Will France capitulate YET again or prove the whole world wrong once and for all?

FRENCH HOSTAGES THREATENED, TALKS START TO END SHIITE UNREST IN BAGHDAD
Received Sunday, 29 August 2004 20:27:00 GMT

BAGHDAD, Aug 30 (AFP) - Militants holding two French hostages demanded that Paris lift a ban on Islamic headscarves in schools -- the first time kidnappers set conditions for events outside Iraq -- as negotiations to end fighting in a Shiite rebel stronghold in Baghdad began Sunday.
Militants of a group called the Islamic Army in Iraq announced they were holding two French newsmen and gave Paris 48 hours to announce the lifting of a controversial law banning headscarves in state schools....


I have two issues with this:

ONE: Muslims making demands in a democratic and secular (non-muslim) country - what else is new and does anyone doubt that there will eventually be a clash of civilizations now? (i.e. the modernized "Western World" vs. the oftentimes archaic Muslim World). We've seen countries like Spain give in already and other countries like India, the Phillipines, and Israel attacked by similar and relentless tactics by islamic terrorists. Where and when will it end?

TWO: The French - how are they going to handle this situation? If they indeed do capitulate they pave the way for France to become the Next Islamic Republic (Sources say the muslim population rate in France is rising by 200% every 5 years due to immigration and high birth rates amongst the muslims already in France) and they then also justify the stereotype given to them by the world as spineless appeasers. Of course, they could stick to their guns and adhere to their strict secularity and not cave into the demands made by internal and externel pressures - something which I would highly admire them for.

Either way, this is going to be an interesting development methinks....

 

OMG teh French ppl looka liek Jonkerry! LOL!

 

Wanna try making a cogent and well-thought-out point about what I said, or would you rather babble incoherently yet again?

 

Will France capitulate YET again or prove the whole world wrong once and for all?

Of course they won't prove the world wrong. They will stand up to the terrorists, and the world will promptly ignore it.

 

capitulate was word of the day on May 11, 1999.

 

Wanna try making a cogent and well-thought-out point about what I said, or would you rather babble incoherently yet again?

In 2000, George W. Bush asked the critical question about education in America: "The question is this: Is our children learning?"

Now, because of sci-fi internet message board threads claiming France is in the habit of "capitulating," my answer to the then Texas governor's question is a resounding "Non!" with the accompanying poofy French accent.

Because what they don't teach in schools is that when France goes against the will of the most powerful country in the world and her "coalition of the willing" regarding what action shall be taken in Iraq, it is exercising sovereignty in accordance with the will of it's citizens and refusing to "capitulate."

Jeez, you'd think with "No Child Left Behind" they'd teach that...

Is my abandonment of the cruder version of satire coherent enough for you?

 

<<irrelevant material omitted>>

"Because what they don't teach in schools is that when France goes against the will of the most powerful country in the world and her "coalition of the willing" regarding what action shall be taken in Iraq, it is exercising sovereignty in accordance with the will of it's citizens and refusing to "capitulate."

So France was refusing to "capitulate" to the US because it was only "exercising its right to independent self-governance" - and not because it had a vested interest in the incumbant dictatorship that was ruling Iraq - despite obvious human rights abuses and violations of UN-imposed resolutions? Am I getting all this straight?

I actually thought that this was capitulation of another kind - perhaps one that seems to be characteristic of France - especially shall we say circa 1939.

Now, would you like to actually address the topic or would you rather be refuted again?

EDIT: Too much dang usage of "capitulate"!

 

So France was refusing to "capitulate" to the US because it was only "exercising its right to independent self-governance" - and not because it had a vested interest in the incumbant dictatorship that was ruling Iraq - despite obvious human rights abuses and violations of UN-imposed resolutions? Am I getting all this straight?

I'm not gonna play conspiracy theory game, 'cause then I'd ask about the whole Bush/Saudi relationship, and we'd get led off topic. The bottom line is, when the US says jump, France said no. Do you really think Saddam had more influence in Paris than the US? (And if you're tempted to say yes, keep in mind that Bush is still calling France an ally, so my follow-up question will be "By your standareds isn't Bush supporting terrorism?")

