Americans showing Normandy cemetary in France for War propaganda

[Darkiller]

This comes from a dear friend of mine, and I couldn't agree with him more on that :

"je conteste juste l'anti-francisme (ca se dit ca ? ;) primaire, parce-que pour une fois on veut pas declarer une guerre qui a pour seul but un enjeu economique et le renforcement des USA comme premeire puissance mondiale (surtt / au monde arabe), et surement pas la destitutuion de Sadam.

Et comparer la guerre en IRAK (ou il n'y a personne et ou personne ne veut aller) a la 2nde guerre mondiale est un acte immonde..."


which, translated in english, means :

"I contest this basic anti-french attitude, which happens because for once we don't want to declare a war which has for sole purpose an economics matter and the reinforcement of the USA as the world's first power (mostly against the arabic nations), and surely not Saddam's destitution as president of IRAK.

And to compare war in IRAK (where there is noboby and where nobody wants to go) to 2nd World War is squalid and immoral..."

[Fritz]

The way you spell IRAK makes me think of IKEA.

Man, I could use a new sofa.

[Anthony]

i don't get it.

when i translated that passage written in french, all i got was "we are france - country of the weak and spineless. we openly criticize countries smaller than us who has the balls to back the Americans. well, not we won't let them play with us anymore - all the better to keep out actual countries who have backbones - they may undermine our standing and authority in our special club, the Euro Union, otherwise known as 'the collection of those jealous of American might and will'."

must be this outdated french dictionary i have.

[Bee]

And to compare war in IRAK (where there is noboby and where nobody wants to go) to 2nd World War is squalid and immoral

Can someone explain this to me?

If there was no one in Iraq, there would be no one to go to war with. Also, just because no one wants to visit Iraq...that makes it wrong to go to war?

Maybe something is lost in translation?

The other point about the war being solely economical...I've heard the same thing about the French and German opposition. An interesting story this weekend on Fox News about the Billions of dollars worth of contracts both countries have with Iraq for buying oil and selling weapons (not the banned ones, but conventional ones).

[Darkiller]

Fact is -even worse- : it is you americans who put Saddam in place as president of Irak some time ago ?
did you forget that already ? lol
I hope you don't, but maybe your media propaganda (Fox News, CNN and all) forgets to talk about it.
I'll tell you something : I'm a PR agent overhere, I "toy" with the media everyday for my work, it's my job so I can assure you that we can make people say the stories we want...and make them forget about what we want too ;-) it's very easy to do.

I'm sorry but if you don't see the point when saying that comparing Irak to World War 2 is horrendous...then there's nothing more I can say about it. my speech is useless then.

I'm sorry to bring all this up Bee and the other but I'm really fed up with this anti-french attitude in the US media...anyway I still love american and americans !
as for our friend above (HA) : well once again bastard I'd love to have you in front of me and tell you all the love I have for you :-)
a good punch in the face for a snobish nationalist punk like you.
oh common, I'd pay to have you in front of me now...ok now get lost.
(by the way, It's nice that your not on this forum as much as before, kinda give me a break, freak)

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Darkiller
Fact is -even worse- : it is you americans who put Saddam in place as president of Irak some time ago ?


We did?

[Bee]

DK,

I have no problem realizing there is a difference between a war in Iraq and WWII, but I just didn't understand why the fact no one wants to go to Iraq makes any difference in going to war. Perhaps I am missing something in the translation. I'm not trying to be cute (or even cocky and funny), I just don't see the connection.

While we did support Iraq against Iran (at the time it was deemed the lesser of two evils), I don't think we put Saddam in place in Iraq. Hind sight being 20/20 we can say that our support for Iraq was wrong, but at the time it seemed the right thing to do considering the type of government in charge in Iran and Saddam's false "friendliness" to the West. We were fooled. It's happened before and I'm sure it will happen again.

I don't think any American would argue that our government hasn't made mistakes in the past, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do our best in the current situation we find ourselves. While I think further inspections (perhaps another month as France has suggested) are what we need to do at this point, I fear we are nearing the point where military action may become required.

[Tarkus]

Darkiller, it's funny you don't bring up the anti-American sentiment in France that has existed for many many years now and has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. Wanna comment on that?

Tarkus

[Darkiller]

Bee : thanks for the input, I get your point.

Tarkus : honestly I don't think there is as much of an anti-american sentiment in france as there is a anti-french one in america.
I don't belong to those who resent Americans because I happen to love America, I've lived in San Francisco and my mother is Californian. So the so called "anti-american" sentiment in france is not something I'm linked to in any ways.

But, there IS an anti-french sentiment going on right now in the US. recognise it.

[Tarkus]

Yes, there is anti-French sentiment going on in the US now. I've never argued there isn't. And for me that's been going on for a while now, long before the Iraq situation. But the anti-Amercan American feeling in France is not recent. It's been going on for decades, and you've failed to recognize that. One does not necessarily justify the other, but when criticizing one side you ought to at least mention the other.

Tarkus

[WSUCougar]

Originally posted by Darkiller
This comes from a dear friend of mine, and I couldn't agree with him more on that :

which, translated in english, means :

"I contest this basic anti-french attitude, which happens because for once we don't want to declare a war which has for sole purpose an economics matter and the reinforcement of the USA as the world's first power (mostly against the arabic nations), and surely not Saddam's destitution as president of IRAK.
Darkiller,

While I admit that comparisons to World War II may be inappropriate, I find the rest of your post to be rather ignorant and mildly offensive. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I am as well, and my opinion is that you don't really know what the hell you are talking about.

I'd like to hear an in-depth analysis from yourself about France's role in the world. I'd like to hear what you think France's national agenda is overall, as well as in this crisis. I'd also like to hear a logical presentation from yourself on why Americans should feel differently toward France, beyond just saying "I contest this anti-French attitude."

As an aside, I also suggest that you read what you are submitting and make sure that you are communicating your feelings properly. I imagine this is a language issue, but your tone comes across as condescending and arrogant.

[Darkiller]

Tarkus, this is badly wrong.
I, indeed, DON'T recorgnise that there is a sentiment like this in France as much as you seem to think.

Have you lived here to say that kind of thing ?

[Darkiller]

Originally posted by WSUCougar
Darkiller,

As an aside, I also suggest that you read what you are submitting and make sure that you are communicating your feelings properly. I imagine this is a language issue, but your tone comes across as condescending and arrogant.


no, I know what I wrote, this is not a language issue. My words are meant for what they are and I mean them and I really don't see any of these words/sentences being either condescending nor arrogant.

As far as your post, there is no need for any in depth analysis on those 6 sentences that I posted as a topic : this is as clear as water and the main point out of it was indeed to contest that propaganda which has the media associating the Irak military actions with WWII pictures of normandy cemetaries, furthermore advocating the fact that "we don't help" (meaning : both "event" shall be linked within the same history book).

[Honolulu_Blue]

I think it's fair to say that there is plenty of Anti-French sentiment in America and plenty of Anti-American sentiment in France.

I imagine, to some extent, there always has been. Given recent tensions and opposing views on the Iraq situation has merely heightened both and brought them to the surface.

Bush is an idiot. Rumsfeld is worse. They sort of represent everything the rest of the world resents about Americans. The sort of swagger, do what want to, f*ck the rest of the world, we're the biggest and best, get in line world, or get out of the way. America. Bigger. Better. Stronger. We've got the bombs! Blah, blah, blah....

Chirac is a weasely, hypocritical politician. He's not very well regarded in any sense of the word. His latest comment to Poland, Romania, etc. about how their supporting the US will hurt their chances of getting into the EU is ridiculous. What he's basically saying is "Screw you, America. You can't make everyone do what you want to do, just because you think you can. You can't make us get in-line. Hey, you, Romania, Poland, don't think you can do what you want to do! We're bigger than you. Get in line or else!" Also, Chirac's (France's) resistance to the war also supports a popular American stereotype of the French as cowards, unwilling to fight against anything or anyone.

[Fritz]

I'm feeling some anti-Honolulu_Blue sentiment right now....

[Telemak]

It's Donald Rumsfeld who placed Sadam on the head of Iraq (helped by the FBI, who also created Bin Laden, remember ?).

The same Donald Rumsfeld (US Defense) who worked hardly(until year 2000) for ABB (Asea Brown Boveri LTD), a big group (domiciliated in switzerland) which products composants for nuclear devises.

