Hi Kev

I think I can understand your feelings.
I sincerely hope the authorities will catch the culprits and deal with them harshly. I also hope the government and the population clearly disacociate themselves from this abhorent act and condemn it roundly and without ambiguity.

The last thing we need at the moment is create more rifts between allies and we need to try as much as possible to keep a clear head. Knee-jerk reactions will only play into the hands of the mindless idiots who commmit such crimes. I hope with all my heart this will not leave the door open for all bigots on both sides to launch attacks and undermine the values we all share.

A straw poll I’ve just conducted among French mates brought about a unanimous condemnation. They were all appalled by it. I can’t believe for a second that this outrage reflects the feelings of the majority.

I also fervently hope Chirac will publicly and unequivoqually condem this act. I know how important it is for the French to prove their complete and utter rejection of such actions to the British population.
I have a feeling the tabloids will have a field day. I know how it will look… This is the last thing the UK and France need at the moment.

I hope the French crack down hard on those responsible and make a clear stand. This cannot be tolerated.

This is nothing short of disgraceful and scandalous behaviour from people who ought to be utterly ashamed of themselves. I think the overwhelming majority of people in France are appalled at such a horrifying event.

There might be a tradition of taking the mickey at our cousins across the Channel (the French are as bad (or good if you prefer) at that as the Brits, I reckon). But this is something different altogether.

It could be the work of idiotic youngsters, it could be the work of people who wanted to vent some of their feelings about events currently unfolding in the world. But they are choosing the wrong target. I feel utterly sick that some individuals have chosen to tarnish the memory of soldiers who lost their lives fighting against the enemy. The signs written on the graves seem to indicate a pretty muddled-up mind at work, with a loose grasp of history. If this stems from anger, then the potential is ominus, because we all know what violence anger can beget, if left unchecked. But this is really a ghastly thing.

Here’s what I found ojn the BBC Web site:

“This violation of a burial place – scandalous in itself – is an attack on the memory of the sacrifice made by the British and American soldiers who contributed to the liberation of our soil,” said the local member of parliament, former Socialist arts minister Jack Lang.

“Our disagreement with the British and American governments (on Iraq) can in no way justify any assault on the memory of men who sacrificed themselves for our country.”

I couldn’t agree more!

“The point was that clearly, had you noticed, I had moved away from the belligerant anti-French stance I had previously taken. Had you read one of the other and more recent threads you’d have known that. I also think that maybe you are taking issue with one particular statement, and have ignored the intelligent debate that resulted over the coruse of the thread.”

You might have moved away from the “belligerant tone” but as far as I was aware, you had not qualified your first post. I found it hard to believe my eyes when I read it. I had not seen that you had since altered that post but for all it is worth, it is appreciated.

“SOC, the thread might have been inactive for a while, but that doesn’t mean that the contents of your post didn’t register.”

“I’ll concede you that point. If you want to go back into the archives even and respond to all of the posts there, that’s your right, and enjoy the reading.”

No need for that. I can remember other threads where other issues brought about similarly heated exchanges, with posters who carry a lot more kudos than I do. And it’s not like the present thread was 2 years old, is it?

“When it seemed clear you were continuing in the same vein in other topics”

“Explain that.”

The topic containing a “humourous” summary of the wars France fought. In view of your earlier posts, it did not come across as that funny. I might be guilty of a major sense of humour bypass here, but as people say, a joke coming from a friend does not have the same effect as one coming from somebody who seemed (and I stress the word “seemed”) to have an axe to grind with the French.

“I thought it was more than a one-off and with the greatest respect, I think what you wrote was outrageous.”

“Actually it was a one-off. And apparently I should have made the sarcasm more clear. It was merely an overly violent expression designed to demonstrate my clear and precise disdain for the French position on the issue. I do not necessarily want to obliterate France, in a response in this thread I even go so far as to state that I have no issue with the French people. I do think their position has never been adequately explained, and when French weapons are currently threatening my fellow servicemembers, I reserve the right to develop a degree of animosity towards the adminsitration which allows said weapons to be illegally exported.”

OK, I take your point. You raise very interesting and important issues. I apologise if I overreacted but once again, what would you have said if you had come across a post expressing similar thoughts anout the USA and in a similar way?

