Why didn't Kennedy listen to De Gaulle, and Bush didn't listen to Chirac ?

Question

Vietnam: 58000 young American lives --- Irak: 3000 young American lives --- In 1962, De Gaulle advised Kennedy: "For you, intervention in this region will be an entanglement without end. From the moment that nations have awakened, no foreign authority, whatever it means, has any chance of imposing itself on them. You are going to see this. The ideology that you invoke will not change anything. Even more, the masses will confuse it with your will to exert power. This is why the more you commit yourself there against communism, the more the Communists will appear to be champions of national independence, the more they will receive help and, first of all, that which comes from desperation. I predict to you that you will, step by step, become sucked into a bottomless military and political quagmire despite the losses and expenditure that you may squander." . 40 years after, Chirac told Bush not to go.

Answer 1

Well, who would seriously take advice from the French?

Answer 2

Both were/are products of post world war Era. At the height of the cold war it was perhaps the best decision Kennedy made under the circumstances saving the world from the Communist on slaught, idealogy working at its best " Kennedy was a leader", year 2002 was a far cry, changed circumstances "Bush 43" reborn christian, a strong Christain Idealogical background, the defeat of communism and the lone Super Power Syndrome, 911 incident not far behind "the jury is still out on who was behind that ugly incidence" "BUSH 43 is a listener" with a Cabal of ultra neocon zionists around him, Arrogance at its heights, being convinced by the cabal that this was the right time to do right for Israel and get control of the wealth of the Muslim world. Where already glorified UNCLE TOMS 'weak rulers' who would do any thing to keep themselves in power even if it meant to go against there Religion, the welfare of there country and the will of there People. This also meant control of the world at large. So the Stage was set for a great Legacy. Emperor Bush 43, King of Kings the 'Chosen One' who once for all will take Gods chosen people back to the promised land which they lost for there Wickedness. In doing so making the world safe for Generations to come. But unfortunately the emperors only knowledge of history was the 20 min helicopter ride and a brain washing lecture by the Butcher of Lebanon.The Emperor and his Knights of the round table also forgot that it was the BLOOD of the Mujaheedin which defeated the Soviet Union.These fighters also believe in 'One God' The God of Adam, Noah, Joseph, Moses, Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed The last messenger of God. They also believe that Islam is an update of Judiasm & Christianity as all the prophets have been teaching the same message from the Almighty. Rest is history and the mess we are in................???? . a long fight to the finish .....!!

Answer 3

I suspect that you have already answered this question for yourself. But, for what they are worth, here are my immediate reactions to a very interesting question: -

[1] In both cases, a rather young, rather inexperienced (in international matters) American President, receiving unwelcome advice from a much older and much more experienced French President. Any parent who has had teenage kids will appreciate that the teenager knows everything, that the parent knows nothing, and that the parent isn't particularly liked or trusted anyway during those sensitive years.

[2] Add to that the prevailing distrust between America and France that has existed, apart from brief romantic interludes, more or less since Lafayette went home after the Revolutionary War. If an American President wanted advice from a European elder statesman, he probably would not choose a Frenchman.

[3] In the Kennedy era, America's military had little respect for France's efforts to hang on in either Indo-China or Algeria. In their opinion, the French army wasn't much better than it had been in 1940. So, the American military weren't likely to heed French warnings of a quagmire to be avoided.
And, on a political level, the top civilians in the Kennedy administration were equally contemptuous of the French in Indo-China. After all, the French were simply old-fashioned colonialists, trying desperately to cling onto the remnant of an old-fashioned and despicable empire: America, of course, was vehemently anti-imperialistic, and therefore would surely behave with complete altruism in Vietnam; and therefore come through smelling like a rose!

[4] With regard to Bush and Chirac and Iraq, it was a little different. France had never been an occupying colonial power in Iraq, and the performance of the French army was not a factor at all. But, Bush saw Chirac as having close ties to Saddam Hussein (and Bush was right about that). On that basis alone, anything that Chirac offered by way of advice on Iraq was not be trusted in the White House.
Moreover, Bush definitely had an axe to grind with Saddam: a family feud, in effect. People involved in family feuds don't bother much about advice from outsiders.

[5] So, in both cases the Frenchman was right and the American was wrong. But it is understandable that the American was never likely to listen to the Frenchman.

Plus que ca change, plus que c'est la meme chose.

Answer 4

Because we never listen to anyone who is not an American. And because Bush doesn't care about the young American guys in Irak, he cares about petrol industry.

Answer 5

The French are political whores on an international scale, and domestically lost their balls in 1940.

Answer 6

do a little more research my friend and you will discover a great deal of financial entanglements between the French and Saddam, with that kind of money involved of course they would'nt want any intervention.

Answer 7

The thoery in the movie JFK was that Kennedy was getting ready to pull our troops out before he was assassinated.