Talk:France–United States relations/Archive 1

Archive 1

Early untitled discussion

Thanks 172!
Large parts of this article are doubled at Anti-French sentiment in the United States, how should we deal with this? Get-back-world-respect 01:07, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

This article focuses more on tracing the diplomatic and political relations between the two great powers, using more of an international relations and a historical approach. Perhaps the other article, in contrast, could chronicle cultural tensions (bringing up things like the "freedom fries" episode), with more of a sociological approach. I'm afraid of touching the anti-French sentiment article, though. -- (: 172 02:26, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin emerged as a prominent critic of The George W. Bush administration's policies in Iraq. I think you mean policies about Iraq? Marc Mongenet 20:58, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Part of page missing

I left the page, came back to it a few minutes later, and now everything before Charles de Gaulle's presidency is gone. Anyone know what's going on?

Now the missing part is back again. Wierd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.150.9 (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Too negative?

While I wouldn't go so far as to say NPOV, this article does seem to be overwhelming negative. Correct me if I’m wrong but I have always been under the impression that France was traditionally the US’s closest European partner until the early 20th century. Unfortunately I don’t know enough about this topic to contribute wholesale but I have noticed that there’s no mention of the American Revolution’s impact on French politics or cultural (thinking of jazz here) exchanges.

Agreed. I'd actually call it factually inaccurate. This article seems to mention every small dispute, inflating it to ridiculous proportions, and to largely ignore the fact that these two countries were always like-minded allies. Franco-American relations are rather good even today. One point of disagreement (Irak) does not invalidate the fact that they agree on everything else, no matter what public sentiment might be.

surprised? what can you expect from a bunch of fat stupid pigs? Cliché Online 11:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is a disgrace at present. I have added it to my to do list :) 193.132.242.1 16:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This article seems to have been written by an intelligent personn, subtle enough to distilate smoothly a general feeling of "there-were-always-bad-relations-between-France-and-the-USA" -mind my words, I'm not sure it was a conscious action-, and moreover making France responsible for it (if you look closer, you can't help feeling France is really an annoying country, whereas the US where kind and demanding nothing most of the times).
I also agree with the "inflating" thing. On the other hand, you don't even mention tensions over laws passed by the US like the super301 in the 80s, for instance -or the other way round, France defending its "cultural exception", or both countries querreling over the other's over-subventionned agricultures and blaming the other- ... And since when the US rose to a big power before the 1st world war, to such proportions that the balance in the relationship was inversed ? It rose all right, but not to this level, London was the capital city of the world and Paris the second, meaning France was certainly not below the US before the first world war...
Franco-american's relationship has always been special, but rather good. If you except the US close ties to the UK -but suffering from the dependent past-, we could say France was the US first partner in europe in terms of importance... (why not even bother mentionning the famous "La Fayette nous voici" of the US soldiers coming to help during the first world war ? it is, if even ever needed, a good proof that from the US independance on to the first world war -at least-, this relationship was more in the bright side than in the other, don't you think ?)
So, if I may, I'd like to make two suggestions : the first one, take a better look at history books, please. The second one, try more impartiality, and don't describe yesterday at the light of Iraq's tensions, it's a bit pathetic and unfair -even though it's without the slightest doubt more subtle here than in Murdoch's crap-.
Wikipedia is a marvellous chance for Mankind to pass on, share and grant access to knowledge. Don't you think it's a shame if this knowledge is biased, even slightly ? (if I'm not making myself clear, let me explain with an inflated exemple : what if wikipedia was a project of China and every article about Tibet was written by Pekin's authorities ? would you feel it's fair to our children ? Well, I don't. And I'm far from being alone.)

I'll be back to see what's been going on soon... Cordially, DILWIZHEL

Indochina

The article previously said that basically the US discouraged France from waging colonial wars in Indochina. To the best of my knowledge, the United States pushed France to fight this war, funded it, and provided it with weaponry in order to fight this war, which was seen as a war against Communism. (Perhaps, at the same time, it publicly disapproved of it, I don't know.)

I understand that many Americans think that France "dragged" the US into the Vietnam War, but apparently reality is more complex than that. David.Monniaux 17:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

the us gave money to the french to fight communism in indochina, they sent CIA pilots to support the bessieged garrison at dien bien phu (secret CAT ops). Cliché Online 11:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I have semi-protected the article due to vandalism. If another administrator feels that this is unwise, they are free to remove the protection at any time. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 00:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've unprotected for now... these situations are a bit tricky. Let's see what happens. --W.marsh 22:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for not promoting

This is a very promising article but it has not been promoted to the status of good article because:

1. It lacks sufficient references and/or citations.
2. It doesn't adequately describe the circumstances leading to the "Quasi-War" namely that "the United States refused to pay back its debt and revoked its agreements with France, arguing that these had been with the French monarchy and that their obligations were null after the change of regime in France."
3. It treats the post-war years as a single block. It would be better to subdivide this section (some additional dates could also be used for the later paragraphs).

Please feel free to resubmit this article when these concerns are addressed.

Cedars 07:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

M/F!!

you scumbags forgot to mention why france's government was against the us-led invasion of irak (mass destruction lies in us & uk), you forgot to mention now the antiwar sentiment in us & uk (e.g. the french were right) and on top of this you forgot to mention france's support in afghanistan, with some french troops dead there for the sake of a bunch of swines like you. Cliché Online 11:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with some of the arguments you present, but your way of presenting them has no place on Wikipedia. Calling other users pigs, swines or scumbags is totally unacceptable and leads to no good. That is the kind of language used in the Rupert Murdoch media about the French and pretty much everyone who does not share the Murdoch-agenda, but there is absolutely no reason to sink to the level of Fox News or the New York Post here. I suggest that you remove your insults, refrain from using insults in the future and instead contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive way. JdeJ 19:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Fox News doesn't talk like that and we both know it. Your lies bring you down to cliche's level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.228.98 (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

siege of porktown

your map lacks all outremer french territories, ignorant pigs never heard about outremer and think france is only a metropole. Cliché Online 11:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, please learn to conduct yourself in a civil manner! Besides, the map is correct and includes the outremer territories, you can see New Caledonia, Reunion and French Guiana. Other areas are too small to be visible on the map. And even if the map would have been wrong, it would not have justifies the language you use. JdeJ 19:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sarkozy

It would be nice if it had a little information about the relations after Sarko got elected. It's been a wile now... Contralya 13:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• After this speech, it would seem that relations more than just 'appear' to be improving: [1] Contralya (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I had to delete the part about "Sarko the American" which is an urban legend created by Sarkozy himself. Nobody in France refers to him as "Sarko the American" nor is it branded as an insult by the left. Simply no one in France speaks of Sarkozy as "The American" save to mock his preposterous and childish whim to appear on par with leaders of international stature. It was just another demagogic trick he set up to please our American friends. Simply don't be mistaken and don't believe the French care a fig about his purported taste for all things American. Sarkozy simply is a total ignoramus particularly when it comes to anything even remotely associated with culture. Flocon 07:12, 1 September 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.22.116.162 (talk)

Update

This does NOT adress the Rapprochement after Sarko was elected. France is increasing involvement with NATO, relations with the U.S. are SUBSTANTIALLY better, with France supporting the united states with issues like Iran sanctions. The policy of using the EU mainly as a means of limiting U.S. influence seems to of ended in favor of partnership. I do not need sources to prove these things. You have to have your head buried in the sand not to notice these changes in the relationship. Just look at the speech Sarko gave to congress. Contralya (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Even though your message was posted last March, I have to agree with you. The article still seems to suggest that relations are cold. The relations have improved a lot, especially since the election of U.S. President Obama, and there's been a lot of dialogue between the two countries lately. If I can find any appropriate sources to confirm this I'll add it in. Aurora30 (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

YOU HAVE COMPLETELY IGNORED THE SECOND WORLD WAR.

Don't you think you owe it to the approx 292,000 Americans that died in World War II to put in a section on Franco-AmericanRelations during WWII???Johncheverly 22:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)johncheverly@gmail.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs)

Archive 1