“…and enjoy the trouble you stir (which would be pretty childish)”

What trouble have I stirred? Differing opinions is not a definition of trouble.”

People reacting to what you wrote for a start.

“…or whether you genuinely hold these beliefs (which would be a very sad reflection on you).”

Well, I do genuinely hold the belief that the French government is despicable. No, I do not actually advocate a thermonuclear exchange with France. As to how it reflects on me, your opinion is obvious. If I am making this such a bad experience for you with obviously inflammatory remarks, so be it. Consider this my last post.”

OK, that is something different. It’s the gratuitous attack on France as a whole and its citizens which rankled so much. I see it every day in the papers… “The French this, The French that”. Some might argue that it is obvious that some of these acerbic pieces of criticism are only addressed to the French government, but after a while the rehtoric takes a more general tone. The least said about some of the British tabloids the better, but I find it worrying that the whole of France is tarred with the same brush and that at every hint of disagreement between France and the USA or the UK, the same insulting cliches and the same old tired grossly inaccurate statements about France reappear. It’s saddening to see that year after year the same lies and caricatures are spread by some parts of the media and that they are actually taken on board by some people. If a lie is repeated enough times some people start to believe it. During a short stint I did “teaching” at university I actually had a student of mine ask me “so do you think there was really a resistance in France?” in the same way as if he was asking me whether I thought there was life on another planet.
This probably explains why some people are a tad oversensitive about what is said in the media on on discussion boards such as this one.

I get as irratated when French people have a go at the UK for gratuitous reasons and start churning out ill-informed rubish about it. And if truth be told, I do not care much for blind and rabid anti-americanism either. There are clearly quite a few negatives things to be said about those three countries but it is senseless to do it outside a rational framework…

As for this being your last post, obviously it’s up to you… But why would you stop posting because someone took exception to one of your remarks, which you say yourself was a one-off, particularly somebody who does not get involved so often? Your messages are clearly interesting to the majority of the regulars here.
You have said and shown you were willing to engage in more productive exchanges. What would be the reason for not doing that?

I hope this post has clarified things and I look forward to enlightening discussions on various topics.

SOC, the thread might have been inactive for a while, but that doesn’t mean that the contents of your post didn’t register. When it seemed clear you were continuing in the same vein in other topics, I thought it was more than a one-off and with the greatest respect, I think what you wrote was outrageous. You may wish to turn the tables and claim this is an overreaction, but I don’t think you’d have reacted kindly to a poster expressing similiar thoughts about the USA (and you’d have been entirely justified).
Moreover nothing in your post indicated that this was not what you thought.

Garry, thanks for your replies. I remember our earlier discussion very well and I really appreciated the fact we were able to talk things through and the fact you had an open mind as well as an impressive knowledge of military hardware and of modern international politics and history.

Like you say, I am not anti-American in any way, shape, or form. There are too many things I like and appreciate about the USA to mention. Most of the Americans I have met were warm, positive and a joy to be with.
I just think some of the gratuitous insults traded recently were not conducive to any interesting and constructive debate and exchange of ideas.
Newt Gingrich was recently interviewed on the BBC World TV channel by Tim Sebastian. He made an atriculate and forceful case for the US position and, like one of Collin Powell’s TV address broadcast a few weeks ago, it was much more convincing than the debasing name-calling that had been such a feature of some transaltantic media of late.

SOC,
Even bearing in mind the disclaimer you used in another post warning readers not to take your messages too seriously, I really cannot let your anti-French rants go without saying anything.

In the first post of the present thread, you said

“More sense, actually, then my preferred option-a 200kT, 30-minutes-or-less-or-the-next-one-is-free bombarding of Paris. People would say “oh, but what about the people?” The people are the problem. They voted for him and are encouraging him by not looking outside their wallets, giving huge numbers in an anti-war poll. Level France, I say. Payback for all of this crap (…)”

So in other words, you advocate launching an unprovoked attack on the capital of a democratic country leading to massive loss of innocent lives. Why? Because the president of that country disagrees with the president of yours. Sounds like terrorism to me.