This group had a big contract (200 M dollars) with Pyong Yang (North Korea, here we go...) for nuclear reactors (1.000 Megawatts !!!!).

This korean contract also work for the talibans and irakians...USA world's first provider of terrorists....

Finally,
the Bush government failed in his mission to capture Bin Laden dead or alive and Iraq has to pay for this failure.
It's a ridiculous revenge of an humiliated president who thinks about the next elections.
Ok,Sadam is a dictator , this is a fact. But half of the Africans countries are under a dictator, but who cares ? They don't have oil end their leader is not charismatic, like sadam (well known by the americain public opinon).

I want u to note that i'm not anti-american, that i don't agree with all the french government decisions (I know that Chirac - the french president , for rednecks- didn't make this decision by passion for worldpeace). I'm just against the anti-french campaign made by the conservative political group throw medias.

Telemak

PS : please excuse my approximative english.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Telemak
It's Donald Rumsfeld who placed Sadam on the head of Iraq (helped by the FBI, who also created Bin Laden, remember ?).


he did?

[ColtCrazy]

Well, if the above is true and propaganda is being spread showing Normandy cemeteries, that is kind of awful. Comparison of the two wars is not appropriate.

It's also interesting to hear the anti-french stance when France isn't alone in their opposition to a war on Iraq. Germany's been just as vocal, but I haven't heard a fraction of the critics call them out that have the French.

Britain will back us because Blair is pro-American all the way.

I'm kind of on the fence when it comes to war, but considering the protests, even in this contry, I wonder if we do go to war, will that be the end of Bush politically?

[Bee]

It's also interesting to hear the anti-french stance when France isn't alone in their opposition to a war on Iraq. Germany's been just as vocal, but I haven't heard a fraction of the critics call them out that have the French.

Something interesting I saw the other day was Ari Fletcher discussing the opposition of Germany and France. The basic feeling I got was that Bush wasn't upset at France because Chirac has said the same thing in private that he is saying in public. Bush may disagree with their opposition, but respects the stand. The Germans are different though, because they have been saying one thing to Bush and something else to the public.

[GrantDawg]

The FBI? The FBI does not work outside of the United States. I belive you meant the CIA.

Remember this is all about Oil. French Oil, and their fear of not getting it cheap.

[Darkiller]

thanks for the post Telemak, you had for us the evidences that I lacked to back up my thought and my words.

I knew I would throw a stone with this topic, but I think this had to be debated.
I'm glad Telemak joined me on this.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Telemak
It's Donald Rumsfeld who placed Sadam on the head of Iraq (helped by the FBI, who also created Bin Laden, remember ?).

Telemak

That is total crap.

"The current leader of Iraq is was born on April 28, 1937, in a small village of al-Auja near the town of Takrit. His early child hood was spent in a mud hut in a mostly Sunni Muslim part of Iraq, which is approximately (100) one-hundred miles north of Baghdad. Hussein's father, Hussein al-Majid, died or abandoned the family (according to who is reporting the story), within a short time of his birth. Accurate records are difficult to obtain in a country where Hussein's birthday is celebrated as a national holiday.

He was reared alone by his mother Subha, until she took a second husband, Ibrahim Hassan. Hassan, often said to have been brutal and a thief, was a sheepherder by profession and enlisted Saddam in his ventures. According to a former personal secretary of Hussein, his step father abused Saddam and sent him to steal chicken and sheep to be sold. This pattern continued until 1947 when, at the age of ten, he was allowed to move in with his mother's brother, Khayrallah Tulfah, in Baghdad.

In Baghdad, Hussein began to learn more than reading and writing. His tutor, Khayrallah had been "cashiered" from the Iraqi army for supporting a "Pro-Nazi" coup attempt that failed. Khayrallah's bitterness towards the British and imperialism, soon was transferred to Saddam. In fact, some confidants of Hussein point to his relationship with Tulfah as a turning point in his political awareness. To demonstrate Tulfah's importance to Hussein, he was later made Mayor of Baghdad under the Hussein regime. Saddam finished intermediate school (roughly the equivalent of 9th Grade) at the age of sixteen, and attempted to be admitted to the prestigious Baghdad Military Academy.

Unfortunately, his poor grades prevented him from doing so, and he became more deeply involved in political matters. In 1956, he participated in a non-successful coup attempt against the monarchy of King Faisal II. In 1957, he joined the Baath party, a radical nationalist movement. In 1958, a non-Baathist group of army officers succeeded in overthrowing the King. The group was led by General Abdul Qassim. In 1959, Saddam and a group of Baathist supporters attempted to assassinate Gen. Qassim by a day-light machine-gun attack. The attack was unsuccessful, but it helped to place Hussein in a leadership position in the Baathist movement and furthered the process of nationalist political indoctrination. After the attack, in which Hussein is slightly wounded, he fled to Syria. From Syria, he went to Cairo, Egypt where he would spend the next four (4) years.

While receiving aid from Egypt, he finished high school at the age of twenty-four and continued his political education. While in Egypt, he was arrested on at least two occasions for threatening a fellow student and chasing another down the street with a knife, both for political differences. In 1961, he entered Cairo University School of Law, but did not finish his studies there. In 1963, a group of Baathist army officers tortured and assassinated General Qassim. This was done on Iraqi television. They also mutilated many of Qassim's devotees and showed their bodies (in close up) on the nightly news for more than one night. Saddam, hearing the news, quickly rushed back to Iraq to become involved in the revolution. And involved, he was, as both an interrogator and torturer at the infamous "Palace of the End", in the basement of the former palace of King Faisal.

According to reports by Hanna Batatu (a government reporter), Hussein rose quickly through the ranks, due to his extreme efficiency as a torturer. The Baathist party split in 1963 and Saddam had supported the "winner" in the latest party struggle. He was appointed by Michel Aflaq to be a member of the Baath Regional Command. In 1964, Hussein was jailed by some "rightist" military officers who opposed the Baathist takeover. Through other political influence provided by his older cousin, General Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr, Hussein became deputy Secretary-General of the Baathists in 1966.

In 1966, Hussein escaped from prison and set up a Baathist internal party security system known as the Jihaz Haneen. It was to serve as the continuation of his political and real rise to power in Iraq. In 1968, another major upheaval in Iraq gave Hussein the greatest opportunity for further advancement; his mentor, Gen. Bakr and the Baathist seized the government. Hussein was made Deputy Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council, in charge of internal security.

At the age of thirty-one (31) he had acquired what could have been deemed the number two spot in the Baathist party. He would continue in the position for approximately the next ten years. During that time, he would continue to consolidate his power by appointing numerous family members to positions of authority in the Iraqi government. In his position of Deputy in Charge of Internal Security, he built an enormous security apparatus and had spies and informers everywhere in the circles of power in Iraq.

During this time, Hussein also began to accumulate the wealth and position that he so relished as a poor sheep-herder in the desert of al-Auja. He and his family, now firmly entrenched in the infrastructure of the country , began to control the country's oil and other industrial enterprises. With the help of his security network and several personal assassins, Hussein took control of many of the nation's leading businesses.

In 1978, Saddam had been working with other Arab nations to ostracize Egypt for it's diplomatic initiative in resolving Israel/Arab questions. An ally, President Hafez al-Assad of Syria, almost became the undoing of Hussein's ascension. If a Syrian/Iraqi federation were formed against Egypt, Assad, not Hussein, would rise to a position of greater power in the relationship. President Bakr would lead the federation with Assad as second in command. Hussein could not allow that to happen and began to urge the President to step down. Again with the help of his family and security apparatus, Hussein was able to accomplish his task.

On July 16, 1979, President Bakr resigned, officially due to health problems, but in reality a victim of Hussein's political in-fighting. Moving quickly to consolidate his power, he called a major Baathist meeting on July 22, 1979. During the meeting, various family members and other Hussein devotees urged that the party be "cleansed". Hussein then read a list of names and asked that they step outside. Once there, they are taken into custody.

A high-ranking member of the Revolutionary Command, the head of the labor unions, the leading Shiite member of the Command, and twenty (20) others are then systematically and personally killed by Hussein and his top party officials. During the next few days, reports indicate that as many as 450 other military officers, deputy prime ministers, and "non-party faithful" were rounded up and killed. This purge insured Hussein's consolidation of power in Iraq.

