Friedman: Our War With France (WTF??)

[wellst0nev0ter]

It's time we Americans came to terms with something: France is not just our annoying ally. It is not just our jealous rival. France is becoming our enemy.

http://nytimes.com/2003/09/18/opinion/18FRIE.html

Well, you pretty much get the picture. Is this really the same guy who wrote From Beirut to Jeruselem?

[Maple]

1. Jeepers!

Someone on here suggested a few days ago that Friedman had 'lost it' but I thot it was just a figure of speech...

Apparently not!

I really enjoyed 'The Lexus and the Olive Tree'....but this doesn't even sound like the same man.

[eridani]

8. Friedman has a real excess of gall

Wonnder if anyone has reminded him of what he said in 1991.

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2003/msg03889.html

Also easy to suppress are the reasons why the US returned to support Saddam immediately after the Gulf war, as he crushed rebellions that might have overthrown him. The chief diplomatic correspondent of the New York Times, Thomas Friedman, explained that the best of all worlds for the US would be "an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam Hussein", but since that goal seemed unattainable, we would have to be satisfied with second best (5). The rebels failed because the US and its allies held the "strikingly unanimous view whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for his country's stability than did those who have suffered his repression"(6).

(5) The New York Times, 7 June 1991. Alan Cowell, The New York Times, 11 April 1991.

(6) The New York Times, 4 June 2003.

[wellst0nev0ter]

2. Okay, One More Reply

What is so amazing to me about the French campaign — "Operation America Must Fail" — is that France seems to have given no thought as to how this would affect France. Let me spell it out in simple English: if America is defeated in Iraq by a coalition of Saddamists and Islamists, radical Muslim groups — from Baghdad to the Muslim slums of Paris — will all be energized, and the forces of modernism and tolerance within these Muslim communities will be on the run. To think that France, with its large Muslim minority, where radicals are already gaining strength, would not see its own social fabric affected by this is fanciful.

No, you little weasel, France is well aware of how to radicalize Muslims, and it's not by failing to create democracies like so many marigolds in a briar patch. Here, I'll even give you a hint: Algeria.

[Bertrand]

6. Whats amazing

is that his arrogance is so blinding he actually believes that the governing elite of a nation that is a major player on the world stage has possibly given little thought to their policies.

[Melsky]

7. Friedman has lost it, if he ever had it.

he actually believes that the governing elite of a nation that is a major player on the world stage has possibly given little thought to their policies.

This is actually a pretty good description of what the US has done. Unless they know exactly what they are doing and are trying to screw things up as badly as possible.

[lfairban]

3. Wrote him off long ago.

Before the war, it was quite clear from what he was saying that he had become, "Unbalanced".

[RandomKoolzip]

4. Palast's chapter on Friedman in "Best Democracy..."

spells out that TF is an official dickweed. Forced "Free Trade" Globalization is breeding a diaspora of America-haters around the world, and I, for one, cannot blame them. Fuck Friedman. Vive Le France!

[fabius]

5. I have only three words...

Tom, you Idiot.

[Paschall]

9. No simple English needed, Mr. Friedman

"Let me spell it out in simple English: if America is defeated in Iraq by a coalition of Saddamists and Islamists, radical Muslim groups — from Baghdad to the Muslim slums of Paris — will all be energized, and the forces of modernism and tolerance within these Muslim communities will be on the run. To think that France, with its large Muslim minority, where radicals are already gaining strength, would not see its own social fabric affected by this is fanciful."

In 1966, as America was escalating combat in Vietnam, De Gaulle delivered a highly publicized address in Pnom Phen explaining--with his considerable and troubled experience in Arab and Indochinese affairs, and personal military history as a prisoner of war and fighter in two global conflicts--that western occupation of developing nations is always bound to fail. The US did not heed France then; it failed in Vietnam, and--guess what--France survived.

Mr. Friedman, you seem to have forgotten that if the US had not invaded Iraq, there would be no threat from these new Islamic terrorists to France's social fabric. And you seem to believe--on god knows what grounds--that the French government didn't take this into consideration when it opposed the invasion. But thank you for your concern, anyway. Even if it comes a bit late. :thumbsdown:

[The Zanti Regent]

10. What an ass.

Tom of Finland Friedman had outdone himself.

Tom, you love Israel so much go and stay there. We won't miss you!

[LoneStarLiberal]

11. Sad to See Friedman Fall Apart Like This

Like I wrote in a Friedman thread last week, it's sad to see this guy come apart at the seams over the last year. I used to really enjoy his columns and some of his book collections like From Beirut to Jerusalem and The Lexus and the Olive Tree.

Quite simply his personal politics of being so involved and intertwined with the areas and peoples he writes about have been thoroughly turned upside down by the Bush administration he has been caught in the tangled wreakage and is being dragged down with the ship.

[Jack Rabbit]

12. Friedman is nuts

If you add up how France behaved in the run-up to the Iraq war (making it impossible for the Security Council to put a real ultimatum to Saddam Hussein that might have avoided a war), and if you look at how France behaved during the war (when its foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, refused to answer the question of whether he wanted Saddam or America to win in Iraq), and if you watch how France is behaving today (demanding some kind of loopy symbolic transfer of Iraqi sovereignty to some kind of hastily thrown together Iraqi provisional government, with the rest of Iraq's transition to democracy to be overseen more by a divided U.N. than by America), then there is only one conclusion one can draw: France wants America to fail in Iraq.

How many things are wrong with this paragraph?