Say what you will about Chirac, he ain't Bush's poodle.

I actually thought that this was capitulation of another kind - perhaps one that seems to be characteristic of France - especially shall we say circa 1939.

The US has never been the first line of defense against a superior foe in two world wars, let alone held out in that capacity during one of them. A history lesson they don't teach in the schools (or on talk radio).

Now, would you like to actually address the topic or would you rather be refuted again?

Being "refuted" in that manner is kind of like being "liberated" by being sent to Abu Ghraib.

EDIT: Too much dang usage of "capitulate"!

And not enough understanding of what it actually means.

Now if you're done "refuting" me, a mod can shut this thread down, as I'm sure the "discussion" could fit into another one.

 

It should be interesting to see how France deals with this. My opinion is they will fold.

This whole thing is ANOTHER example of the fact that you CANNOT APPEASE EVIL!!!! France opposed this war very strongly and what did it get them? Nothing. They are still being threatened by those they seemed to stand up for. Although we all know the real reason France opposed all this....vested interest. What does that say about them? France cares for it's wallet over Liberty, Freedom and Opposing Evil. Who wants THAT for an ally? Not me.

 

Eh, the French government has never liked being told what to do, and I don't think they'll make an exception in this instance.
[Obligatory Simpons reference]Cheese eating surrender monkey's![/obligatory Simpsons reference].

 

It should be interesting to see how France deals with this. My opinion is they will fold.

This whole thing is ANOTHER example of the fact that you CANNOT APPEASE EVIL!!!! France opposed this war very strongly and what did it get them? Nothing. They are still being threatened by those they seemed to stand up for. Although we all know the real reason France opposed all this....vested interest. What does that say about them? France cares for it's wallet over Liberty, Freedom and Opposing Evil. Who wants THAT for an ally? Not me.

Yeah but no one wants to side with an Ally that has committed so many genocide against a nation and lied to the world that they had WMD.
comments in italic makes no sence whats so ever Another culture bashing.

GET THIS TOPIC LOCKED !

 

Yeah but no one wants to side with an Ally that has committed so many genocide against a nation and lied to the world that they had WMD.

Yeah, you're in touch with reality.....

 

Pretty much I am
Read the news latley ? I guess not.
wonders why ?
God almighty











Edit: Find it insulting refering us Muslims as Evils ones, and that the events in Iraq by the occupation never took place.

 

Well, I don't know where to start.

Analysing French foreign policy is problematic, because of all the inherent biases it brings out. The first post, of course, being a wonderful example. Most galling (get it? gauling? anyone?) are the personal attacks on people or French nationality, or symbols of French culture, simply to attacked an associated object.

As a previously locked topic pointed out, French foreign policy is by nature very self-interested and unilateral, despite its rhetoric...the big surprise is that A) this isn't blatently obvious to everyone and B) that people would argue that about the foreign policy of any nation-state. Therefore, the most productive way to discuss French Foreign policy is to analyze its effectiveness, its moral compass, its realistic impact on France (and other countries), etc.

My argument is that besides being self-interested, French foreign policy combines old self-interest / amoral realpolitik with the language and mechanism of small-power internationalism in its foreign policy, with a healthy dass of (in some cases well-deserved) egoism. The end result is neutral, at *best*, for the French people, negative for other European nations, and highly unproductive for US Foreign policy, whether under this adminstration or another. This can be seen in its treatment and rhetoric concerning multilateral diplomacy and (its version of) "international law", its relationship with arab nations and muslims (at home or abroad), and its EU policies.


This incident is another good touchstone, to start looking at the issue. A recap. Done? Certainly, one can look at the actions of the past few days, and even use the word 'counterproductive appeasement', without descending into WWII banalities, right?

Most telling is this analysis: "...But the descent of so many French diplomats on Middle Eastern capitals suggests it is trying to cut a political deal with the terrorists and their backers. Since France has ruled out rescinding the headscarf ban to preserve the appearance of amour propre, the obvious alterntive is to make someone else make concessions. That someone will probably be Iraq....This suggests that the French diplomats are attempting to link the release of the French hostages to changes in the method and manner in which the Iraqi elections will be held. The mere fact that France is negotiating implictly means there will be a quid for the quo."