In 1980, Iraq invaded Iran and conducted an eight year war against one of his nearest neighbors and the home of Shiite fundamentalist Muslims. Again, because it appeared that the Shiites could be a threat to his continued dictatorship, the Kurds (Iraqi minority) were sprayed with poison gas for participating with the Iranians in an attempted overthrow of his country. The war continued for eight years of brutality and even repression of Hussein's own countrymen (especially the Kurds).

In 1988, after millions being killed, Iraq and Iran conduct a cease-fire and ended the bloodshed. By 1984, as many as 1.5 million Iraqis were supporters of Hussein and the Baathists. He continued to enlarge his security apparatus and army. In insidious ways, the party apparatus formed numerous government agencies to control and manipulate the citizens of Iraq. A statistical analysis of the population indicated that as many as fifty per cent of the Iraqis or a member of their family were employed by the government or military. The party and the people have become one. Hussein's domination of the country is complete.

Even the war against Iran didn't end the peoples support for Hussein, although some small protests did dampen the population's support for the conflict with Iran. Ultimately however, the war with Iran only strengthened Hussein's resolve and, in some eyes, causes him to become a "hero" of Arab nationalism. This brings us to the chapter of Hussein's life that has not been thoroughly researched and written. It involves the 1990, summer invasion of Kuwait over a dispute about oil prices and political control of the Persian Gulf. The subsequent United Nation Resolutions and United States intervention in the defense of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other nearby countries will undoubtedly impact on the history of Saddam Hussein.

Hussein has managed to survive the loss of a large portion of his army, a major psychological defeat, and control of the Northern and Southern part of Iraq, yet he continues in power in Iraq. His resilience is extraordinary, and so far he has managed to elude the allied powers, who would like to see him replaced as the leader of a major Middle-Eastern country. One thing is sure, Hussein is a man who is filled with pride. He is firmly entrenched in the history and culture of Iraq.

If past history can serve as a guide, in regard to his future behavior, one can expect that he will use all of his resources to exact revenge against those that defeated him. The most viable route for revenge, by Hussein and Iraq, is the conduct of terrorist operations. No one should discount his future involvement in actions against the United States or her allies."

Tarkus

[Darkiller]

from Fox News or CNN ?
lolol common...

[Telemak]

GrantDawd, Bin Laden is #1 criminal reward of FBI, if they don't work outside of america, thaht's why they didn't catch him :)

And i also think that ColtCrazy is right and i'm glad to see that americans are not fools, they can think by their own. CNN and Bush aren't God.
here we know that Chirac isn't.....Thank god !!!! :)

[scooper]

GrantDawg beat me to the punch. The only of the involved nations in this discussion using Iraqi oil is France. And if we do go to war, the Iraqi oilfields will probably be destroyed and will be very expensive to get up. This war would not be cost-effective oilwise for the U.S. It would be cheaper for us to appease the arab nations and stick to Saudi and Kuwaiti oil.

I'm not in favor of war at this point. I'm in favor of further intensified inspections and even increased covert intelligence. That would garner more support worldwide and maybe bring change in Iraq peacefully. (One can only hope)

But I find the protests amusing that simplify what is going on to oil. No, Telemak, we don't ignore other dictators because they don't have oil. It's because they don't have anthrax and nerve gas.

[Tarkus]

And I suppose Telemak got his information directly from the FBI. :rolleyes:

Tarkus

P.S. And BTW Rumsfield's involvement with Iraq came in the 1980's after Saddam was already in power. He was involved in establishing a new relationship with Iraq (which had dissolved after the 1967 Arab/Israeli war), but had nothing to do with bringing the dictator into power.

[Grid Iron]

Originally posted by Tarkus
In 1980, Iraq invaded Iran and conducted an eight year war against one of his nearest neighbors and the home of Shiite fundamentalist Muslims. Again, because it appeared that the Shiites could be a threat to his continued dictatorship, the Kurds (Iraqi minority) were sprayed with poison gas for participating with the Iranians in an attempted overthrow of his country. The war continued for eight years of brutality and even repression of Hussein's own countrymen (especially the Kurds).


The U.S. government, via the CIA, was giving weapons to Iraq during this war.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Grid Iron
The U.S. government, via the CIA, was giving weapons to Iraq during this war.
That may have been giving weapons to Iraq in their war against Iran but they were not giving them poison gas.

Tarkus

[Grid Iron]

Three thoughts:

1. The French government doesn't want a war because it wants to protect its oil interests.

2. The U.S. government wants a war because it wants to protect its oil interests.

3. When we finally attack, and Iraq uses chemical weapons (that it says it does not have) on our soldiers and/or Israel, the entire world community should shut the f*&# up, and never question our foreign policy again.:D

[Grid Iron]

Originally posted by Tarkus
That may have been giving weapons to Iraq in their war against Iran but they were not giving them poison gas.

True, but the U.S. is still somewhat responsible for the mess right now in the Gulf. We helped arm Hussein and didn't take action when he was killing off Kurds with chemical weapons, which helped soldify his reign of terror.

That being said, we're still responsible for cleaning up the mess we (partially) made.

[Darkiller]

Originally posted by Tarkus
That may have been giving weapons to Iraq in their war against Iran but they were not giving them poison gas.

Tarkus

now you recognize something.
thanks.
(weapons or gas : this is still a weapon, just another era)

[Fritz]

I don't see why eveyone point to the US aiding Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war.

Nations frequently assist or aid a country at one point, and are later in conflict with them.

[Darkiller]

no not really Fritz...

[Grid Iron]

Originally posted by scooper
It would be cheaper for us to appease the arab nations and stick to Saudi and Kuwaiti oil.

The doctrine of "appeasement" is what allowed Hitler to conquer Europe. ;)

[Bee]

Originally posted by Fritz
I don't see why eveyone point to the US aiding Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war.

Nations frequently assist or aid a country at one point, and are later in conflict with them.

I agree. At the time, it made sense to back what we considered the lesser of two evils. Who knows what the situation in the middle east would be like today if Iran had defeated Iraq in the 1980's.

[scooper]

Originally posted by Darkiller
no not really Fritz...

Yes really. See US & USSR WWII vs. Cold War

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Darkiller
no not really Fritz...

not really what?

[Schmidty]

Feel the love.

[Grid Iron]

Originally posted by Fritz
Nations frequently assist or aid a country at one point, and are later in conflict with them.

There is an interesting series on the CIA playing on the "Discovery Channel - Civilization". The third episode discusses the CIA term "Blowback." Blowback is when the actions of the CIA have unintended consequences that are detrimental to the U.S. government.

Arming Afghanistan in the war against the USSR is one example. Arming South American dictators, who later became drug traffickers, is another example. Giving weapons to Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war is the third example. The show basically demonstrates how our foreign policies that involve providing guns and weapons training to non-democratic societies always comes back to bite us in the ass.

[Bee]

Originally posted by pjstp20
The French should be kissing the ass of the USA and going along with any decision made by the American goverment because if it wasn't for us youd be speaking German right now.

While I disagree with the french position, I think they have every right to hold that opinion. What bothers me more than anything is how they are threatening other countries for supporting the US.

[GrantDawg]

France has provided Iraq weapons, and did during the Iran-Iraq war. They have also continued to funnel money into Hussein's pockets both pre- and post- Gulf war. France makes (and spends) a whole lot of money in Iraq.

And again, Telemak, they are a police agency so of course they have them on their wanted list. He has been a part of crimes on American soil. But they have to work through other police agencies and the CIA when dealing on foreign soil. The point is, the FBI is not the agency that would have anything to do with political intrigue in other countries.

[Mountain]

I strongly disagree with the statement that there is no anti-American sentiment amongst the French. I've personally been to France several times. My family has part ownership of a hotel in Bordeaux. I have personally experienced much harrassment from French citizens and French authorities when conducting dealings on behalf of my family. Even your own French attorneys acknowledge that Americans are treated differently and more harshly in the French system simply because they are Americans.

My fiancee is an American who speaks flunet Fench. She has a Master's in International Business Degree with her emphasis in French. She lived in France for two years and was in the Peace Corps in Mali for two years. She currnetly works for Michelen at their North American headquarters. She and I discuss this issue all the time. There is an enomrmous amount of anti- American sentiment in the French culture. The reason why I'm giving you so much information about my life and hers is to demonstrate that my viewpoint comes from years of personal experience in dealing with the French which predates this current criisis.

