Really, it surprises me that such anti-France sentiment exists in the US. I've heard some absolutely ridiculous things, like parents refusing to let their children learn French, and of course, there was the French/Freedom fries fiasco. For the love of Popmart: FRANCE ARE YOUR ALLY. They aren't a puppet, they aren't going to agree with everything the US says and does, but at the end of the day, they are still an ALLY. It seems some Americans just have a persecution complex and want to invent enemies just DO NOT EXIST. It's like all these terror alerts. Now I just roll my eyes and say "It's not happening." I've been right for nearly three years. Attacks have happened all over the world - not that the American-dominated media tells you, because of course, the latest celebrity scandal is so much more important - but they have not happened again in the US.
Anyway, to the article. Krauthammer's condescending, American-superiorist tone is so revolting, and though I may not be intimately familiar with the details of why Franch vetoed NATO action in Afghanistan, I can tell Krauthammer is simply washing over the issue and only saying whatever suits his cause. I can't believe this arrogant, nationalistic fellow is allowed a column in a worldwide publication - I do wonder if the French edition of Time contained this column!
I love it how he is so condescending and mocking of the French. If someone from France used a similar attitude about America, he would be the first to cry foul, probably because he's such a hypocrite. I cannot believe he's actually got away with this column. It's like cleverly disguised racism. "It is easy to make fun of the French and their pompous pretense to the grandeur shed a half-century ago ... relegated to the rank of second-class power." So we can stereotype the French now? I bet he wouldn't get away with that if you swapped 'French' with 'Japanese' or 'African-American', but of course, it's politically correct to be 'Frenchist' right now. Sometimes I think these people are Francophobic, with a fear of France and French people. "France's Gaullist anti-Americanism ... was an irritant ... [but is now] dangerous and deadly." And why? Because they choose to disagree with current American policy. No, France aren't sponsoring terrorists. They're not pointing nuclear missiles at Washington DC, considering a war, or trying to destroy positive work. They just choose not to agree with American policy. This makes them dangerous and deadly now? So what are they meant to do, mindlessly follow George Bush like the sheep Krauthammer seems to want the French nation to be? Really, I feel sorry for any American who's old enough to vote - Bush isn't exactly the brightest crayon in th box, but it's not like Kerry's got much going for him either, not voting totally nullifies your say, and voting for Nader is just as bad as not voting at all. What's even more sad is that I, a New Zealander, am well acquianted with American politics but I will bet you that most people reading this wouldn't have the first clue about Australian or NZ politics. Simple test - who are John Howard, Peter Costello, Helen Clark, and David Lange?
But back to my point. Krauthammer goes on, gratuitously complimenting political figures who suit his cause, such as the "supremely courageous" Hamid Karzai who really hasn't done all that much, and claiming that Afghanistan was the "good war ... of undeniable necessity ... [that] everyone supported." Since when? I agree with the reason for invading Afghanistan, even though it should've been done by a country that actually knows how to do nation building, but I am pretty sure that it did not have one hundred percent support because NOTHING does. Krauthammer seems to have forgotten one of the first rules of good reporting, and that is DO NOT MAKE GENERALISATIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE NEVER TRUE. Of course, abiding by that basic and factual rule would weaken his case, and we couldn't possibly have that, could we?
Next, Krauthammer decides to just assume for us that the Iraqi war was just and that any decent nation would've been involved. He speaks of Jacques Chirac being destructive of NATO help in any democratic nation building, and frankly, I have to say good on him. There is this popular, though misguided, attitude that democracy is the only form of just government, I can understand why NATO would not get involved, ESPECIALLY seeing it's well away from the North Atlantic, and nation building? Tell me, what do you see in Iraq? Do you see nation building, or do you see the US floundering without a clue how to clean up this mess? At least when the British established a worldwide empire, they could control it and established working and often thriving economies, but I suppose they're now a "second class power" to Krauthammer too. He forgets his heritage quite nicely.
From this point on, the column collapses into absurdity and never returns. Oh! The conspiracy theories, the fear, the propaganda! I'm not even going to waste my time addressing it. It should be fiction, and I suspect it is, but Krauthammer's done a nice job of deluding himself into thinking it's fact. I just can't believe it. The claims are so outlandish and ridiculous that I can't believe anyone's going to believe it. A "French future"? The French empire is DEAD and it's not coming back. It was buried for once and all in Indochina. France may be an influential nation in the future - indeed, Krauthammer's obsession with opposing France gives them the stature he claims they seek - but there won't be a French future, at least not for a long time. Krauthammer has to CALM THE FEAR DOWN. While he's at it, he needs to lose the Francophobia. After all, as I said at the beginning, France is America's ally and the US owe a lot to the French. How quickly America has forgotten its own past ...
For the record, when I say I'm a conservative, I'm not joking. Don't let people like Krauthammer fool you into believing a false definition of conservative.
Also, why is 'serious' not a mood? 'Bland' and 'serious' need to be moods on LJ. The two moods I'd use most often aren't there, bah.