|
|
|
Subject:
Ted Wade has no clue what he's talking about
Derby
2/14/2003 6:29:44 PM
|
I read with displeasure Ted Wade's comments on French history, which contain many falsehoods. I do not know whether these untruths are the result of ignorance or dishonesty, but in either case they should be corrected.
Wade: "[After World War I] The French insisted on carving up old empires and creating new countries that have lead [sic] to many of today's problems in the Balkans and the Middle-East."
Garbage. Clemenceau didn't give a damn about creating new countries or independence for subject peoples. The dismemberment of Austria-Hungary was a sop to the misguided idealism of Woodrow Wilson, who had made independence for the various ethnic minorities one of his "14 points." All Clemenceau cared about was getting Alsace-Lorraine back, and disarming and plundering Germany; he got that over Wilson's objections, and let Wilson have his little Eastern European statelets in return.
Wade: "Prior to World War II . . . France also had the largest and most modern army in the world."
More nonsense. The Red Army dwarfed France's. The Soviets had more tanks than all the rest of the world's armies combined.
Wade: "The French response to their liberation was to enlist Nasi Prisoners of War into the Foreign Legion and dispatch them to enslave a new French Empire in Africa and Asia."
Wrong again. The French didn't attempt to create a "new" empire. What they tried to do was to hold on to their old empire. They failed miserably, of course.
Wade: "In 1956 the French convinced Britain and Israel to join in its unilateral invasion of Egypt."
I laughed out loud at this one. Try to understand this concept: when you convince two other nations to join your invasion, it's not a unilateral invasion. It's multilateral. Because MORE THAN ONE SIDE is invading.
Wade: "The French unilateral [sic] wars against Algeria and Egypt are one of the primary causes of Arab distrust of the West."
Balderdash. The primary cause of Arab distrust of the West is that the West refuses to condone Arab calls for a genocidal war against Israel. Some Western nations, notably America, actively assist Israel in defending against Arab attacks and Israeli counterstrikes against terrorists. France is viewed in a much more friendly fashion by the Arab states than America is, because France doesn't favor Israel, while the U.S. does. Also, France will sell weapons to anybody, while America sells weapons only to Israel and to those Arab dictators (like Sadat and Mubarak) who make peace with Israel. Of course Arab dictators who oppress and murder their own people don't care in the least what France did to Arab civilians in Algeria fifty years ago.
I shudder to think that the decision on war or peace in Iraq is being made on the basis of such pin-headed arguments (and I'm not directing that statement only against the right; most of the left-wing peace movement's arguments are every bit as asinine as Mr. Wade's, or even more so).
I humbly submit the following explanation for France's bizarre behavior regarding the inspectors; I may be just as wrong as Mr. Wade, but at least my opinion is based on something closer approximating reality. I say France doesn't give a damn about Saddam Hussein. France figures, correctly, that America is going to go into Iraq no matter what France says about it. France cold-bloodedly, and correctly, expects that if it publicly opposes the attack and refuses to participate, Arab anger about the war will focus on America and not on France. This will make France less likely to be targeted by terrorist attacks, and leave France a clearer field for making business deals with disgruntled Arabs after the war is over. If Saddam's WMDs do represent a threat to France, the Americans will conveniently remove that threat while taking all the heat, spilling all the blood, and paying all the bills. France's stance is not idiocy. Just realpolitik. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Latest
News |
Most
Read |
Hot
Topics |
|
|
|