The French are amazingly hypocritical. Anybody here think the Fench version of the Vietnam war wasn't fought in large part to protect Michelin's economic interests. France really doesn't give two shakes about Iraq. They see this situation as an attempt to bring Americans to heel and to control the wordl's sole "hyperpower."

I am not fooled by our media and saying that this is a moral war. This is a war based on preserving our power in the world and is in America's self interest for national security and economic reasons. You know there's nothing wrong with that.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. What upsets the French the most is that they have become largely irrelevant in the course of world affairs. They as a people are a sniveling, arrogant, and condescending group largely deriving their self-importance from faded memories of past glroy. I think that the Anti- French feeling here in America is we feel that here is someone who is supposedly our "ally" stabbing us in the back. Its one thing to disagree with us and not support our effort but it is quite another when your "ally" does everythin in its power to destroy another 'Ally's" goals.

Fine, if Iraq is so important to you and your country then send some of your troops down there and help defend Iraq. You'll get your A*** kicked just like they've been for the past one hundred and fifty years and we can call this sham of an alliance off. Look France !!!, we don't need you, don't respect your opinion and don't like you. Call a spade a spade and be done with it. Don't sit here and tell nme the French don't dislike Americans. In fact I can think of few other people who dislike Americans more.

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by Darkiller


which, translated in english, means :

"I contest this basic anti-french attitude, which happens because for once we don't want to declare a war which has for sole purpose an economics matter and the reinforcement of the USA as the world's first power (mostly against the arabic nations), and surely not Saddam's destitution as president of IRAK.

And to compare war in IRAK (where there is noboby and where nobody wants to go) to 2nd World War is squalid and immoral..."

The second part of your friend's letter, I now ask why does anyone want to go to the Ivory Coast? Isn't that an economic intervention having French troops there...?

I want proof that Rumsfield was involved in placing Hussein at the head of Iraq, show me a link, a newspaper, anything...the CIA has been implicated in much but very little in the way of proof. I'm not saying they weren't above such things, but I have never heard such an implication...

I got a kick out of Chirac's comments, first the U.S. is the bully, now France decides to flex some muscle on the Eastern European countries that are going to be supportive.

To me, the Anti-French attitude is due in part, due to the Anti-American attitude...this has been going on for quite some time...I recall France wouldn't give Reagan airspace for when bombs were dropped on Libya after the Pan Am Flt 103 bombing, I recall that a few years ago France decided to detonate a nuclear?/atomic weapon in the Pacific on an atoll much to the chagrin of most nations.

France wants to be a player on the political scene, they see now that the Cold War has ended that they have a chance to be more involved. The biggest fear to them would be that the U.S., England and Russia seem to be getting along just nicely, and the rest of Europe seems to be going with the flow. I can respect being a voice of dissent, but don't be a hypocrite about it anymore than U.S. politicians...

France wants the oil as badly as the U.S. and other counterparts, that's why that French tanker was "accidently" blown up in the Persian Gulf, I wonder if that was a terrorist attack or our CIA as well?

I believe almost every war is done for the sole purpose of economics, you can argue moral reasoning to get involved in a war, but usually the nation causing the disruption is the one trying to expand in territory or gather resources, so it's always been about economics.

The French can complain about how the U.S. has influenced a great many of the nations that now hate them, this is nothing new, French have lost colonial nations all over and animosity against colonial powers is no different then what we are seeing to the U.S. The French have been involved in SouthEast Asia over economic issues like Vietnam, Americans involved themselves there too for the same reason, money, they shielded it with the fight against "communism". Korea was far more moral a war against communism than Vietnam ever was.

The U.S. isn't against the arab nations, this is folly. More than anything, the Arab nations are against the U.S. and other Western nations. Muslim fundamentalists are against anything Western save maybe U.S. money or arms. The U.S. isn't preparing assaults against Iran, Libya, Morroco, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yeman, Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Pakistan, Indoneisia(apologies for any spelling errors)etc...just Iraq, because we don't want another North Korea in the middle of the Middle East dictating how oil will be distributed or it'll fire nukes around...

North Korea proves that if you ignore the issue, it doesn't go away, China probably helped with their nuclear proliferation as much as the U.S. did...they are led by a leader with frightening mood swings worse than Mike Tyson.

Here is a nation that believes that it is bigger, stronger and more powerful, because it has nukes, imagine what Hussein would do? Look at how twice now India and Pakistan have threatened to let their nukes fly. Now North Korea boasts it can hit any target, Japan, South Korea, California? Doesn't this issue disturb all Europeans...if Turkey would be attacked and over run, what is to stop someone like Hussein from sending a few scuds into European airspace, does anyone really think Hussein is a stable leader for the region?

What did France do in the last war in the Persian Gulf?

Now onto Normandy, a war which many consider a moral war, even though if France, England, the most European nations had not capitulated so quickly to Hitler's demands the war would've started out far differently, but the whole thing of appeasement seems to be a far easier route to go (again, ignore the problem, and it'll go away, never has been the case in politics or venereal diseases).

Normandy was a united effort with British, American, Canadians, Poles, and other nations, the eyes of the French Resistence, as well as much disinformation sent to the Germans to catch them off guard, forces unitied against a greater evil, and it worked. I can see why it is being displayed, Normandy was anything but just the U.S. storming the beach (as so unfairly displayed in Saving Private Ryan, they should've at least shown other nations being involved).

The French will always be a whipping boy for their follies in war. The U.S. will always seem to big for its britches, but that being said, I think this time the intervention is neccessary, but here lies the problem...

The U.S. is notorious for involving itself in global issues around the world, intervening, and then leaving without following up, you cannot eradicate the threats that way, already there is talk that Afghanistan is slowly becoming more and more unstable again...I believe the U.S. by attacking Iraq is sending a statement by removing one of the biggest anti-American threats to the middle east with any sort of power, Saddam Hussein.
Once he is removed, they will place someone more moderate (Not extremem moderate to helm with a pseudo-democratic type of gov'nt, really we all know the hard wingers will still pack a punch)...but they need to be present to help this gov'nt and Karzai's in Afghanistan breathe, by staying involved (even at the risk of U.S. lives) can they bring about a Westernization of the Middle East (fundamentalists biggest fear).

As for the war on terrorism, it's doomed to be a failure, the world is a big place with plenty of places to hide, there will always be a future hot spot, there will always be anti-American sentiments, but there will always be U.S. involvement because we are the only nation (besides England) willing to be a global police presence that actually will snap to form, (the U.N. has proven time and time again to be even bigger cowards witnessing atrocities in Rwanda, Bosnia, and other regions and doing nothing, nothing about it).

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by Grid Iron
The U.S. government, via the CIA, was giving weapons to Iraq during this war.

I believe the CIA was giving weapons to most freedom fighter groups like Christmas gifts, like the Contras, I always believed the CIA was more involved in South American affairs than anything in Europe, Middle East, and the Far East...I don't think they really had a clue in those regions, Europe was a stalemate between our spies and the U.S.S.R.'s.

[AgPete]

Good points Qwik. I forgot about their nuclear testing in the Pacific a few years ago. France should have joined the axis powers so we could have rebuilt them into the economic powers Japan and Germany are now. They picked the wrong side. :D

[Darkiller]

to not know...and futhermore...to not know that you don't know.

I think this has to be the most dangerous thing of all.
being blind and broad minded is something terrible.

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by Darkiller
to not know...and futhermore...to not know that you don't know.

I think this has to be the most dangerous thing of all.
being blind and broad minded is something terrible.

How are the U.S. being blind and broad minded, I think they are being clear headed and looking far into the future...I think that it's Chirac being blind and broadminded into thinking Hussein will be anything but a dangerous dictator...?

Actually I think you meant blind and close minded, but I still think you are wrong...

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally posted by Fritz
I'm feeling some anti-Honolulu_Blue sentiment right now....

How is this possible? That is un-American and Un-French. Everyone loves The Blue! Lil' HB is beloved by all peoples of all nations. He transcends global politics.

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by Honolulu_Blue
How is this possible? That is un-American and Un-French. Everyone loves The Blue! Lil' HB is beloved by all peoples of all nations. He transcends global politics.

You are okay in my book Blue...;)

[Telemak]

Common guys, let's not play at US vs France, or who is the biggest, who is the baddest, etc, etc... This is no the purpose...

Which is that : Bush is furious because France and germany don't help him to attack Iraq for is own revenge agaisnt the arabic world or what the hell it's the reason. And he want them to pay that and some medias which he controls are spreading an awful propaganda against France.

