A lot of different issues have been raised in this thread and I've read it with interest. I think it's kind of cool the way the thread got a diverse range of opinions to the extent that most of what I have to say has already been raised. I have a few more comments, though. These will address general sentiments that I may have read within the thread or simply heard elsewhere (this topic has dominated discussion in my political science classes this semester).

* I find taking the word "France" out of long-standing phrases to be silly and petty. I'm not sure what statement this makes either than, "We disagree with France" and I'm not sure why we should bother. This is a political dispute and I'd hate for it to spill over into other things. I think it's indicative of a rift between the U.S. and Europe, though I'm not so sure it's proof that such a rift is growing or that it represents the End of the World as We Know It.

I'm particularly offended that my country's congress decided to take the time to officially rename the Capitol Hill cafteria foods, though. If individual people want to do this, it's one thing. When our government gets in on the act, it's another. I'm sure it's costing taxpayer money to reprint menus and whatnot, and I'm a little sad that our congresspeople have so much free time to be concerned about such unimportant issues. It also gives our government the *appearance* of being anti-France, which is a bad thing. We can disagree with France's government (and I do), but we should never allow that to spill over into becoming a dislike of France itself or the French people.

* Boycotting French merchandise is an awful idea. What is this going to do? Convince France it's wrong? If anything, it is likely to increase anti-American sentiment in France. At its worst, it could convince French citizens to boycott American goods. Yes, a trade war would be the best thing for both of us! That'll help improve the world!

* This sort of ties in with a real isolationist streak I've been seeing in Americans lately. The idea that America can "go it alone" in world affairs is completely off-base. We have great military might, but an incredibly large amount of our economic might is dependent upon foreign markets (both as sources of raw materials and as places to sell our manufactured products). The European Union is now an economic powerhouse and represents a great potential trading partner for us. To restrict that market to our products would be suicide. Capitalisms thrive on open markets, but history has shown that silly nationalistic differences can get in the way of these. This is part of the reason I'm so opposed to "freedom fries."

* I don't understand the idea that France "owes us." I'm a political realist, so maybe that's part of my problem in comprehending this, but France never signed any contracts saying that if we saved them from Hitler they'd be our puppet. Uh, no. France is a sovereign nation and should enjoy the same benefits of sovereignty that every other sovereign nation does. Particularly as a permanent Security Council member, one of those rights is absolute veto power over Security Council resolutions.

It is silly for us to expect countries to have any sort of longstanding obligation to us. Don't think that it hasn't been to our benefit to help out France and Europe. Getting involved in WWII wasn't exactly pure American altruism -- we allowed the war to rage on for years and didn't get directly involved until we got attacked (we waited even longer in WWI). It's not like the U.S. just decided to liberate France out of the goodness of its heart. The Axis Powers posed a direct threat to our country. While altruism played a role, I think, it certainly wasn't the only one.

Ditto the Marshall Plan and the rebuilding of Europe: that was as much about rebuilding our primary trading partners and preventing the spread of communism as it was about being nice. When a country acts it is usually out of self-interest. To expect other countries to "repay" you for your actions later on is wrong and and a bit naive (this is excepting specific agreements, of course).

* Probably my least favorite trend is the way some people bring up Germany's past as a reason to dismiss its current position. Because Germany invaded Europe in 1939 it somehow can't be anti-war today? Why the hell not? Does this mean that the U.S. can't be anti-slavery? Ugh.

* The U.N. is horribly unfair and undemocratic. I'd like to remind everyone, though, that it was set up this way intentionally. It was also created largely so by the United States, the U.K. and the Soviet Union. Getting pissed at France for playing the game when we invented it is a little bit ironic.

Stephen