• 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!

Does the Roman Polanski affair affect your view of the French?[W:72]

Roman Polanski and your perception of France

  • I can't believe France is protecting a child raper

    Votes: 13 59.1%
  • The French are absolutely correct to do what they're doing.

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • It's wrong, but hey... cest la vie

    Votes: 4 18.2%
  • A little rape never harmed anyone.

    Votes: 2 9.1%

  • Total voters
    22
The French are your buddies, too, unless you're anti-American.

Seriously, I can't believe how much anti-French sentiment there is among ignorant right-wing nuts in the US -- you all should be praising France, not decrying it. France, historically, has been and is probably the US's most reliable ally, and indeed without France there would be no US in the first place.

Further to that, the French political system and the US political system and general culture are remarkably similar -- both countries fought to overthrow tyrants, establish republicanism, and served as a liberal bulwark against reactionaries across the world, and continue to do so today. French and American foreign policy are largely identical in the broad strokes, and, along with Britain, France and the US represent the general trend of Western civilisation and work actively together to promote it.

I just don't get why some conservatives hate France. Was it the Iraq War thing? Well that went realllly well. But then why isn't there similar hate for Britain, who refused to join the US in Vietnam?

I suspect it's rivalry -- given so many cultural, historical and current similarities, there's bound to be some brotherly rivalry. Each believes it represents the best form of Western civilisation.

Even so, the vitriol is a bit much, for so close an ally, no?

Virtually all of that is half truth, if that. They are not now, nor have they ever been our "buddies". And that anti-French sentiment isn't confined to the right alone, never was. In fact just about every member of the greatest generation felt just that way about France. They haven't been much of a reliable ally and they showed up once to help us in the Revolutionary War (Yorktown), the Dutch did far more for us. Oh, and they SOLD us weapons. Not to mention they'd been killing us before and after.

The answer to the question is - no, they are not now, nor have ever been a close ally.
 
No one said they did. It was a question to get you to start thinking about it. Why doesn't the FBI send someone? Is France protecting him? Or just not helping the US by handing him over? Why do you even care more than the victim?

We know France is protecting him because they've denied extradition requests, and they intervened with the Swiss and got Switzerland to deny the extradition request when Polanski traveled to Swizerland in 2006.

They have a legal right to do that, but we also have a right as the American public to remind the French that we're displeased. It can't really escalate beyond that.

As to why the feds aren't involved (and they aren't, this is still a local case), I'm smart but I'm not THAT smart. I actually have no clue how that process works - how something goes from being a local case to being a federal case... so I wouldn't begin to know how to answer that. It would be interesting to look in to though.
 
Ok, now someone has made a political issue of it.

If any of that was true, he should have been on Clinton's list in 2001.

Isn't the DP suppose to be a political forum ?

I'm curious who else Obama will pardon at the end of his term if he doesn't resign or is impeached and convicted ?

It's been awhile since Polanski gave some quaaludes to the 13 year old and sodomized her. But it was the norm back then in the Hollywood Hills. And it still probably is.

Polanski panicked and fled the country.

I watched the interview some years ago of the victim who isn't a 13 year old any more. She has moved on, in fact it was her mother who called for Polanski's head, not the girl.

If I remember correctly the girl was on the phone talking to a friend telling her friend about her affair with Polanski and her sister was listening to the conversation on the extension and told her mother. If the victims sister wouldn't have been snooping on her, mom would have never found out and Polanski would have probably been entertaining Obama this morning in the Hollywood Hills.

There have been dozens of the Hollywood libs and rock stars on the Left Coast who got caught in the same situation, the difference being they didn't flee the country.

As for France, France is France and France is in Europe.
 
Virtually all of that is half truth, if that. They are not now, nor have they ever been our "buddies". And that anti-French sentiment isn't confined to the right alone, never was. In fact just about every member of the greatest generation felt just that way about France. They haven't been much of a reliable ally and they showed up once to help us in the Revolutionary War (Yorktown), the Dutch did far more for us. Oh, and they SOLD us weapons. Not to mention they'd been killing us before and after.

The answer to the question is - no, they are not now, nor have ever been a close ally.

Oh I'll disagree with that. The French are an ally. They're just a special kind of "high maintenance" ally that needs to be argued with almost nonstop.

Also I agree, let's not make the Revolutionary War support out to be some act of altruism. It was in France's interests that Britain should be defeated. That's why they supported us. The same reason we supported South Korea during the Korean war. It was in our interest that the Soviets not gain a foothold in that part of Asia. Same old geopolitics, different players/era.
 
You're correct, they only aided and abetted the crime of flight from justice (a felony in every jurisdiction). They ALSO are guilty of harboring. So two crimes instead of just the one.

Sure, whatever. Like every other country. Not sure why this in particular is an issue.
 
None of the above.
 
