Falklands: Papers Show Rare Friction for Thatcher and Reagan

[CountDeMoney]

De Gaulle was a man of the inter-war years. He genuinely doubted that America would be there for Europe if it came to it. France needed an independent force to defend her interests outside of Europe and needed a nuclear force because he didn't believe America would risk the world to stop a Soviet invasion of Europe.

Not an unrealistic theory;  he just happened to arrive at it several years before the Americans actually did. 

[Admiral Yi]

I'm honestly surprised that it's controversial to you. I thought it was pretty widely agreed that post-war European defence and military policy was very much framed as a collective, American-led enterprise; and that that view was shared on both sides of the Atlantic. The championing of "the national interest" as separate from thing the interests of NATO and the West was not really a thing, except for deGaulle; hence the Gaullist critique.

I mean, things have changed since then, but "everyone together to support the US in taking care of everyone's interests as the West" vs "we all have our national interests" was definitely a thing for quite a while IMO.

I said misleading, not controversial.

Misleading in my because it's easy to confuse if for the Gaullist belief that the US could not be counted to defend Europe against Soviet invasion (or to defend France against German invasion!).  Syt's cruel and baseless post aside, critique does usually carry a negative connotation.

Also misleading because France's did more than merely maintain a couple battalions of Legionaires and a few cargo planes to intervene in post-colonial conflicts; they also removed the French military from the NATO command structure and kicked NATO troops out of French soil.

[Sheilbh]

I said in some ways it sort of proved the Gaullist critique. It didn't demonstrate a need to withdraw from the NATO command structure, but it did demonstrate the need to keep forces capable of independent action because the US won't always have the same interests as a medium European country.

Syt's cruel and baseless post aside, critique does usually carry a negative connotation.

Nonsense. A critique is an analysis, perhaps with a subjective negative perspective. So you can talk about the Marxist critique and the Catholic critique of a film. That doesn't mean there's something bad about it, or that either's right. You're describing the analysis based on that perspective.

[Admiral Yi]

Nonsense. A critique is an analysis, perhaps with a subjective negative perspective. So you can talk about the Marxist critique and the Catholic critique of a film. That doesn't mean there's something bad about it, or that either's right. You're describing the analysis based on that perspective.

You're all over the place here Shelf.

Please tell me you're not using the Marxist critique as a value-free, nonjudgemental analysis.

[Sheilbh]

Please tell me you're not using the Marxist critique as a value-free, nonjudgemental analysis.

What?

[Admiral Yi]

Please tell me you're not using the Marxist critique as a value-free, nonjudgemental analysis.

What?

You claim that the word "critique" does not carry a negative connotation.  The Marxist critique is offered as an example.  Yet the Marxist critique of capitalism is not that it's an OK thing.  In fact it's very negative about capitalism.  If fact most Marxists critiques of anything are negative.

[CountDeMoney]

The Marxist critique is offered as an example.  Yet the Marxist critique of capitalism is not that it's an OK thing.  In fact it's very negative about capitalism.  If fact most Marxists critiques of anything are negative.

That's all well and good, but he was talking about film critiques.

[Sheilbh]

I said it perhaps carries a subjective negative connotation. A Marxist critique of capitalism is going to be negative, but a Marxist critique of the Battleship Potemkin may be broadly positive. It's an analysis grounded in Marxism.

Outside of some science I don't think there's such a thing as a value-free, nonjudgemental analysis in those terms. It's normally always grounded in some theory or some ideological perspective. I don't think there's a neutral analysis on most things - certainly not capitalism or Eisenstein.

[Jacob]

You claim that the word "critique" does not carry a negative connotation.  The Marxist critique is offered as an example.  Yet the Marxist critique of capitalism is not that it's an OK thing.  In fact it's very negative about capitalism.  If fact most Marxists critiques of anything are negative.

That's basically incorrect.

[derspiess]

Marxists

[CountDeMoney]

Whaddya know, today was April 2nd, the day of the invasion.