You say the French voted for him. You do not appear to be aware of the circumstances surrounding Chirac’s election. The French electoral system is such that in Presidential elections, after the first round the two candidates with the most votes go through to a second round. Many candidates stood for office in that first round (too many one would say). As a result of that, and the fact pollsters kept telling every one the two candidates in the final round would be Chirac and Jospin (mainstream left-wing party), many people seem to have chosen to vote for a minority party, in order to voice their displeasure with the main parties. Others did not vote (and will live to regret it for a long time). As it turned out, to everybody’s utter surprise, the French far-right wing candidate, Jean-Marie le Pen, edged out Jospin to face Chirac in the second round. Most of the country reeled from that result and then proceeded to elect Chirac because they felt it was the only choice possible.
There are many French people who do not support Chirac and his policies, but voted for him as they felt it was the lesser of two evils.
Even today, not everyone in France is behind him and there are dissenting voices in France saying that the war on Iraq is justified and even desirable. But that is the hallmark of a democracy. People have the right to disagree and express their concerns.

There is another thing you conveniently forget in your utterly outrageous post: Paris is not only populated by French adults who voted in the election. It is also home to a lot of children and to a fair amount of foreign nationals (including Americans). Would you think nothing of obliterating them?

I have no idea whether you posted this to shock and provoke and enjoy the trouble you stir (which would be pretty childish) or whether you genuinely hold these beliefs (which would be a very sad reflection on you).

Whatever the reasons, the ideas you expressed are disgraceful.

RE: Quotes and quotations

Can’t remember who these were from but here goes:

“A woman drove me to drink and I never had the curtesy to thank her for it”

“A paranoid is a person in posession of all the facts”.

RE: BOND… a big smash!

He was indeed a fantastic Bond, in spite of a perceived lack of charisma. The interviews he gave at the time his two films were released prove he had a superb understanding of the character and really delvd deeply into Fleming’s books to steer the series back towards a more serious approach.

I think Brosnan has also said recently he has been reading the books. In my opinion, Dalton did a tremendous job, but was slighlty too theatrical in places. Brosnan captures the essence of 007, but in a more subtle way. There are still many moments where he makes Bond’s inner turmoil quite obvious. A grand job.

RE: BOND… a big smash!

Hi munnst,

I think the quote you mentioned is actually from Never Say Never Again, isn’t it?
And the new films do have slightly risqué puns on names, such as Xenia Onatop”.

I haven’t seen the new film yet. I have to say though that, as a recovering harcore Bond fan, the question of the films and their merits used to figure prominently on my thoughts for many years.
I personally think that Conery’s films are by and large overrated in the sense that they initiated the departure from a straight and conventional take on Bond.
Goldfinger is, in my opinion the guilty party. It’s veered off from the taut thriller atmosphere of From Russia With Love and started pandering to the general public. All good and well and indispensible to keep the series afloat and profitable, but in my view, a bit of a shame all the same.

It all depends on your starting point in the Bond cannon. If it’s teh films, then your expectations and reference points will be those of the screen, with all their qualities and flaws. If on the other hand it’s Fleming’s books, you will always tend to look for the essence of the literary Bond in the films. Granted, you make allowances for the scenes included for the general public, but to see a human, vulnerable, complex and bitter Bond is a real treat for those who hark back to the original books.
I think that Brosnan has really got it all, the looks fit in with Fleming’s description, he has a bit of humour, but nothing ludicrously over the top, and shows the vulnerability of the man which Fleming emphasized so often.

My only quibble with the new films are the little “jokes” included for the benefit of the general audiance, such as Bond straightening his tie after the collision in GE and under the water in TWINE. (apparently, that was Brosnan’s idea…). The only blemish in GE in my view was the tank chase in St Petersburg. The score typified everything about the desire to rub the general public the right way up. (the score for that scene written by Eric Serra was a lot better in my view) and the scene was treated with too much childish humour. Shame, because it was quite impressively shot.

It will be hard for the filmmakers to move away from the formula everyone expects now from a Bond film, but the moments of serious Bondian atmopshere or the character development (a more human Bond rather than a robot who runs around with no feelings or pain) are a real treat for those of us who consider Fleming’s Bond as The reference.