We know France is protecting him because they've denied extradition requests, and they intervened with the Swiss and got Switzerland to deny the extradition request when Polanski traveled to Swizerland in 2006.

So they're just not helping the US. That's all. Extradition proceedings operate wherein the law enforcement with the legal authority to work in a place basically do a favor for those unable to legally operate and hand him over. France just isn't doing the favor. Okay, moving on to important matters in the world...

They have a legal right to do that, but we also have a right as the American public to remind the French that we're displeased. It can't really escalate beyond that.

Ah, crap! Still talking about this one. Okay: YOU'RE displeased. I don't care. You don't speak for everyone.

As to why the feds aren't involved (and they aren't, this is still a local case), I'm smart but I'm not THAT smart. I actually have no clue how that process works - how something goes from being a local case to being a federal case... so I wouldn't begin to know how to answer that. It would be interesting to look in to though.

They don't because it would open a can of worms. France doesn't have to "protect" him. They just don't have to help the US. A sin of omission, not commission. They're not do anything except not helping. That's all.
 
So they're just not helping the US. That's all. Extradition proceedings operate wherein the law enforcement with the legal authority to work in a place basically do a favor for those unable to legally operate and hand him over. France just isn't doing the favor. Okay, moving on to important matters in the world...



Ah, crap! Still talking about this one. Okay: YOU'RE displeased. I don't care. You don't speak for everyone.



They don't because it would open a can of worms. France doesn't have to "protect" him. They just don't have to help the US. A sin of omission, not commission. They're not do anything except not helping. That's all.

If it's so unimportant to you (and you keep saying it is) why do you keep returning to debate this? I mean, you've been here pretty much all day. You seem to have some interest in this topic as well and if you don't, well.... bye.
 
Oh I'll disagree with that. The French are an ally. They're just a special kind of "high maintenance" ally that needs to be argued with almost nonstop.

Also I agree, let's not make the Revolutionary War support out to be some act of altruism. It was in France's interests that Britain should be defeated. That's why they supported us. The same reason we supported South Korea during the Korean war. It was in our interest that the Soviets not gain a foothold in that part of Asia. Same old geopolitics, different players/era.

Peter, remember when we landed in North Africa it was not German troops shooting at our soldiers but French troops.

In 1942 the Free French wouldn't allow American troops to set foot on New Caledonia. Admiral Halsey sent his personal Marine rifle platoon ashore and threw the French Governor out of his house and Bull Halsey moved in. The French weren't the best allies during WW ll.

Don't even want to get into the French Indochina War where the French having an inferiority complex by now refused to listen to our military advisor's until it was to late.

France doesn't like America or Americans because they are jealous of America and they want to return to the days of being a world power if not a super power.

>"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion."<
 
If it's so unimportant to you (and you keep saying it is) why do you keep returning to debate this? I mean, you've been here pretty much all day. You seem to have some interest in this topic as well and if you don't, well.... bye.

I care in telling you that this is such a nonissue it may as well be another Casey Anthony thing. I deeply care that you know that this is simply National Enquirer nonsense and if you think it even comes close to be something of merit on an international stage, you're gonna break my heart.

Sorry if that bothers you.
 
I care in telling you that this is such a nonissue it may as well be another Casey Anthony thing. I deeply care that you know that this is simply National Enquirer nonsense and if you think it even comes close to be something of merit on an international stage, you're gonna break my heart.

Sorry if that bothers you.

How touching. I'm sure you were there on every Casey Anthony or Trayvon Martin thread telling the OP how pointless those debates were too, right?
 
How touching. I'm sure you were there on every Casey Anthony or Trayvon Martin thread telling the OP how pointless those debates were too, right?

Were they trying to tie it to international politics? Tell me if so.
 
Were they trying to tie it to international politics? Tell me if so.

Was I? The OP just asks Americans if the Roman Polanski deal affects their own view of France. You're close to going on ignore, bud. You're not making any real points anymore.
 
Was I? The OP just asks Americans if the Roman Polanski deal affects their own view of France. You're close to going on ignore, bud. You're not making any real points anymore.
Do you or do you not think the discussion moved past that and into French-American relations?

You're free to ignore me: you can add that to the list of things I don't really care about. You can ignore everyone that doesn't say what you want, if you like: a third thing I don't care about.
 
Do you or do you not think the discussion moved past that and into French-American relations?

You're free to ignore me: you can add that to the list of things I don't really care about. You can ignore everyone that doesn't say what you want, if you like: a third thing I don't care about.

I'm just gonna do this.... your objection and opinion that this thread is unimportant is duly noted, and now, if you don't mind, I and whoever else is interested are going to continue having whatever conversation interests us as is our prerogative.

Fair enough?
 
A bit of background. Roman Polanski, a famous American film director, drugged and raped a 13 year old child. The child was an aspiring actress, and he was a powerful film director.