Some people have their own opinion (which seams to be the minimum of the human intelligence), and some not and think : "OH yeah , they're right, French Bad people!". The anti-french have no arguments...no good ones...

And , once more, i'm not anti-americans. I'm anti-anti-french

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by Telemak
Common guys, let's not play at US vs France, or who is the biggest, who is the baddest, etc, etc... This is no the purpose...

Which is that : Bush is furious because France and germany don't help him to attack Iraq for is own revenge agaisnt the arabic world or what the hell it's the reason. And he want them to pay that and some medias which he controls are spreading an awful propaganda against France.

Some people have their own opinion (which seams to be the minimum of the human intelligence), and some not and think : "OH yeah , they're right, French Bad people!". The anti-french have no arguments...no good ones...

And , once more, i'm not anti-americans. I'm anti-anti-french

I believe Bush is underterred in his actions against Iraq, with or without the French/German support. It isn't revenge against the arabic world (please read my prior post). Media he controls??? since when did Bush become Ted Turner? And isn't the French doing the same thing with their media, c'mon now?

I don't think the French are bad people, they have a right to protest our actions, as much as we have a right to ignore theirs, please read some of the posts that have content in them...

You just seem to want to add more fuel to the fire, your own points in this thread are vague and without proof (the whole Rumsield thing, I'm still waiting on a link, or something).

Fire out an argument with some merit rather than swirling the stick to keep this thing going...

And I actually think it is about who is bigger and badder, the French I believe are as jealous of U.S. involvement in global operations...

[Telemak]

"I believe Bush is underterred in his actions against Iraq, with or without the French/German support."
Yup, everybody know that.

"It isn't revenge against the arabic world (please read my prior post). "
I do not agree : he has to confirm usa at the #1 of world states after the humiliating and horrible septembre 11th (by the way, the same amount of people die in africa everyday, but this is unpurpose).

"You just seem to want to add more fuel to the fire, your own points in this thread are vague and without proof (the whole Rumsield thing, I'm still waiting on a link, or something)."
Believe me , i'm not !!! On the contrary, it's bush against Chirac. We don't have to be manipulated. "The Rumsfeld thing " is well known, maybe not in america cause of the desinformation , but i'll find u a source.

"And I actually think it is about who is bigger and badder, the French I believe are as jealous of U.S. involvement in global operations..."
LOLOLOLOL......no comment. U'd loved that, don't u ?

And yup, there's some un-american mini-propaganda by some french intelligencia but it's on what :
- death penalty
- weapon market (watch "Bowling for Columbine" please ! - Someone from Texas ? :)
- Top Technology Satellite spies but old fashion voting furniture (useful W uh ?)
etc...

I don't think it's on the americans themselves.

But i do not accept this actual anti-french campaign : with the normandy cemetery and big newspapers talking of "cheese eaters", etc... Totally unpurpose and easy, etc..etc...

[Mountain]

You know I don't recall France minding so much during the Cold War when America spent billions of dollars to protect France and Germany and the rest of Western Eurpoe for that matter from keeping Soviet tanks from rolling through the countryside.
This to me was as much if not more of a sacrifice for America than Normandy. Or perhaps France wouldn't have minded being Communist. Quite good at accomodation. i.e. see Vichy France. Vichy France must make you all so very, very proud.

We have a saying here in the U.S. Either lead, follow, or get the Hell out of the way. France is not in the position of world power to lead. France is not willing to follow. So you know what option that leaves.

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by Telemak
"I believe Bush is underterred in his actions against Iraq, with or without the French/German support."
Yup, everybody know that.


Hey you asked, I guess you didn't know.


"It isn't revenge against the arabic world (please read my prior post). "
I do not agree : he has to confirm usa at the #1 of world states after the humiliating and horrible septembre 11th (by the way, the same amount of people die in africa everyday, but this is unpurpose).


He doesn't have to prove we're number one, that's comical. So we're going to send soldiers in to kick a third world country, to prove we're tough...that's hilarious.

Yes yes, people die in Africa, South American, SouthEast Asian, Nepal, etc...from hunger, oppressive regimes, and disease. I don't see France jumping in to help them out unless it has ulterior motives like any other nation


"You just seem to want to add more fuel to the fire, your own points in this thread are vague and without proof (the whole Rumsield thing, I'm still waiting on a link, or something)."
Believe me , i'm not !!! On the contrary, it's bush against Chirac. We don't have to be manipulated. "The Rumsfeld thing " is well known, maybe not in america cause of the desinformation , but i'll find u a source.


No source yet again, only the third time I've asked for this. Oh yes, the U.S. gov'nt lies to it's people, no other gov'net would do that...you must get your info from tabloids, try more credible sources.


"And I actually think it is about who is bigger and badder, the French I believe are as jealous of U.S. involvement in global operations..."
LOLOLOLOL......no comment. U'd loved that, don't u ?

And yup, there's some un-american mini-propaganda by some french intelligencia but it's on what :
- death penalty
- weapon market (watch "Bowling for Columbine" please ! - Someone from Texas ? :)
- Top Technology Satellite spies but old fashion voting furniture (useful W uh ?)
etc...


The French /are/ jealous, the French want the Iraqi oil...it's not about the death penalty, Iraq has the death penalty too and they kill usually without trial, so why defend a leader like that?

Oh yes, weapons, don't insinuate I'm from Texas it only shows your lack of intelligence...and it only proves that you have missed the point entirely, and no I haven't seen "Bowling for Columbine" yet, but I hate the N.R.A. like most people, so it only proves how little you know. The French only detonated a nuclear/atomic device a few years ago, which I think is more extreme than any weapons market, besides Germany makes a lot of guns as well, why hasn't France casitgated them as well?

I don't follow on the last one, most Americans are notorious for poor voter turnout, but we voted in a bunch of Republicans just a bit ago. And that top satelitte technology did a whole lot of good for Sept 11...but at least we don't put blinders on, like some nations.



I don't think it's on the americans themselves.

But i do not accept this actual anti-french campaign : with the normandy cemetery and big newspapers talking of "cheese eaters", etc... Totally unpurpose and easy, etc..etc...

It's on purpose, and no, I don't think it is any different than Chirac's tirade against the Eastern European nations...still I feel you are very anti-American.

It's not about Arabs vs Americans, get a clue, if it was, we would'nt have been so patient on the matter. Read credible sources, not pulp mags.

And provide an alternative to the whole scenario since you seem so intelligent on this matter.

[AgPete]

It reminds me of that hilarious quote in the movie A Fish Called Wanda. Just change the country he's talking about! :D

"You know what you'd be if not for us? You'd be the smallest f#cking province in the Russian empire!!"

[Telemak]

"He doesn't have to prove we're number one, that's comical. So we're going to send soldiers in to kick a third world country, to prove we're tough...that's hilarious."
I agree, it's hilarious...But the twin towers tragedy showed that the USA is as fragil as other countries. And bush has to do somehing. A pitty thaht it's him the president.

And i know it's not the only reason (oil, weapons market of golf countries around irak, best us market now that iraq is supposed to have nuclear bombs)

"Iraq has the death penalty too and they kill usually without trial, so why defend a leader like that?"
Are you serious ??? Nobody defends him. France and Germany want to put Sadam down without a big number of useless deaths.

"Yes yes, people die in Africa, South American, SouthEast Asian, Nepal, etc...from hunger, oppressive regimes, and disease. I don't see France jumping in to help them out unless it has ulterior motives like any other nation"
I know, and i said that / WTcenter deads... Same thing in france...nobody cares.

"The French only detonated a nuclear/atomic device a few years ago"
I know and i don't agree. I do no think that all that do my government is good and that the others are bad.

"It's on purpose, and no, I don't think it is any different than Chirac's tirade against the Eastern European nations...still I feel you are very anti-American."
It's not because he did it that what is doing the medias (New York Post for exemple) is right. Wer'e not 3 years old. In this case, on the french newspaper Tommorrow : " AMERICANS SAYS WE ONLY ARE CHEESE EATERS BUT THEY ARE..UH...BURGERS EATERS AND REDNECKS"....

And i provide an alternative but these on the forum end by "but sill where are the #1", "french are jealous", "You know what you'd be if not for us? You'd be the smallest f#cking province in the Russian empire!!" (thank you AGPete for the material).

