Carol Platt Liebau: A Matter of "Les Priorites"

Monday, July 10, 2006

A Matter of "Les Priorites"

Here's an account of the angst pervading France in the wake of its World Cup loss.

Does anyone else get the sense they're more upset about losing a sports contest than they'd be about losing a war?

I guess it's just a matter of priorities.

25 Comments:

Blogger Dittohead said...

France isn't losing the war, the US lead by Bush's incompetence is.

In May the influential US magazine Foreign Policy and a Washington-based think-tank questioned 116 leading US experts -- a balanced mix of Republicans and Democrats -- on the progress of the US campaign against terrorism.

Among others, they consulted a former secretary of state, two former directors of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and dozens of the country's top security analysts.

The result? Eighty-four percent believe the United States is losing the "war on terror," 86 percent that the world has become a more dangerous place in the past five years, and 80 percent that a major new attack on their country was likely within the next decade.

"We are losing the 'war on terror' because we are treating the symptoms and not the cause," argued Anne-Marie Slaughter, head of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University.

9:24 AM  
Blogger The Flomblog said...

And which wars has France won?

9:37 AM  
Blogger eLarson said...

It isn't the first time Zisu has gone off in a match. This just happened to be an extraordinarily high profile point for it to happen.

He had the opportunity to Just Walk Away. And he didn't.

Still, he was an extraordinarily skilled player--definitely the best European player of his generation, and perhaps the best in all the world.

11:02 AM  
Blogger LQ said...

I'm surprised the French came as close to winning as they did. I figured that when the going got tough, they would surrender!

1:04 PM  
Blogger wrabkin said...

I'm trying to remember why the Right hates France so much. Was it because they opposed invading Iraq because the intel on WMD was shaky and the invasion looked to be a disaster? Hmmm... I guess you hate them because they were right.

As for the ludicrous "surrender" canard -- yup, that's a French word -- what were these terrible surrenders we hear so much about? Vietnam? They did get out after years of entanglement there, just like we did. Are we surrender monkeys? Algeria? How many decades would they have had to stay there committing atrocities before you would allow them to leave? WW 2? I believe they were invaded by a far superior force -- defeated militarily. (And then, yes, surrendered, if you also want to say that the Nazis surrendered after we captured Berlin...) World War 1? My God, they fought on to the last minute, uselessly sacrificing hundreds of thousands of their young men, just as Germany and Britain did.

I do recall Napolean retreating from Russia after suffering fatal defeats, but before that, the French had pretty much taken over the world.

Oh, and you can gloat all you want about France losing in the finals... but our team didn't get anywhere close to them. And no, this doesn't mean I hate America -- I'm just tired of ignorant bigots who bash France because they're so desperate to feel superior to someone... anyone.

1:14 PM  
Blogger wrabkin said...

Oh, and Carol? The French can afford to be more upset about losing the match than a war because unlike this country's leadership, they were smart enough not to invade Iraq. So they don't have a war to worry about. They aren't bringing home a dead soldier or two every day. They are shipping $250 million every day overseas.

Oh, and coming from a blogger who just last week wrote an entire article decrying the loss of the phrase "the American way" from a new Superman movie, it's rich to hear you complaining about such priorities.

1:21 PM  
Blogger The Ayatollah said...

To Wrabkin: For your edification, the war France is currently losing is the war in their own country. The French can't reproduce themselves and are being swamped by Moslems, and they don't have the will to do anything about it. They are surrendering yet again.

And for your further information, at the beginning of WWII, France had a larger military than Germany - plus they were in the defensive position which is a further advantage. What the French lacked was courage.

7:00 PM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

And what Carol lacks is an ability to compartmentalize, to keep her geopolitical scorecard from dictating her reaction to other completely unrelated events, like sports.

9:08 PM  
Blogger eLarson said...

I'm trying to remember why the Right hates France so much. Was it because they opposed invading Iraq because the intel on WMD was shaky and the invasion looked to be a disaster?

No, they opposed the war because of Chiraq's ties to the Hussein regime.

6:01 AM  
Blogger SicSemperTyrannus said...

French casualties in WWI

World War I cost France 1,357,800 dead, 4,266,000 wounded (of whom 1.5 million were permanently maimed) and 537,000 made prisoner or missing -- exactly 73% of the 8,410,000 men mobilized, according to William Shirer in The Collapse of the Third Republic.

Some context: France had 40 million citizens at the start of the war; six in ten men between the ages of eighteen and twenty-eight died or were permanently maimed.

8:08 AM  
Blogger SicSemperTyrannus said...

My point being that France in effect ceased to be a world power circa 1918. No country can sustain such staggering losses (60% of the male population of an entire generation) and maintain its identity.

8:15 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

eLarson,

The authoritarian conservative hates anything or anyone that doesn't follow lock-step with their authority figure (Bush). And they never let things go. They will hate the French forever.

Get John Dean's new book "Conservatives Without Conscience". It describes Carol and the right wing loonies here.

