• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama sends former officials to Thatcher funeral

Grant said:
At the time it was AngloAmerican versus Nazism and you are correct that I bought into the entire AngloAmerican meme. I bear no shame for this.
Click to expand...

Which is your right. I just have my doubts.................
 
Jack Hays said:
And one other thing. You're wrong about DeGaulle too. He oversaw the abandonment of French Algeria.:cool:
Click to expand...
Um, get a clue, after a very bloody civil uprising, the French under De Gaulle, withdrew from Algeria. Going through a civil war to hold a colony is hardly "abandonment". I suppose the withdraw from Vietnam by France after Dien Bien Phu was "abandonment" too. I'm sure you characterize our leaving the same country the same way too. You just show over and over how limited your view of topics really is.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, get a clue, after a very bloody civil uprising, the French under De Gaulle, withdrew from Algeria. Going through a civil war to hold a colony is hardly "abandonment". I suppose the withdraw from Vietnam by France after Dien Bien Phu was "abandonment" too. I'm sure you characterize our leaving the same country the same way too. You just show over and over how limited your view of topics really is.
Click to expand...

They are euphemisms for 'retreat', as is 'withdraw'.
 
Grant said:
What differences do you find between 'neo Conservatism' and 'Conservatism'?
Click to expand...
already discussed
Gimmesometruth said:
The basic tenets of low taxation, an aggressive use of military force to further a dominant economic/strategic position, a disdain for international diplomacy, a tolerance towards the size of govt and welfare, a moralistic view towards social policy.....are not restricted to a particular place or family.
Click to expand...


Grant said:
They are euphemisms for 'retreat', as is 'withdraw'.
Click to expand...
It is a semantic tomfoolery, the point was that Gaullism fought to keep it's colonies as opposed to negotiated, low/no conflict decolonization by Britain post WWII.

Beyond that, it is a tangent to distract from his error that neoconservatism is restricted by genetics or geography.
 
Bonzai said:
Occupied France was duped into siding with the Allies on the promise that they could have their empire back in the postwar period. The Allies forgot to tell the French they were promising virtually the entire colonialized world their freedom in the postwar period in return for their support.............................
Click to expand...

Well, not exactly, since the US declined to assist Ho Chi Minh precisely because US policy was to support the return of the French to Indochina. The French did not leave Algeria until 1962.:cool:
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, get a clue, after a very bloody civil uprising, the French under De Gaulle, withdrew from Algeria. Going through a civil war to hold a colony is hardly "abandonment". I suppose the withdraw from Vietnam by France after Dien Bien Phu was "abandonment" too. I'm sure you characterize our leaving the same country the same way too. You just show over and over how limited your view of topics really is.
Click to expand...

The French army won the war in Algeria. DeGaulle's decision to withdraw was political. In any case, to return to your original point, Gaullism did not make retention of the colonies central.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
And each application of the term outside the U.S. may be handy shorthand for this or that specific policy discussion, but it is fundamentally an error. The term has no real meaning outside the context of U.S. political thought and politics.:cool:
Click to expand...
Um, cart before horse again, "policy" guided from IDEOLOGY, ideology independent of genetics or geography.
 
Jack Hays said:
The French army won the war in Algeria. DeGaulle's decision to withdraw was political. In any case, to return to your original point, Gaullism did not make retention of the colonies central.:cool:
Click to expand...
A silly tangent backed with nothing, I already showed they fought very hard to hold the colonies.

The main theme of de Gaulle's foreign policy was national independence, and maintaining as much control as possible of as many of France's colonies as possible (cf. de Gaulle's policy on Indochina) with, as some practical consequences, some degree of opposition to international organizations such as NATO or the European Economic Community. The basic tenets were that France should not have to rely on any foreign country for its survival (thus the creation of the French nuclear deterrent) and that France should refuse subservience to any foreign power, be it the United States or the Soviet Union. One can also cite what foreign observers dubbed the policies of grandeur, that is, the insistence that France be a major power in the world scene and that military and economic forces be established to back this claim. In that respect, Gaullism significantly influenced the foreign policy of France in the subsequent decades, even after Gaullists were nominally no longer in power.

Gaullism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, cart before horse again, "policy" guided from IDEOLOGY, ideology independent of genetics or geography.
Click to expand...

