work in 1939 (well, really throughout the thirties), and it didn’t work in southeast Asia in 1953. It NEVER works.

So long as people keep bailing them out of the problems they got themselves into, I don’t think they really care whether it works or not.

They got bailed in 1914 by fresh American dough boys. They got bailed in 1942 by American D-Day troop casualties and 101st Airborne Experimental drops. And they got bailed out of Vietnam by the US.

When you reward children for misbehaving, they are not going to learn anything or change their behavior.

I don’t think they expect different results, JJ. I think they expect the same result, which is that they make the problems occur, and the US solves it for them. With the help of some others, notably Britain or Australia.