8:53 AM  
Blogger wrabkin said...

eLarson:

Bush said Iraq was a threat that needed to be invaded at any cost because they were such a threat to the world.

France said it was not.

Bush was wrong.

France was right.

But to you, France was right for the wrong reason, so it's all right. After all, what's a trillion dollars and thousands of lives as long as you're wrong for the right reasons.

What's the weather like in Bizarro-Land?

9:09 AM  
Blogger eLarson said...

Bizarro Land. That's funny. Living near the Beltway, it certainly is that. (92 and partly cloudy.)

But to you, France was right for the wrong reason, so it's all right.

I didn't ask you to guess what my position was.

You stated YOUR opinion as to why "the Right" hates France.

I mentioned that France had some economic ties to Saddam's regime in Iraq. It was in their economic interest for Hussein to stay in power.

If France ever said "Iraq is not a threat" I seriously doubt they ever said it in so few words. Feel free to find it.

11:36 AM  
Blogger COPioneer said...

I think disliking (Hate isn't a family value) France for not supporting the USA in Iraq because they had a huge Cash Machine with Oil for Food (Largest international scandal in history) is a ligitimate reason. And because they didn't like Lance Armstrong winning all their tours...
"I fart in your general direction" Now that was their highlight...except that was British comedians...darn...

11:58 AM  
Blogger wrabkin said...

I'll say it again: France was right about Iraq. Bush -- and, hey guys, you -- were wrong. Period.

You can gin up all the reasons you want about why they're really icky anyway, but France was right, and you were wrong. And now I'm paying taxes to support the moronic folly of people who refused to pay attention to reality.

But France is the bad guy.

Because that's much easier than admitting you were wrong.

1:27 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

I always get a kick out of people who criticize France on the “food for oil” program. In over 12 years of sanctions there were $ 9.2 billion in illicit revenues, three-quarters of this going to Jordan, Syria and Turkey.

The hypocrisy comes in when the critic is silent on the unaccounted for $8.8 billion in Iraqi funds that was given to Iraqi ministries by the former U.S.-led authority. Under Bremer, all that money just vanished.

The critic is also silent on the $ 8 billion per month cost of the war to American tax payers.

And what about Cheney? According to oil industry executives and confidential United Nations records, Halliburton in violation of UN sanctions held stakes in two firms that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer of the Dallas-based company.

6:02 PM  
Blogger One Salient Oversight said...

France-hating is as American as baseball game fixing and toxin-filled apple pies.

I am sick to death of the Right continually going on and on and on and on about France being the epitome of evil and stupidity.

I guess you can't be openly racist about african-Americans, so you might as well do it to the French.

Well, if you're really so committed to being anti French then I suggest you dismantle the Statue of Liberty and send it back to France.

And may I point out that whenever France has riots almost nobody dies. The way right wingers go on and on and on about France you'd think that Paris streets were crime ridden ghettos.

The fact is that it is more dangerous walking the streets of New York, LA, Washington and virtually any other major American city than it is to walk the streets of Paris.

Gosh... could it be that French are actually safer during riots than Americans during normal times?

No, of course not. To suggest that would be anti American.

10:30 PM  
Blogger One Salient Oversight said...

BTW - Food for oil.

The scheme - the parts which operated within the law and was not affected by corruption (ie the vast majority of it), saved the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqi children.

10:32 PM  
Blogger One Salient Oversight said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10:48 PM  
Blogger One Salient Oversight said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10:49 PM  
Blogger One Salient Oversight said...

One more thing.

Americans have two basic views of other nations. They fall into the following categories:

1) Losers
2) Threats

Loser countries are countries that offer no threat at all to America's status in the world. They think they are better than America, but this is presumptuous and they are therefore losers. Their armed forces are pathetic, their culture is decaying, their society is going bankrupt. In short, Americans should laugh at them. Any nation in Europe, as well as Japan and in South America, are loser countries. The way to deal with loser nations is to constantly belittle them and laugh at them.

Threat countries are nations which pose a threat to America's status in the world, militarily and/or economically. Threat nations wish to destroy the United States somehow. They can be both Middle Eastern nations who get upset at America, or places like China who have trade imbalances with America. The way to deal with threat nations is to threaten them more, and make Americans feel scared by them. Invading them is probably a good idea.

--------

Now, with America treating the international community as though they were either losers or threats, is there any respect given to ANY nation that is not America?

And Americans wonder why the world doesn't like them.

10:53 PM  
Blogger One Salient Oversight said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11:07 PM  
Blogger One Salient Oversight said...

And Americans also think that the world owes them... big time.

Well, it's actually the other way around.

America owes the world... big time.

According to the CIA world factbook, America borrowed $829 trillion from the world in 2005 to cover its expenses.

11:08 PM  
Blogger Greg said...

Salient,

With all the America bashing you just did, do you wonder why some people can see the left as at least sympathizing with the enemy? To be quite honest, there are those on the left who are clearly more than sympathizers.

Also, the streets of downtown Paris may be perfectly safe. But what happens when you get out to the surrounding neighborhoods?

11:09 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google