I'm not defending whatever France has done, is doing, or will do on this forum, like you guys do with USA. Just saying that i'm furious when i see media campaigns like the New York Post Cover. I'm no really proud of my president (except for the Iraq conflict - but i know that peace is not the only reason), like you people are of Bush...

I recognize mistakes of my country, but they're not a justification for the anti-french campaign.
I do not agree the islamists operation against the US too. American citizen don't have to pay for the government mistakes. So do iraquies....

[CamEdwards]

I wish the French could listen to my show. :(

Darkiller, your arguments are as uninformed as I've seen. It's amazing to me that when presented with the facts, those who would rather appease Saddam Hussein trot out the "Bush is an idiot. Bush is a cowboy."

Bush is a Yale grad. Your own president likes Jerry Lewis movies. Tell me who's the idiot.

You don't want war? Fine. Instead of railing against Bush for trying to enforce the 17th UN resolution against Iraq, how about you demand Saddam Hussein comply with Resolution 1441? Even the weapons inspectors have said "it's up to Saddam, not us, to prove he's complying."

So far he's played game after game after game. Do you realize after the gulf war ended Saddam had less than six months to declare and destroy his banned weapons? That was in 1991. He still hasn't done it. How much more time would you like?

If your country wants to object to war, that's fantastic. I have a feeling your president will come around, however. After all, when we kick Saddam out, we'll make damn sure the next government in is pro-American. They might be less inclined to honor those billions of dollars of oil leases your country has with Saddam.

I'd love to see war averted. But I don't think it's going to happen. We're going in, we're going to win, and then we'll try and solve the next problem.

Meanwhile, you and your fellow appeasers will become more and more irrelevent.

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by Telemak
"He doesn't have to prove we're number one, that's comical. So we're going to send soldiers in to kick a third world country, to prove we're tough...that's hilarious."

I agree, it's hilarious...But the twin towers tragedy showed that the USA is as fragil as other countries. And bush has to do somehing. A pitty thaht it's him the president.


How has the U.S.A. become fragile? We cleared the rubble and we went and freed Afghanistan? Very fragile, how bout resilient..
If anything we've proven if you mess with us, we'll fight back, unlike other nations willing to appease terrorists.



And i know it's not the only reason (oil, weapons market of golf countries around irak, best us market now that iraq is supposed to have nuclear bombs)


You need to write this out a little better. How is cornering the weapons market in the Middle East a reason for war, what Iraq a big player in the market, where do you get your sources???


"Iraq has the death penalty too and they kill usually without trial, so why defend a leader like that?"
Are you serious ??? Nobody defends him. France and Germany want to put Sadam down without a big number of useless deaths.


How by dragging out the process? How is not a quick lightning strike into Bagdhad not quick to resolve the process? Again, appeasement, Germany and France seem willing to wait years for resolution, you cannot resolve anything with a terrorist/insane person, they just come back for more (see North Korea, Palestine)


"Yes yes, people die in Africa, South American, SouthEast Asian, Nepal, etc...from hunger, oppressive regimes, and disease. I don't see France jumping in to help them out unless it has ulterior motives like any other nation"
I know, and i said that / WTcenter deads... Same thing in france...nobody cares.


Do you mean that no one in France cared when the WTC fell down, or the massive deaths in Africa? I don't want to state that the above statement seems highly anti-American, so I will go with the benefit of the doubt that you mean to state the French do not care anymore about Africa than the U.S. does, only when it involves ulterior motives.


"The French only detonated a nuclear/atomic device a few years ago"
I know and i don't agree. I do no think that all that do my government is good and that the others are bad.


Okay, but I was proving that prior to Iraq, France was defying American and most other world nations with a counterviewpoint that was often against the majority and often against logic.


"It's on purpose, and no, I don't think it is any different than Chirac's tirade against the Eastern European nations...still I feel you are very anti-American."

It's not because he did it that what is doing the medias (New York Post for exemple) is right. Wer'e not 3 years old. In this case, on the french newspaper Tommorrow : " AMERICANS SAYS WE ONLY ARE CHEESE EATERS BUT THEY ARE..UH...BURGERS EATERS AND REDNECKS"....


I can't even begin to understand this, yes it is turning into us against them...one French diplomat argued that all this animosity was caused by the Americans not supporting them with the Treaty of Versaillies!!! (source...www.slate.com)


And i provide an alternative but these on the forum end by "but sill where are the #1", "french are jealous", "You know what you'd be if not for us? You'd be the smallest f#cking province in the Russian empire!!" (thank you AGPete for the material).


Just like the French with the Iraq situation...



I'm not defending whatever France has done, is doing, or will do on this forum, like you guys do with USA. Just saying that i'm furious when i see media campaigns like the New York Post Cover. I'm no really proud of my president (except for the Iraq conflict - but i know that peace is not the only reason), like you people are of Bush...

I recognize mistakes of my country, but they're not a justification for the anti-french campaign.
I do not agree the islamists operation against the US too. American citizen don't have to pay for the government mistakes. So do iraquies....

I'm not proud of Bush, again that is a generalizing..he did what any president would do in the case of 9/11. Everything else when it comes to social, economy, ecology, etc has been very very poor.

I've never been anti-French. I believe that they are not seeing the forest through the trees with this threat and that animosity against the U.S. simply raises the bar against striking Iraq, not because of a humanitary reason, but because the U.S. want to do it.

Iraq will be freed from a vicious dictator, and yes civilians will die, but civilians are dying in bombings by Islamic fundamentlists which Iraq supposidily harbors/funds...do they have to suffer too?

[Craptacular]

asshat

[BishopMVP]

Telemak - Ok,Sadam is a dictator , this is a fact. But half of the Africans countries are under a dictator, but who cares ? They don't have oil

Then why are the French unilaterally sending their troops in to those countries against the wishes of the citizens of the country? I'm talking about the Ivory Coast.

Also Telemakby the way, the same amount of people die in africa everyday, but this is unpurpose

If 5,000 people are killed in one place, and 5,000 are killed in another, choosing to save one of those two groups is a lot better than waiting around and arguing that you should only save both at once while merely sitting there doing nothing (hello UN.)

Honolulu_Blue - Bush is an idiot. Rumsfeld is worse. They sort of represent everything the rest of the world resents about Americans. The sort of swagger, do what want to, f*ck the rest of the world, we're the biggest and best, get in line world, or get out of the way. America. Bigger. Better. Stronger. We've got the bombs!

Just because someone is cocky doesn't mean they aren't right. Like Dizzy Dean said, It ain't bragging if you can back it up. And do you really want to get in an argument over whether a war in Iraq will improve the people's lives there?

GridIron - The U.S. government, via the CIA, was giving weapons to Iraq during this war.

If you actually see who was giving what, the US was giving things like paper clips while the majority of weapons being sold were by (mock surprise) the French and Germans!

Telemak - And yup, there's some un-american mini-propaganda by some french intelligencia but it's on what :...
- weapon market (watch "Bowling for Columbine" please ! - Someone from Texas ?
- Top Technology Satellite spies but old fashion voting furniture (useful W uh ?)
etc...

Bowling For Columbine? Yeah, let's go distort the facts and bum-rush 70 year old men. That will show us. Also, I'm sure that Bush somehow knew that the only way he would win was to have old-fashioned voting machines and somehow, Rumsfeld and those other arrogant Generals plotted that.




When discussing whether to go to war or not, there are three things you must look at. Can you win, Do you have the right to go in (casus belli) and Should you go in?

Looking at the Iraq situation, 2 of these 3 are obvious. Yes, we can go in and win and Yes, we have the right to (multiple UN resolutions.) That leaves the question of Should we go to war. I believe yes, I can see where others believe no, but France is not arguing on this point, it is arguing on whether we have the right to go in. I don't care if you oppose what I say, as long as you don't try to decieve me and lie about it and it seems to me like this is what the French are doing here, and that is why I don't like their government.

[NoMyths]

We also shouldn't forget that during World War II the French Resistance heroically fought overwhelming danger and terror.

[rexalllsc]

Originally posted by Darkiller
Fact is -even worse- : it is you americans who put Saddam in place as president of Irak some time ago ?
did you forget that already ? lol
I hope you don't, but maybe your media propaganda (Fox News, CNN and all) forgets to talk about it.
I'll tell you something : I'm a PR agent overhere, I "toy" with the media everyday for my work, it's my job so I can assure you that we can make people say the stories we want...and make them forget about what we want too ;-) it's very easy to do.

