Ugly Nora wrote:
I have no problem with French war machine. The point was it is silly to knock the USA for being involved militarily around the world when you (I don't mean you exclusively ) enjoy a lifestyle that is directly related to the American military presence around the world. The fact is Russia would have rolled over all of Europe a long time ago if it wasn't for the threat of an American response. Believe me, I would love the USA not to get involved in shit. I think most Americans feel that way.
I think the French lifestyle depended a lot on resisting America's hegemony and geopolitics. If it wasn't for de Gaulle uniting the resistance, defeating Giraud on the international scene, you guys would have imposed us Pétain, Darlan or Giraud because that was Roosevelt's plan... So ya know, far right collaborationists that shook hands with Hitler were not exactly the right choice to build our "lifestyle". I doubt we'd have universal health care for exemple which was part of the resistance's program for rebuilding a French Republic. Hence the French foreign policy of the past century: remaining equidistant between Russia and the US, because both are dangers. We left NATO but we were the first to recognize communist China as a sovereign state. And I have many other examples just like those two. The point was to make both US and Russia understand something: we're third world, not their puppets.
The problem is not being involved militarily. It's the method. If you guys want to break ISIS, maybe stop feeding it in Syria because you seem to think they are good guys when they are opposing El-Assad but terrible people when they send a few of their buddies to blow themselves in France or Belgium. Or maybe you shouldn't have created them at all by arming Al-Quaida to fight the commies of off Afghanistan? And what about Irak? Destroying is easy, building difficult. That's why you need the UN and the general support of the international community, which implies giving warranties to the Russians that NATO will not move closer to their borders, and such. Ya know, the compromise approach versus the playing cow boys approach.
In the 80's, when Germany was reunified everybody seemed cool with it but two points had to be agreed on: the French forced Germany to recognize the Oder-Neisse line to make sure there wouldn't be a new conflict with Poland; the Russians wanted NATO members to promise NATO wouldn't extend towards the east of Germany, which is something they obtained. 20 years later, there are NATO missiles in Poland. The EU is discussing including Ukraine, which means NATO will include Ukraine. How would you expect Putin to not be belligerent in such a situation, and to be willing to collaborate with you on ISIS? He knows you feed them in Syria at his expense (pipelines stuff and such, because that's really what all this mess is all about - Iran and Emirates have their fingers deep in there), he knows his security, access to the Mediterranean sea and his security because of the missiles and expansion of the EU is compromised on it's western flank. Of course he's gonna play bad guy.
International democracy and international law, and foremost the principle of sovereignty are in my opinion the solution. Thanks to the irresponsible American foreign policy, I now live in a world in which I trust a far right belligerent dick like Putin more than any American government (except for Bernie's of course, if he succeeds
).
Well, this is a good speech to understand the French international policy before the Sarkozy era - Hollande era, in which France somehow became atlanticist despite a majority of it's people being opposed to it. I mean Hollande didn't do shit about Americans spying on his cellphone. WTF is that?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ_1hWqSz6I[/youtube]
Sorry for being so French and the ranting and such guys, but it's been a while since I haven't played Napoleon, right? And politics don't mean I don't love you all fuzzy fuckers