First of all, it is suprising that Friedman believes that anything could have avoided war. Saddam may have been responsible for plunging his country into two unnecessary wars, but the war that resulted in his demise was not of his doing. It was an act of piracy by the Bush junta. There was nothing that Bush and the thugs from PNAC were going to allow to come between them and their loot. Of course, Mr. Friedman believes that the war was not about oil because that would be so crass and bringing democracy to Iraq is such a more noble reason. Mr. Friedman, wake up! The war was about oil. Moreover, it was Mr. Bush's war. Anything that might have prevented war should have been aimed at Bush and his junta.

Second, it is ludicrous to believe that the Bush junta has any designs on Iraq that will benefit the Iraqi people. To reiterate, this was a ar for oil; it has nothing to do with bringing democracy to Iraq. In fact, any real democracy in Iraq would hinder the colonial designs of the junta. No government representing the will of the people of Iraq will allow the looting of Iraq's natural resources or the transfer of Iraqi wealth to US multinational corporations reconstructing Iraq's infrastructure after Mr. Bsuh's bombs destroyed it. Consequently, no government that represents the interests of the Iraqi people can be allowed. Instead, the American viceroy, Paul Bremer, hand picks a governmening council from whatever quislings are willing.
A UN-mandated transition would not be perfect, but it would be better than US colonial occupation. The less Bush and his gang of cutthroats have to do with post-war Iraq, the better off the Iraqi people will be.

Third, Bush and his junta don't need France's help to fail in Iraq. They're doing that on their own. The Iraqi people didn't greet invading US troops with flowers because they know the difference between liberation and colonial occupation. They will resist occupation and have every right to resist. Bush has half of the US army's combat divisions in Iraq and many compalin more are needed to do "the job." The job, whatever Bush and Cheney may say it is, is protecting Halliburton from the wrath of the Iraqi people. That failed in Vietnam and it will fail in Iraq. Nobody's wishing it otherwise will change it.

It's time we Americans came to terms with something: France is not just our annoying ally. It is not just our jealous rival. France is becoming our enemy.

No, it's time for Friedman and all other Americans who continue to be willingly duped to come to terms with something: Bush is not just an incompetent leader. He is not just a liar and a thief. Bush is the most dangerous man in the world. He is an enemy of the people.

[wellst0nev0ter]

13. "France is not just our annoying ally. It is not just our jealous rival."

Hmm, I didn't know France was embarking on a global tour of neocolonialism.

[Uzybone]

14. This man

become more and more foolish each time he writes. Whats stuns me is that I say this every single time he pens his tripe. What the fuck is wrong with him? Is the taste of Bush ass so sweet???

[Skittles]

15. OH, F*** OFF, FRIEDMAN

WHAT AN ASS.

[KG]

16. another chicken-hawk war-cheering, bush-enabling moron

trying to cover his ass. and doing a dam poor job of it.

someone turn off his mic!

[Wetzelbill]

17. Considering I'm reading "From Beirut To Jerusalem" right now

I cannot believe it is the same guy. Friedman has gone off his rocker over this France thing. He's a smart guy, which makes me wonder how the hell he comes up with some of the stupid stuff he's written this year. This column is the sign of a man descending into madness and mediocrity.

[smallprint]

18. New York Times Columnist Crying in Corner of Playground (satire)

New York Times Columnist Crying in Corner of Playground

NEW YORK, N.Y. -- Five-time Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman is crying in the corner of the playground today.

He is sitting in the dirt and dandelions by the fence, whimpering over a ball that he is alleged to have brought from home. Witnesses say that he arrived with the ball earlier today, claiming his uncle just bought it for him and it was the best ball in the world. None of the other children in the playground, however, appeared to share his opinion and in fact ignored him completely.

In the past, Friedman has provided the ball used in various games that the kids play. According to one of those kids, "Tommy thought just because he had the only ball for so long that it was somehow special. It was just a dumb ball, and he's just a dumb kid."

more: http://www.kirbymountain.com/rosenlake/er/news/index.html

[scarletwoman]

20. Hey, good find!

Never heard of this paper before, but I definitely LOVE this piece!

sw

[Jack Rabbit]

19. Greg Palast's response to Friedman is worth reading

Please see this thread.

[wellst0nev0ter]

21. Letters! Letters! Letters!

With renewed disappointment, I read "Our War With France" (column, Sept. 18) and learned that my country was at war with the United States. For Thomas L. Friedman, the French are now annoying and jealous masochists. Brilliant.

Mr. Friedman expresses the worst prejudgments about France, some I thought reserved to the far right.

The official motivation to go to war was that the Iraqi regime posed a serious threat to the West because of its weapons of mass destruction. The French government knew that there was no factual basis upon which it could be believed that these armaments still existed, and if Paris was wrong, it was much safer to let the United Nations discover them.

It turns out that France was right.

DIDIER LIAUTAUD
Paris, Sept. 18, 2003

Thomas L. Friedman's assertion (column, Sept. 18) that "France wants America to fail in Iraq" is akin to saying that someone who separates a drunken driver from his car keys doesn't want him to get home.

France's opposition to the war in Iraq might have been based in part on a desire to be a counterbalance to American hegemony. But it was also based on skepticism about American claims regarding the imminent threat that Iraq posed — claims that have since proved to be hollow.

France wants the United States to return to a foreign policy based on the ideals that George W. Bush articulated in his campaign when he said: "If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation but strong, they'll welcome us."

So do a large number of American citizens.

ROBERT LEVINE
Glendale, Wis., Sept. 18, 2003

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/19/opinion/L19FRIE.html

Also, because they wanted to be "fair and balanced" they included that one or two freeper letters, so look out.