I'm sorry but if you don't see the point when saying that comparing Irak to World War 2 is horrendous...then there's nothing more I can say about it. my speech is useless then.

I'm sorry to bring all this up Bee and the other but I'm really fed up with this anti-french attitude in the US media...anyway I still love american and americans !
as for our friend above (HA) : well once again bastard I'd love to have you in front of me and tell you all the love I have for you :-)
a good punch in the face for a snobish nationalist punk like you.
oh common, I'd pay to have you in front of me now...ok now get lost.
(by the way, It's nice that your not on this forum as much as before, kinda give me a break, freak)

So we should let them violate treaties since the French are afraid to stand up for anything...

It's funny that the Germans (WWI, WWII anyone?) and the French (WWI, WWII anyone?) are leading the charge against the war.

Rumsfeld was right...France is the OLD Europe.

[rexalllsc]

Originally posted by NoMyths
We also shouldn't forget that during World War II the French Resistance heroically fought overwhelming danger and terror.

French Resistance = Oxymoron

[Anthony]

how does one become "extremlely efficient" at being a torturer?

whats involved in the distinction.

[Schmidty]

Originally posted by Hell Atlantic
how does one become "extremlely efficient" at being a torturer?

whats involved in the distinction.

Reading your posts.

[Bonegavel]

I am lazy and didn't read all the posts, but I have one point to add.

Jacques Crack Chirac considers himself a personal friend of Sadaam, so it isn't strange to see his stance on Iraq. Chirac took Sadaam on a tour of a french nuclear plant etc. Here is a quote from a news article I recently read:

Baghdad also purchased a one-megawatt "research reactor," and France agreed to train 600 Iraqi nuclear technicians and scientists. France also agreed to sell $1.5 billion worth of weapons to Iraq - for which they got a lucrative oil contract. In 1987, the Manchester Guardian Weekly quoted Chirac as saying that he was "truly fascinated" by Hussein.

I don't want to hear another person of french decent to talk about how we americans are scum. At least in regards to Iraq. We may be scum in other ways, but it is clear that Chirac has other reasons to protest the war than to just be a peacenik. They love crying "war for oil." Is that worse than "weapons to evil dudes for oil?" I thought it was just we lousy americans that armed sadaam.

Other than that, what are your thought on mooch being gone from the niners Darkiller?

[EagleFan]

The french only care about the fact that they aren't a world power and want to be and the oil they want from Iraq. If this was Germany again like WW2 they would be crying for everyone to come over and take them out, either that or getting the white flags ready.

As stated by the 'blind and broad minded' friend in the letter "where there is nobody and where nobody wants to go". That shows their self-centered view right there. They don't give a damn about anyone over in that region that is being killed by this man, just about themselves. This is obvious when they say that comparing this to WW2 is 'immoral'. Why? Because there hasn't been anyone from france killed yet? Because the people that have been killed are so far away that they don't care?

Try taking the blinders off and looking around once in a while. There's a lot going on in the world today and most of it is beyond the french borders.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally posted by CamEdwards


"Bush is an idiot. Bush is a cowboy."

Bush is a Yale grad. Your own president likes Jerry Lewis movies. Tell me who's the idiot.

After all, when we kick Saddam out, we'll make damn sure the next government in is pro-American.

Bush is an idiot. I don't care if he graduated from Yale or not. Do you think for one moment that if George W. Bush wasn't the sone of George H.W. Bush that he'd ever have a shot at getting into Yale? This was just a case of the "old boys" network. Give 'em enough money and yer son is in. Even if it's not, graduating from Yale, though a good indicator, is not enough not to make one an idiot. Judge a man on his actions and words.

We have no idea what we'll do. Bush can't even run his own country, what makes you think he can run Iraq or is even capable of installing a stable, pro-American government. This has been tried time and time again (see: The Taliban, Iran, etc.) and has rarely been all that successful and has even turned catastrophic. During the Congressional debates back in October a Republican senator was asked "Ok. Say we attack Iraq. Say we win (which we will). What then? What will you do for the starving, suffering masses of innocent Iraqi people? The war-ravaged country?" His response "We'll worry about that later. We'll worry about that when we have to." Yes. Great foresight.

I certainly think Sadam is a tyrant. I certainly think he has made thousands suffer under his horrible regime. I certainly think he should be removed from power. I'm just not sure if this war, right now, is the way to go about it. There are a lot of horrible dictators out there...

[EagleFan]

Please give us your examples of him being an idiot. You have incredible perception to be able to know someone from thousands of miles away.

Is he a great public speaker? No. Does that make a person an idiot? No.

Please let us know how he can't run his own country. I've missed all of your proof.

[Dargone]

Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."

Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.

Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.

Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

War of Devolution - Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

The Dutch War - Tied.

War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War -Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.

War of the Spanish Succession - Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlboro, which they have loved ever since.

American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."

French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.

The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

World War I - Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

War in Indochina - Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu.

Algerian Rebellion - Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

War on Terrorism - France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.

[Marc Vaughan]

I don't want to get involved in the arguement really and am not going to get into the aguement about whether the war should happen.

However I am interesting in hearing a few thoughts about the consequences from an American point of view:

[B]Will going to war increase terrorist attacks in America?[\B]
Going to war against a small country which cannot be expected to adequately defend itself via. conventional means will create a lot deaths which some may see as 'martyrs'.

Because of the inadequate chance for defense of Iraq through conventional means it is likely that non-convential means (ie. terrorism) will be used by sympathetic followers to avenge these martyrs.

This is something that I have yet to see mentioned in any media. However this has been shown throughout history many times in the past and is a likely consequence of any war.

What do the Americans present think of this and do they agree with the statement or not?

I am asking largely because as a British citizen I have lived with terrorism on a frequent basis through the IRA bombs and it is unpleasant and can be very scarey (for instance I work in central London which has been bombed frequently in the past, after a bomb has exploded the night before you tend to find commuting a little more stressful than usual ;) ).

[Darkiller]

Originally posted by BoneGavel

Other than that, what are your thought on mooch being gone from the niners Darkiller?

;-))

(we're better off talking about this isn't it ?)
If I were the Niners, I'd probably have kept Mariucci for at least another year.
Moreover, I guess a 4-5 year contract extension would have been what I would have liked for Mariucci if I was the owner.

Anyway, he's now gone unfortunately ( although I didn't always agree with his choices) and in Erickson, we might have the "least awful" of the Donahue's prospects...so let's wait and see.

If he's indeed "more agressive" in his approach/play calling...and makes Barlow the starting tailback for instance, then I'm happy.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally posted by EagleFan
Please give us your examples of him being an idiot. You have incredible perception to be able to know someone from thousands of miles away.

Is he a great public speaker? No. Does that make a person an idiot? No.

Please let us know how he can't run his own country. I've missed all of your proof.

First off. Yes, I'm currently in Brussels and have been for a year, but I'm a US citizen. Born and raised in the heartland (Detroit, MI) and spent 1.5 years in Washington, DC. Friends, family, girlfriend, all live in the US. I talk to them. I read US newspapers, I watch MSNBC, CNN, etc, etc. (I speak neither French nor Flemish, so that's what I'm stuck with). I am sure that I have just as much contact with good, ole' Dubya as any other US citizen. It's the Information Age. It's easy to follow your country's progress even from 3,000 miles away. Perhaps someone walking the streets of Philly or New York may have a better idea of how our country is fairing, but I doubt it's all that significant of a difference.


Here's just a small sample of the proof. Like Mulder and Scully say, "The Truth is out there."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Is George W. Bush stupid?
Let's start with the fact that Bush's advisors won't allow him to make un-scripted appearances. Unlike presidents before him, George W. refuses to hold regularly-scheduled press conferences in which he has to answer unanticipated questions from reporters. The fact that Bush's advisors won't let the President speak for himself in public indicates that they don't think that he's smart enough.

Is George W. Bush stupid?
More evidence for his lack of intelligence is his inability to adhere to the basic rules of English grammar, like keeping the same verb tense in a single sentence. George W. Bush commonly mixes the present tense with the past tense. He also mixes up singular and plural, unable to conjugate the most simple verbs in English. The most famous example is Bush's embarrasing campaign question, "Is our children learning?" The correct sentence would have been "Are our children learning?" This skill is taught in elementary school, so why can't George W. get it right?