Perhaps this is what cause Allawi to speak. Or perhaps he wished to state plainly what many around the world have wished to tell the French Foreign policy apparatus for years:

The French, like all democratic countries, can't content themselves with adopting a passive position. The Americans, British and other nations that are fighting in Iraq are not only fighting to protect Iraqis, they are fighting to protect their own countries.

The governments that decided to stay on the defensive will be the next targets of the terrorists. Terrorist attacks will occur in Paris, in Nice, in Cannes or in San Francisco. The time has come to act against terrorism, in the same fashion...that Europe fought Hitler. Every day, tens of people are killed in Iraq. They are not dying because we are going through a major national crisis, but because we have decided to combat evil. That's why the entire international community must assist us, as rapidly as possible, to improve the security of our country.

...People must assume their responsibilities. The decision to assist Iraq is courageous. Let me tell you that the French, despite all the noise they make--'We don't want war!'--will shortly have to fight the terrorists.

Of course, by mentioning Hitler, Allawi has disqualified himself from winning the internet-message-board-discussion-prize, but you get the idea.



A last point, and one that has been made many times before; the armed islamist

 

This isn't a 'clash of civilisations' or 'religious war', or any other clumsy and unweildy concept.

Why were the French journalists taken hostage?

 

Touche. Let me restate.

Western governments and individuals are not fighting a religious war when dealing with the armed ideology of Islamism.

They are.


Even if you can't see the distinction, I'm sure there are muslim citizens of your country (and muslim members of the military) who DO see a difference.

 

Well thought out.

I'd tend to agree with four times a major.

What remains unclear is precisely how sophisticated the hostage takers are. I doubt France wants to give them something blatant, but how will the terrorists respond to an under the table quid pro quo?

Since the main point of terrorism is to be splashy they may be at an imp arse.

If France does fail to secure the hostages release, what do they do if the hostages are executed?

 

Western governments and individuals are not fighting a religious war when dealing with the armed ideology of Islamism.


Major, no but we should be.

 

That would be extremly dangerous ShaneP.

 

Jeez. is it still fashionable to bash France?

Its funny. When people make "French appeasement" wisecracks...the only card they can think of is WWII.

Shut up, already. If not for France...would this continent be called "New England" instead of North America?

 

JOHN KERRY LOOKS FRENCH!

GOD BLESS FREEDOM FRIES!

 

I'm sorry but I have to say the following to many who have posted in this thread.

1. Terrorism did not begin on 9/11.

2. France has suffered at the hands of terrorists for decades.

3. The idea that France will capitulate to these terrorist demands is absurd and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the French people/government. The idea that their democracy could be effected by terrorism is as abhorant to the French as it is too any American.

 

That would be extremly dangerous ShaneP

What, recognizing the war as one against radical Islam? Well, that IS the enemy, not just OBL.

 

What, recognizing the war as one against radical Islam? Well, that IS the enemy, not just OBL

so we go up in arms in name of religion ?

 

No, WE don't, but they do and we must recognize those specific groups that are using terrorism in the name of Allah.

So, when you have people taking hostages to force a country to not implement a law on headscarfs, then they have to be brought out and dealt with.

I'm not talking about us using a religion to go to war, but identifying specific groups that DO use terror and Islam together.

And it's not just going out and killing them either, but identifying the root: a failed society and radicalisation of the people.

How do we change that? How do we turn the tide of radicals wanting to kill us?

I think it comes down to them coming to terms with modernisation and fundamentalism. Them and Us. We have to recognize what has bred large numbers of people in this part of the world to give themselves up to terror.

During the middle ages, they were prospering and experiencing their own enlightenment in a way.

But, today they've failed to develop their own enlightened societies. Turkey may be closest but it's not arabic.

They've been unable to both modernise and develop their own enlightened traditions simultaneously.

How do they walk the tightrope of preserving their traditions and modernising? How do they satisfy those who say any modernisation is being too "pro-west"?