He was 43 years old when he forced himself on the little girl.

After being found guilty in a California court, Polanski fled to France hours before he was to be formally sentenced. The sentence was expected to be jail time.

To this day, France refuses to extradite Polanski. Polanski lives a comfortable life in a French chateau, drinking wine and continuing to direct movies. Meanwhile a young girl's life was forever scarred.

The French will not extradite him because they disapprove of the fact that the USA allows the death penalty (even though this is not a case where the death penalty would apply). They say they will extradite him only after the USA makes the death penalty illegal.

How, if at all, does this case affect your perception of France?
Not even on my radar.
 
A bit of background. Roman Polanski, a famous American film director, drugged and raped a 13 year old child. The child was an aspiring actress, and he was a powerful film director.

He was 43 years old when he forced himself on the little girl.

After being found guilty in a California court, Polanski fled to France hours before he was to be formally sentenced. The sentence was expected to be jail time.

To this day, France refuses to extradite Polanski. Polanski lives a comfortable life in a French chateau, drinking wine and continuing to direct movies. Meanwhile a young girl's life was forever scarred.

The French will not extradite him because they disapprove of the fact that the USA allows the death penalty (even though this is not a case where the death penalty would apply). They say they will extradite him only after the USA makes the death penalty illegal.

How, if at all, does this case affect your perception of France?

Actually, I thought it was statutory rape with no force involved. But, of course, it was against the law and the man should have been punished. The French behavior was typical of an attitude towards the elite and the US. I think it was rather seedy.
 
It doesn't affect my opinion of France. Pretty sure every country has refused extradition of guilty people for petty and seedy reasons.

Isn't there a Bolivian president accused of mass murder who the States won't extradite? Sounds a bit worse than statutory rape.
 
:shock: Seriously?

Yeah, seriously.

I've explained to you numerous times what I meant and why I said what I said.

You want to argue (troll) just for argument's sake.

So let's at least get on the same page here.

You tell me the position I'm actually taking.

Go ahead.

Lay it out there for me.

Bust out the lower predicate calculus and diagram how, of logical necessity, I must mean what you're insisting I mean.
 
Yeah, seriously.

I've explained to you numerous times what I meant and why I said what I said.

Yeah, you've repeated the same thing a couple of times.


You want to argue (troll) just for argument's sake.

No, I'm simply not letting you brush off what you said, not for the first time. Being a debate site, that's how it works.



You tell me the position I'm actually taking.

Go ahead.

"Because of X, Y, Z things which are important to ME (but not what France has in mind), France occupies the 'moral high ground.'"

It's really not complicated. As I've already pointed out the flaw in it several times, I don't see the need to do so again.
 
"Because of X, Y, Z things which are important to ME (but not what France has in mind), France occupies the 'moral high ground."

Okay, so in principal what's your problem with me taking that position?

Is it that instead of saying "occupies the moral high ground" I should have said, "holds the morally (or ethically) superior position"?

Because I guess, in retrospect, I can see where my saying that France "occupies the moral high ground", if we take that "phrase" as the idiom it is, might actually mean something that I'm not saying .

Is this really a petty debate over semantics?

That's really what it's looking like.
 
Okay, so in principal what's your problem with me taking that position?

You say I'm "trolling"? How can you not know that?

How? They're not citing anything you do for their reasons. They're citing objection to the death penalty, which does not apply.

It's my position that you ascribed moral weight to what they do, and you did.

It's also my position that "moral high ground" exists in the actual position they take, not Nietzschean result. If you intend to murder someone because you hate them or want their money, it doesn't make the act or the intention moral just because you inadvertently stopped that person from murdering someone else.

It's not a matter of opinion that France isn't doing it for the reasons you state as being the moral issues of the case.


Because I guess, in retrospect, I can see where my saying that France "occupies the moral high ground", if we take that "phrase" as the idiom it is, might actually mean something that I'm not saying .

You are ascribing a moral position to France based not on what they're actually doing, but what you find important about the case.


Is this really a petty debate over semantics?

That's really what it's looking like.

I guess it's what you're deciding to call it.
 
You are ascribing a moral position to France based not on what they're actually doing, but what you find important about the case.

And I'm not allowed to do that or something?

I mean, I've made no secret of it.

Far as I know I'm allowed to make any value judgements I want about any situation I want based upon pretty much anything I want.

I will concede that I am not allowed to use an idiom that has a particular meaning and then get butthurt when someone tells me that what I said doesn't mean what I think it means, or what I intended to mean.

And that's why I've explained myself.

I think it's kind of petty that you would fixate on that and harp on it for page after page after I explained to you what I actually did mean but, hey, we've all got our proclivities.

I guess it's what you're deciding to call it.

I'm calling it what it is.

That's not an opinion, it's clearly what you're doing.
 
Back
Top Bottom