Is George W. Bush stupid?
His ignorance of the basics of history is a pretty clear example of the ways in which his little mind is just not up to the job of President. In February, for example, Bush lectured the Japanese parliament about how the United States and Japan had been allies "for a century and a half", when in fact, the US and Japan have only been allied since after World War II, which ended just over 50 years ago. You'll also remember how when he was campaigning to be President, Bush had no idea who the President of Pakistan was, even though the military coup in Pakistan had recently been front-page news. Campaigning for President and not bothering to read the newspaper sounds pretty stupid to me.

Is George W. Bush stupid?
Well, he got below average grades in college and spent half of his adult life as a drunk, and some say a cocaine addict. That's a dumb thing to do, and alcohol kills brain cells, so we know he could have ended up a lot smarter than he is today. Driving drunk, which he admits to doing and has been convicted for, is definitely a stupid thing to do. Of course, his advisors tried to keep that conviction off the public record, which is also what they do with his public comments and speeches - they censor and edit them after the fact, changing the official transcripts to erase his mistakes! His advisors must think he's stupid if they have to fix what he says (it's all documented in the Washington Post - look it up if you can manage it).

Is George W. Bush stupid?
He doesn't even understand how the beliefs of his own church are different from the beliefs of other churches, even though he goes to church every week! In 1994, George W said, "The Episcopal Church isvery ritualistic and it has a kind of repetition to the service. It's the same service, basically, over and over again. Different sermon, of course. The Methodist Church is lower key. We don't have the kneeling. And I'm sure there is some kind of heavy doctrinal difference as well, which I'm not sophisticated enough to explain to you." He admits he's not smart to understand how Methodist theology is different from Episcopal theology, so how can he understand the nuances of U.S. foreign policy?

Is George W. Bush dumb?
He apparently is pretty fuzzy-headed about the economy and basic mathematics. Last year, he was insisting that his tax cuts combined with increased spending would ensure the continuation of a budget surplus. To professional economists, that idea seemed to be kind of stupid. They said so, but George W. Bush dismissed their criticism. Now, it turns out that Bush has admitted that he was wrong, and that the United States will have budget deficits for the next decade because of his fuzzy math. In a show of unbelievably bull-headed inanity, George W. Bush is calling for making these damaging tax cuts permanent. Heck, during the debates, Bush admitted that he had difficulty with math that required a calculator. Is that smart?

Is George W. Bush dumb?
He said he appointed Thomas White to be Secretary of the Army because White had great business experience at Enron. Bush said he wanted Thomas White to run the Army like he ran his business. The problem is, White's former employees say that he was dishonest and helped to set up fake partnerships that eventually led to Enron's bankruptcy. White responds that he had no part in the illegal fraud because he wasn't really in touch with the operations of the division he was supposed to be in charge with. So, either White is either a criminal or grossly incompetent. When George W. Bush appointed this man to run the United States Army, it was a very stupid thing to do.

Is George W. Bush dumb?
He has no understanding of basic scientific concepts, and even worse, he makes up science in order to support his own policies. He doesn't understand the basic science of global warming, genetic engineering, stem cell research, cloning, abstinence education, contraception and missile shield research. Time and time again, he's gotten the science wrong on these issues, even though the correct information was readily available. We're in the 21st century now, and we need a President who is well-educated and able to critically evaluate the science behind public policy. When it comes to scientific literacy, George W. Bush gets a failing grade.

In just a few paragraphs, we've been able to cite many examples of George W. Bush's stupidity, ignorance and intellectual laziness. We could go on for much longer. As his inept muddling with U.S. policy in the Middle East has proven, George W. Bush just doesn't have the brains to be a good President. Since he's become President, the economy has faltered, U.S foreign policy has disintegrated into a confused tangle, constitutional freedoms have been undermined, and environmental protections have been destroyed so that Bush's big oil executive friends can make bigger profits for themselves. Heck, Bush couldn't even maintain control over the Senate in a non-election year! His presidency has been a chaotic mess.

Source: (http://irregulartimes.com/stupid2.html)

------------------------------------------------------------


As for the country. Let's see.

1) Our economy is crap. And his solution (this "tax cut") has been poo-poo'd by Greenspan, Noble winning economists, and then some.

2) Civil liberties are being stripped away one at a time.

I think those two points are a good start.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally posted by Marc Vaughan
I don't want to get involved in the arguement really and am not going to get into the aguement about whether the war should happen.

However I am interesting in hearing a few thoughts about the consequences from an American point of view:

[B]Will going to war increase terrorist attacks in America?[\B]
Going to war against a small country which cannot be expected to adequately defend itself via. conventional means will create a lot deaths which some may see as 'martyrs'.

Because of the inadequate chance for defense of Iraq through conventional means it is likely that non-convential means (ie. terrorism) will be used by sympathetic followers to avenge these martyrs.

This is something that I have yet to see mentioned in any media. However this has been shown throughout history many times in the past and is a likely consequence of any war.

What do the Americans present think of this and do they agree with the statement or not?

I am asking largely because as a British citizen I have lived with terrorism on a frequent basis through the IRA bombs and it is unpleasant and can be very scarey (for instance I work in central London which has been bombed frequently in the past, after a bomb has exploded the night before you tend to find commuting a little more stressful than usual ;) ).

Marc, I agree. I think this is a key issue to consider. If this war happens, I fear it will be "open season" on the US and US interests abroad. It will galvanize terrorist efforts against America and could turn moderates into extremists.

During the Congressional Debates (or perhaps sometime afterward), the CIA (I think) came out with a report pretty much saying that a war with Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attacks to an incredibly high level, almost to a certainty.

Then again, not doing what you think is right (as many seem to think this war is) because you're a afraid of terrorism is no way to run a country, I think. These types of threats or arguments will not desuade those committed to going to war.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally posted by Honolulu_Blue
Then again, not doing what you think is right (as many seem to think this war is) because you're a afraid of terrorism is no way to run a country, I think. These types of threats or arguments will not desuade those committed to going to war.
I agree, people should always stand up for what they believe is right.

This belief in standing up for what is right, is one of the reasons I believe that very few English citizens ever argued vehemently for England pulling out of Ireland (and no I don't want to get dragged into that arguement either thanks ;) ).

However the English media didn't shirk away from the conseqences of our actions in the way which I have seen with the consequences of the possible Iraq war.

By and large the American media is generally portraying the war as something which will prevent terrorism in the future, when history actually indicates that the opposite will happen.

What I'm asking how do people feel about the media bias I feel is being shown? and do they agree with my theory about the consequences of such a war?

[Bee]

I've seen lots of media reports that an attack on Iraq could increase terrorist attacks. I think the thought is it would help prevent terrorists access to weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological and potentially nuclear) by removing a regime that has been shown to have connections with the terrorists and a regime that can't account for know WMD and appears to have continued developing additional weapons despite resolutions otherwise.

So, I guess from what I get from the media has been that it will increase attacks but potentially reduce the severity of those attacks.

I also don't necessarily agree that terrorist attacks will increase in the US. I don't see an increase in desire by the terrorists in the US (they already hate us), I don't see an increase in opportunity for the terrorists in the US (if anythin it will be reduced because of increased alerts and monitoring), and I don't see an increase in terrorists in the US (outside the US...yes, but how many would be able to get into this country without being identified and monitored? My guess is very few).

[rexalllsc]

Originally posted by Honolulu_Blue
Bush is an idiot. I don't care if he graduated from Yale or not. Do you think for one moment that if George W. Bush wasn't the sone of George H.W. Bush that he'd ever have a shot at getting into Yale? This was just a case of the "old boys" network. Give 'em enough money and yer son is in. Even if it's not, graduating from Yale, though a good indicator, is not enough not to make one an idiot. Judge a man on his actions and words.


FYI, he got his MBA from Harvard (first Pres. to have an MBA), and to get that, you must write and DEFEND a thesis (making it almost cheat proof) to pass...

...you may not like the way he speaks, but he's not an idiot.

[rexalllsc]

Originally posted by Honolulu_Blue
Marc, I agree. I think this is a key issue to consider. If this war happens, I fear it will be "open season" on the US and US interests abroad. It will galvanize terrorist efforts against America and could turn moderates into extremists.


It already is open season. See '93 WTC bombing. USS Cole bombing. 9/11.

Nothing will appease the fundamentalists short of governing the US by Sharia LAw.q