Now you're getting somewhere but you don't know it. Those who invoke alleged neocon links do so because they perceive a policy outcome similarity, not because they grasp the ideological foundation. And more often than not they misunderstand the policy too.:cool:
 
Gimmesometruth said:
A silly tangent backed with nothing, I already showed they fought very hard to hold the colonies.

The main theme of de Gaulle's foreign policy was national independence, and maintaining as much control as possible of as many of France's colonies as possible (cf. de Gaulle's policy on Indochina) with, as some practical consequences, some degree of opposition to international organizations such as NATO or the European Economic Community. The basic tenets were that France should not have to rely on any foreign country for its survival (thus the creation of the French nuclear deterrent) and that France should refuse subservience to any foreign power, be it the United States or the Soviet Union. One can also cite what foreign observers dubbed the policies of grandeur, that is, the insistence that France be a major power in the world scene and that military and economic forces be established to back this claim. In that respect, Gaullism significantly influenced the foreign policy of France in the subsequent decades, even after Gaullists were nominally no longer in power.

Gaullism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Whatever may have been the rhetoric, DeGaulle oversaw the almost complete dismantlement of the French Empire.

The French colonial empire began to fall during the Second World War, when various parts were occupied by foreign powers (Japan in Indochina, Britain in Syria, Lebanon, and Madagascar, the United States and Britain in Morocco and Algeria, and Germany and Italy in Tunisia). However, control was gradually reestablished by Charles de Gaulle. The French Union, included in the 1946 Constitution of 1946, replaced the former colonial Empire.

France was immediately confronted with the beginnings of the decolonisation movement. Paul Ramadier's (SFIO) cabinet repressed the Malagasy Uprising in 1947. In Asia, Ho Chi Minh's Vietminh declared Vietnam's independence, starting the First Indochina War. In Cameroun, the Union of the Peoples of Cameroon's insurrection, started in 1955 and headed by Ruben Um Nyobé, was violently repressed.

When the Indochina War ended with defeat and withdrawal in 1954, France became almost immediately involved in a new, and even harsher conflict in Algeria, the oldest major colony. Ferhat Abbas and Messali Hadj's movements had marked the period between the two wars, but both sides radicalised after the Second World War. In 1945, the Sétif massacre was carried out by the French army.

The Algerian War started in 1954. Algeria was particularly problematic, due to the large number of European settlers (or pieds-noirs) who had settled there in the 125 years of French rule. Charles de Gaulle's accession to power in 1958 in the middle of the crisis ultimately led to the independence of Algeria with the 1962 Evian Accords. The Suez crisis in 1956 also displayed the limitations of French power, as its attempt to retake the canal along with the British was stymied when the United States did not back the plan.

The French Union was replaced in the new 1958 Constitution of 1958 by the French Community. Only Guinea refused by referendum to take part to the new colonial organisation. However, the French Community dissolved itself in the midst of the Algerian War; almost all of the other African colonies were granted independence in 1960, following local referendums. Some few colonies chose instead to remain part of France, under the status of overseas départements (territories). Critics of neocolonialism claimed that the Françafrique had replaced formal direct rule. They argued that while de Gaulle was granting independence on one hand, he was creating new ties with the help of Jacques Foccart, his counsellor for African matters. Foccart supported in particular the Nigerian Civil War during the late 1960s.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
Now you're getting somewhere but you don't know it. Those who invoke alleged neocon links do so because they perceive a policy outcome similarity, not because they grasp the ideological foundation. And more often than not they misunderstand the policy too.:cool:
Click to expand...
It isn't "links" (your "genetics & geography) or "outcomes", IT IS IDEOLOGY.

Some day, it might get through.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
It isn't "links" (your "genetics & geography) or "outcomes", IT IS IDEOLOGY.

Some day, it might get through.
Click to expand...

Not a chance. Because the ideology is meaningless outside the American context, an ideological link cannot exist abroad.:cool:
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, cart before horse again, "policy" guided from IDEOLOGY, ideology independent of genetics or geography.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. First off, it's not an ideology. Second, the brief neoconservative moment in 1930s Germany was totally different from the one that began to develop in the mid to late 1960s, as are claims of a neoconservative view in Iran.
 
Jack Hays said:
Whatever may have been the rhetoric, DeGaulle oversaw the almost complete dismantlement of the French Empire.
Click to expand...
FFS, even your cut and paste without footnote backs up the the point that they did not give up the colonies easily.

