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must be this outdated french dictionary i have.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.

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.

[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.

[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