"However, control was gradually reestablished by Charles de Gaulle. The French Union, included in the 1946 Constitution of 1946, replaced the former colonial Empire.........Some few colonies chose instead to remain part of France, under the status of overseas départements (territories). Critics of neocolonialism claimed that the Françafrique had replaced formal direct rule. They argued that while de Gaulle was granting independence on one hand, he was creating new ties with the help of Jacques Foccart, his counsellor for African matters. "

French colonial empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, the point you keep avoiding is that Gaullism sought to retain the colonies for as long as possible. It was based on the RWA view of keeping the old imperial rule intact for as long as possible.

And still, you are so desperate for a "win", you keep beating this dead horse of an argument. Sad.
 
Fiddytree said:
No, it's not. First off, it's not an ideology. Second, the brief neoconservative moment in 1930s Germany was totally different from the one that began to develop in the mid to late 1960s, as are claims of a neoconservative view in Iran.
Click to expand...
LOL...neoconservativism is not a political ideology!

You heard it here first folks.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
LOL...neoconservativism is not a political ideology!

You heard it here first folks.
Click to expand...

Yes, you did. I've spent the last decade reading and writing up on it, and still am. One of the first lessons you get out of it is how fragile of a concept it actually is. That is, once you smash through the junk written about it.

Perhaps you would like to enlighten me on where you got the notion it was this really solid construct of an ideology?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
FFS, even your cut and paste without footnote backs up the the point that they did not give up the colonies easily.

"However, control was gradually reestablished by Charles de Gaulle. The French Union, included in the 1946 Constitution of 1946, replaced the former colonial Empire.........Some few colonies chose instead to remain part of France, under the status of overseas départements (territories). Critics of neocolonialism claimed that the Françafrique had replaced formal direct rule. They argued that while de Gaulle was granting independence on one hand, he was creating new ties with the help of Jacques Foccart, his counsellor for African matters. "

French colonial empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, the point you keep avoiding is that Gaullism sought to retain the colonies for as long as possible. It was based on the RWA view of keeping the old imperial rule intact for as long as possible.

And still, you are so desperate for a "win", you keep beating this dead horse of an argument. Sad.
Click to expand...

The "win" as you put it is already in hand. I'm actually just trying to help you out, your bad manners notwithstanding. DeGaulle's genius was to sever French greatness (gloire) from de jure possession of colonies. That allowed him the freedom to refashion French politics and government at home. Regardless, I only introduced Gaullism as another example, like neoconservatism, of a political ideology that has no meaning outside a specific national context. With each additional post on this sub-thread you reinforce my point.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
Not a chance.
Click to expand...
Yes, you prove over and over your powers of denial, but that is just a step.

Because the ideology is meaningless outside the American context, an ideological link cannot exist abroad.:cool:
Click to expand...
I know, you believe still that political ideologies can't cross geographic lines, but it can be genetically transferred. It is amazing that it escaped NY and made it to DC!
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Yes, you prove over and over your powers of denial, but that is just a step.

I know, you believe still that political ideologies can't cross geographic lines, but it can be genetically transferred. It is amazing that it escaped NY and made it to DC!
Click to expand...

Now you are degenerating into irrationality (at best) or dishonesty (at worst). Oh well. I tried.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
The "win" as you put it is already in hand. I'm actually just trying to help you out, your bad manners notwithstanding. DeGaulle's genius was to sever French greatness (gloire) from de jure possession of colonies. That allowed him the freedom to refashion French politics and government at home. Regardless, I only introduced Gaullism as another example, like neoconservatism, of a political ideology that has no meaning outside a specific national context. With each additional post on this sub-thread you reinforce my point.:cool:
Click to expand...
Gaullism was recognized as political/econ set of beliefs adopted by Konrad Adenauer & Gerhard Schröder in Germany, so this WEIRD idea you have that political ideologies are bound by geography again falls on it's face.

It is just stupid to hold to this position, but there you are.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I know, you believe still that political ideologies can't cross geographic lines, but it can be genetically transferred. It is amazing that it escaped NY and made it to DC!
Click to expand...

The only connections it seems to have are as follows:

Hawkish Democratic anti-Terrorist foreign policy

Hawkish nationalism

That's quite weak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom