NationStates Jolt Archive


Americans: What's so bad about French people?

Siljhouettes
28-10-2004, 01:14
In this forum there is relentless blasting of French people. I can understand you neocon sycophants hating the French government for not going with Saint Bush on Iraq. But why do you extend your hatred to the entire nation and people of France. I can't tell you how many times I've seen "I just hate the French" and "I'm boycotting everything French". How is this mature?

You'd think that the French people had dropped an atomic bomb on Washington from the way you Bush loyalists act. What have you got against the French people? Sure, most of them were anti-war, but that goes for everyone, even your ally Britain.
Roach-Busters
28-10-2004, 01:15
Nothing is wrong with French people. They are no better and no worse than any other group of people on the planet.
Eldinfyrd
28-10-2004, 01:21
i hate how my fellow americans hate the french. All day at school i hear "clever" jokes about he french, how if they had stood up to hitler, we wouldv'e won the war faster. But the SECOND they stand up to the US, we laugh at them and rename some foods.
Gymoor
28-10-2004, 01:27
I don't hate the French in any way. I lost my virginity to a French girl. They've added a lot to culture. It disgusts me the foreign affairs attitude the US has gotten recently, the "you're either with us or against us," stance.

I had thought my fellow countryment would do better than that.
Roach-Busters
28-10-2004, 01:30
Many people mock the French as 'cowards,' yet Frenchmen are among the bravest men in history. Their stand at Dien Bien Phu is nothing short of heroic.
Tir Na Lethe
28-10-2004, 01:35
I agree with the previous posts. While I admit I laugh at certain jokes about the french (Such as Eddie Izzard's comments), it is the same good nature laughs as I do about my own Irish background. Once it starts turning hateful or stupid (such as "freedom fries"... bah!) I must turn and laugh at those who form such ideas... cuz changing the name of a food that isnt even REMOTELY connected to a country is going to make SOOO much a difference. Please.

Then again, one only has to look at their role model and realize the joke has always been on the followers of President Shrub...
Random Explosions
28-10-2004, 01:42
You want to know what's wrong with the French, do you? Well, you'd better sit tight, buddy, 'cause I'll tell you what's wrong with the French. They refused to send their young men to kill and die on the word of a known liar. They wanted proof. Those pseudo-Gallic frog-eaters actually wanted EMPERICAL EVIDENCE, if you can imagine the gall. What's more unAmerican than that?
Pikistan
28-10-2004, 01:43
I lost my virginity to a French girl.

Thanks. We really needed to know that.

Anyways, I think that American prejudice towards the French is a product of their not allying with us when we believed that we had a genuine threat on our hands in the form of Iraq. We were judgemental of Germans, too, but that didn't come out as much because the French are just so much easier to make fun of-i.e., they smell, they drink too much (which is kind of hypocritical), they're sissies, they're cowards, they're impolite, etc. etc. I could go on and on.

I even have a book called "Let's Make Fun of the French". Sure, I think it's funny, but I certainly don't think any of it is true-I've never been to France, so I couldn't know. Who am I to judge?

The point is, Americans don't hate the French, we were just a little ticked that they bailed out on us when were it not for us, they would all be speaking German today. It will fade with time.
Neo Tyr
28-10-2004, 01:44
The French are cool. A good friend of mine is French. They've added cultue, and invented Crepes.

For the record, the name "French" Fries comes from the term "To French" which means to cut into small slices. Not because they are from France. Just wanted to clear that up.
Random Explosions
28-10-2004, 01:46
The point is, Americans don't hate the French, we were just a little ticked that they bailed out on us when were it not for us, they would all be speaking German today. It will fade with time.
If it weren't for them, we'd be singing "God save the king". Americans are pissed at the French because the French were right about this war. That's all.
Present Day Comatica
28-10-2004, 01:48
You want to know what's wrong with the French, do you? Well, you'd better sit tight, buddy, 'cause I'll tell you what's wrong with the French. They refused to send their young men to kill and die on the word of a known liar. They wanted proof. Those pseudo-Gallic frog-eaters actually wanted EMPERICAL EVIDENCE, if you can imagine the gall. What's more unAmerican than that?

You make me sick, in the sicky sort of way.
Roach-Busters
28-10-2004, 01:48
If it weren't for them, we'd be singing "God save the king". Americans are pissed at the French because the French were right about this war. That's all.

Or, as my (ex)friend once said, "If it wasn't for the French, we'd all be speaking British right now!" :p

(And yes, he really said that)
Pikistan
28-10-2004, 01:49
If it weren't for them, we'd be singing "God save the king". Americans are pissed at the French because the French were right about this war. That's all.

Quite possibly, but my point is that all of this recent French hating had it's start with Iraq and their (as well as Germany's) refusal to go along with us and threats to veto UN resolutions.
Random Explosions
28-10-2004, 01:50
You make me sick, in the sicky sort of way.
You *do* know that was supposed to be sarcastic, right? I suppose here it's rather hard to convey that via extremism. Sorry if it didn't come across.
Utracia
28-10-2004, 01:50
Quite possibly, but my point is that all of this recent French hating had it's start with Iraq and their (as well as Germany's) refusal to go along with us and threats to veto UN resolutions.

France didn't believe that America could do whatever the hell it wants. Go figure.
Gigatron
28-10-2004, 01:51
If it weren't for them, we'd be singing "God save the king". Americans are pissed at the French because the French were right about this war. That's all.
And because the French dared to oppose ze almighteh U.S. of A. - how can they even dream of saying No when the U.S. demand complete and utter servitude!! Arrogant people breed arrogant presidents - thats the U.S. of A.
Friedmanville
28-10-2004, 01:51
Nothing is wrong with the French people, although I hear Parisians are quite snobby.

I think the problem with the French is that their heads are far larger than their berets will bear.
Colodia
28-10-2004, 01:52
Nothing wrong with the French...they got their bad points, but so does everyone else.
New Anthrus
28-10-2004, 01:52
While I'm a Bush supporter, I have nothing against the French people. Sure they're rude and ammoral, and I don't like Chiraq, but that doesn't mean I can be eternally bitter about their every move.
What is the real problem is our love-hate relationship with the French. You all know how they helped us in the Revolutionary war. Well, a few years later, they destroyed American ships at will, and wouldn't stop, despite the many changes of government during their own revolution.
Roach-Busters
28-10-2004, 01:53
And because the French dared to oppose ze almighteh U.S. of A. - how can they even dream of saying No when the U.S. demand complete and utter servitude!! Arrogant people breed arrogant presidents - thats the U.S. of A.

Not all Americans are arrogant.
Gigatron
28-10-2004, 01:54
Not all Americans are arrogant.
At least 50% (Republicons) are!
Pikistan
28-10-2004, 01:54
France didn't believe that America could do whatever the hell it wants. Go figure.

Also true.
Random Explosions
28-10-2004, 01:55
While I'm a Bush supporter, I have nothing against the French people. Sure they're rude and ammoral, and I don't like Chiraq, but that doesn't mean I can be eternally bitter about their every move.
What is the real problem is our love-hate relationship with the French. You all know how they helped us in the Revolutionary war. Well, a few years later, they destroyed American ships at will, and wouldn't stop, despite the many changes of government during their own revolution.
Sure, and we went in to help them in Vietnam, and a few years later, attacked a number of their units more or less at will. Neither of us has been a particularly good ally to the other, but that's still what we are.
Roach-Busters
28-10-2004, 01:57
Sure, and we went in to help them in Vietnam, and a few years later, attacked a number of their units more or less at will. Neither of us has been a particularly good ally to the other, but that's still what we are.

We didn't actually go in (except for a few dozen military advisors), but we did give them surplus WWII equipment and vehicles and a few billion dollars of aid. However, we gave Ho Chi Minh and his flunkies as much if not more support at the exact same time.
Skibereen
28-10-2004, 02:00
In this forum there is relentless blasting of French people. I can understand you neocon sycophants hating the French government for not going with Saint Bush on Iraq. But why do you extend your hatred to the entire nation and people of France. I can't tell you how many times I've seen "I just hate the French" and "I'm boycotting everything French". How is this mature?

You'd think that the French people had dropped an atomic bomb on Washington from the way you Bush loyalists act. What have you got against the French people? Sure, most of them were anti-war, but that goes for everyone, even your ally Britain.
It is no different then the endless--All Americans are stooopid!!!!111!!!
AmErIcAns r teh suxzor!!!11!!!11!1 threads.
No different at all.
Blanket ignorance.
As for NEocons if any Conservative bothered to look at France they would see that socially France adopts many Conservative policies.
Hey, the "Frogs" gave us Lady Liberty, their contribution to the Revolution can not be given enough credit. So they are entitled to be pricks on occasion when it comes to our policy--they helped us get here--we've helped them.
People need to get over the French thing.
New Anthrus
28-10-2004, 02:03
Sure, and we went in to help them in Vietnam, and a few years later, attacked a number of their units more or less at will. Neither of us has been a particularly good ally to the other, but that's still what we are.
And probably always will be. The French should be proud of themselves, as this relationship with the US is rather unique.
Utracia
28-10-2004, 02:07
The other French topic was locked. Why?
TJHairball
28-10-2004, 02:09
Speaking as an American, I do not hate the French in the slightest.

As an intelligent person who understands the nature and use of propaganda, I was slightly baffled at the sheer vitriol developed in this nation against France in the past three years - not because I do not see the propaganda and politics leading up to it, but because I failed to see a real motivation. It was, plain and simple, nothing more than a deliberate invocation of xenophobia against a nation and a people we have no real reason to be miffed at.

I have watched with alarm, because I see the fires of bigotry being fueled high in what appears to be part an attempt to create a one party state with a superiority complex and an imperial urge. "We deserve to do whatever we want to, and we're right because we are strong!"

Today, the politicos of the Republican party speak out against "the French," extemporize on the inhumanity of the "rag-head," and speak of "those people" and "the enemy." Nationalist pride, wearing flags and marching in lockstep, taking care to reach out to the young, and taking care that they know these things:

"The enemy is everywhere. He will not stop until he has destroyed our way of life; we are justified in whatever it takes to secure the homeland for our people to live our way of live. Protest is unAmerican. Dissent is unAmerican; peace-lovers aid and abet the enemy. Greed is good, war is good for business, but it is the enemy who selfishly serves their own interests. Our side serves us by serving their own interest. God is with us, His favored people, the supermen who can do anything, an army of one."

These things being instilled are frightening to any student of history; yet, even as history is rewritten in the classrooms daily and national opinion of it revised, not all of us will forget the lessons of the past.

There are those who wish to drive a wedge between Europe and America; they have been working hard these past years, and the war on Iraq a significant bonus to their cause.
KCTOPIA
28-10-2004, 02:11
no one really hates the french. most of the jokes are because they like never win a war. sure they're probably brave, but hey they didnt win like a single war in the history of man kind. but other than that, nothing else about the french are bad. (except some of their foods, but hey what the hell, theres alot worse food out there.)
Neo Earth
28-10-2004, 02:11
My god, people! It's a giant joke! The french have never had a major military victory (even though you'll say Joan of Arc and Napolean: Joan of arc saved the french after decades of losing, and Napolean lost twice), which opens them up to jokes.

No one believes these jokes (except you people), and all they're good for is a couple of laughs.
Utracia
28-10-2004, 02:14
My god, people! It's a giant joke! The french have never had a major military victory (even though you'll say Joan of Arc and Napolean: Joan of arc saved the french after decades of losing, and Napolean lost twice), which opens them up to jokes.

No one believes these jokes (except you people), and all they're good for is a couple of laughs.

Napolean lost eventually but so did Hitler.
Pikistan
28-10-2004, 02:14
At least 50% (Republicons) are!

Hey! You're that angry German from the "Is Bush a Nazi?" thread that was locked out yesterday! I know you!

Please, for the sake of the integrity of this conversation, if you don't have anything valuable to contribute to this discussion, I suggest you hold your tongue. I for one find this topic interesting, and don't want a moderator to get pissed because of your flaming.
Skibereen
28-10-2004, 02:17
My god, people! It's a giant joke! The french have never had a major military victory (even though you'll say Joan of Arc and Napolean: Joan of arc saved the french after decades of losing, and Napolean lost twice), which opens them up to jokes.

No one believes these jokes (except you people), and all they're good for is a couple of laughs.
Napoleon only lost twice?!!? wow He was more of a genius then I realized.
Al-Imvadjah
28-10-2004, 02:18
I have nothing against the French. Sometimes I joke, but I never... hardly ever have anything seriously agianst them.
Skibereen
28-10-2004, 02:19
Hey! You're that angry German from the "Is Bush a Nazi?" thread that was locked out yesterday! I know you!

Please, for the sake of the integrity of this conversation, if you don't have anything valuable to contribute to this discussion, I suggest you hold your tongue. I for one find this topic interesting, and don't want a moderator to get pissed because of your flaming.
Wait till he has something valuable to contribute?
You might as well ask Gig to never post again.
TJHairball
28-10-2004, 02:22
no one really hates the french. most of the jokes are because they like never win a war. sure they're probably brave, but hey they didnt win like a single war in the history of man kind. but other than that, nothing else about the french are bad. (except some of their foods, but hey what the hell, theres alot worse food out there.)

This is also the result of poorly studied and revised history.

Guess what... the French kicked a great many tails during the 19th century. In the 17th century, they - along with the then-rabble Dutch and the mostly French-funded Swedes - destroyed the reign of the Habsburgs (who more or less ruled Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Transylvania - pretty much most of Europe north and east of Switzerland, Italy, and France) over most of Europe in one of the bloodiest wars of Europe's history, fought almost entirely in what is today Germany.

Charlemagne is down in the history books as one of the great empire builders of Europe. The Normans... why, yes, guess what? They came from France and spoke French; you can say what you like about the ancestry of the Normans, but they certainly qualify as French.
Utracia
28-10-2004, 02:27
This is also the result of poorly studied and revised history.

Guess what... the French kicked a great many tails during the 19th century. In the 17th century, they - along with the then-rabble Dutch and the mostly French-funded Swedes - destroyed the reign of the Habsburgs (who more or less ruled Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Transylvania - pretty much most of Europe north and east of Switzerland, Italy, and France) over most of Europe in one of the bloodiest wars of Europe's history, fought almost entirely in what is today Germany.

Charlemagne is down in the history books as one of the great empire builders of Europe. The Normans... why, yes, guess what? They came from France and spoke French; you can say what you like about the ancestry of the Normans, but they certainly qualify as French.

Richleau really knew how to run France. Brutal man but he kept France strong.
Al-Imvadjah
28-10-2004, 02:27
The Habsburgs also controlled Spain, which was still a major power at the time.
Rusty Spoons
28-10-2004, 02:28
The French seem to be targeted because they thought for themselves and didn't bow under US pressure. Good for them! Just because the US are a powerful country and want to police the world, doesn't mean they will always be right in what they do. On the contrary, I think it is potentially dangerous having a country that wants to police the world and butt in on other peoples business. That is what the UN is for. Sure they could be doing a better job but at least they aren't as biased.
Kwangistar
28-10-2004, 02:29
The French seem to be targeted because they thought for themselves and didn't bow under US pressure. Good for them! Just because the US are a powerful country and want to police the world, doesn't mean they will always be right in what they do. On the contrary, I think it is potentially dangerous having a country that wants to police the world and butt in on other peoples business. That is what the UN is for. Sure they could be doing a better job but at least they aren't as biased.
Thats quite an overstatement. How about "next to no job"?
TJHairball
28-10-2004, 02:32
The Habsburgs also controlled Spain, which was still a major power at the time.

I can hardly believe I didn't mention that... I was certainly thinking of it, but somehow I didn't mention that.

Anyone failing to note that Spain lost a great deal in the 30 years' war in wondering how they ceded supremacy of the world stage to the French and British by the 18th century is committing grave oversights. The loss of the Spanish Armada wasn't the only thing that happened.
Battery Charger
28-10-2004, 02:37
I don't really hate the French, but I don't really care for them. They're a bunch of stinky smoking snobs... apparently. I've never been to France, but I've know people who have and they confirm the sterotypes. It's not like have some deep loathing of French people, but if I were to visit Europe, France wouldn't be my first choice. I think there's been a mutual dislike for some time, but the whole anti-French thing really got out of hand and the way to war in Iraq. I was beginning to wonder if we were being driven to war against each other.
Al-Imvadjah
28-10-2004, 02:40
The loss of the Spanish Armada had little actual affect on Spain's power. It was really just a moral boost for the English and a made the Spanish feel bad about themselves. Not really any effect at all on shipping. Everyone blos it waaay out of proportion.

I actually am about to take a test on how the Spanish lost their power in Europe tommorrow. And the rise of French absolutism and English constitutionalism in the seventeenth century.
Utracia
28-10-2004, 02:41
I don't really hate the French, but I don't really care for them. They're a bunch of stinky smoking snobs... apparently. I've never been to France, but I've know people who have and they confirm the sterotypes. It's not like have some deep loathing of French people, but if I were to visit Europe, France wouldn't be my first choice. I think there's been a mutual dislike for some time, but the whole anti-French thing really got out of hand and the way to war in Iraq. I was beginning to wonder if we were being driven to war against each other.

The way I see it actually, is a strengthening of the EU resulting in power and economical competition with the US that can only have one conclusion. Europe vs. United States. Toss-up.
Timidia
28-10-2004, 02:54
Wow i dont know how anyone can possibly justify voting for bush and cheney, the evil just seeps from every pore of them. BTW, Bush is clearly not a nazi, hitler at least had a good economy....
HadesRulesMuch
28-10-2004, 03:08
i hate how my fellow americans hate the french. All day at school i hear "clever" jokes about he french, how if they had stood up to hitler, we wouldv'e won the war faster. But the SECOND they stand up to the US, we laugh at them and rename some foods.
Most excellent, you just compared America to Nazi Germany. Once again, a liberal who considers all Republicans to be Nazis. If this is the closest thing to an intelligent post that you can make, then why are you wasting your time in this forum?

Now, I personally dislike the French Government based on several reasons. One is that during World War II Vichy France actively assissted the Nazis in deporting the Jewish population, and committed atrocities that were never punished. I dislike the French government because it is Socialist, and because despite that it still has a 9.3% unemployment rate. I hate the French government because despite the fact that it is obviously as selfishly motivated as that of America, it attempts to lay claim to the moral high ground in this dispute, when the real truth is that it was merely making millions in its dealings with Hussein.

In fact, the only beef I have with the French people is that they tolerate such an abominable administration, while criticizing that of the USA.
Goed
28-10-2004, 03:15
Idiot Americans hate the French because they didn't bow to our will.

America has become jingoistic to the point of scarying the shit out of me. We need to change.
Salbania
28-10-2004, 03:23
If it weren't for them, we'd be singing "God save the king". Americans are pissed at the French because the French were right about this war. That's all.

Well... actually, you would probably become another constitutional monarchy, like us Canadians. So, you would have your own national anthem.
Salbania
28-10-2004, 03:28
While I'm a Bush supporter, I have nothing against the French people. Sure they're rude and ammoral, and I don't like Chiraq, but that doesn't mean I can be eternally bitter about their every move.
What is the real problem is our love-hate relationship with the French. You all know how they helped us in the Revolutionary war. Well, a few years later, they destroyed American ships at will, and wouldn't stop, despite the many changes of government during their own revolution.

Wow... that's more love-hate than the most complex relationship ever on earth. Canada and America's.
Dempublicents
28-10-2004, 03:28
My only problem with French society is the religious hatred of religion. If I personally happen to be wearing a cross - that is in no way "pushing my religion on you." And the idea that you should only be yourself at home is absolutely ridiculous. Hell, even my atheist boyfriend thinks that French society has taken secularism and enforced it to an absolutely militant and crazy extent.

Other than that though, I don't know any French people, and probably wouldn't have anything against them really.
Salbania
28-10-2004, 03:31
no one really hates the french. most of the jokes are because they like never win a war. sure they're probably brave, but hey they didnt win like a single war in the history of man kind. but other than that, nothing else about the french are bad. (except some of their foods, but hey what the hell, theres alot worse food out there.)

I believe that they took over England, and because of that, there was the invention of a language I like to call 'English'.
Utracia
28-10-2004, 03:33
I believe that they took over England, and because of that, there was the invention of a language I like to call 'English'.

England and France were enemies for centuries. Perhaps France needs someone closer to hate than America. Look right across the Channel!
HadesRulesMuch
28-10-2004, 03:35
But seriously, if anyone has any disagreements with my post, let me know. or is it just that it was reasonable and therefore you don't want to draw attention to it for fear of making us "French-Haters" look like we might have a reasonable excuse for feeling the way we do?
Salbania
28-10-2004, 03:35
This is also the result of poorly studied and revised history.

Guess what... the French kicked a great many tails during the 19th century. In the 17th century, they - along with the then-rabble Dutch and the mostly French-funded Swedes - destroyed the reign of the Habsburgs (who more or less ruled Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Transylvania - pretty much most of Europe north and east of Switzerland, Italy, and France) over most of Europe in one of the bloodiest wars of Europe's history, fought almost entirely in what is today Germany.

Charlemagne is down in the history books as one of the great empire builders of Europe. The Normans... why, yes, guess what? They came from France and spoke French; you can say what you like about the ancestry of the Normans, but they certainly qualify as French.

Ah, yes, Charlemane. Hardcore Republicans, the ones that hate the French, seem to be quite religious. Without Charlemagne, the Christian Church might have not been that succesful. Who knows, maybe the Irish and British might still be into Druidism.
Salbania
28-10-2004, 03:37
Now, I personally dislike the French Government based on several reasons. One is that during World War II Vichy France actively assissted the Nazis in deporting the Jewish population, and committed atrocities that were never punished.


Didn't you ever learn about occupied France? The PUPPET Vichy Government was put in place by the Nazis when they took over France. Therefore, the Vichy Government doesn't truthfully represent the French.
HadesRulesMuch
28-10-2004, 03:38
England and France were enemies for centuries. Perhaps France needs someone closer to hate than America. Look right across the Channel!
After the Hundred Years War, I believe those two are done. By the way, France has not been a superpower since the French and Indian War. Napoleon came close to reclaiming glory, but his strategic knowledge completely failed him and he decided to invade Russia, in winter, while his troops were equipped only with summer uniforms. 400,000 went in, and 10,000 made it out. Now, France is a nuclear power, but then again with their lack of military power it seems logical that they would want to possess the "Great Equalizer", all the while condemning the US for having nuclear weapons.
HadesRulesMuch
28-10-2004, 03:40
Didn't you ever learn about occupied France? The PUPPET Vichy Government was put in place by the Nazis when they took over France. Therefore, the Vichy Government doesn't truthfully represent the French.
Except that the Vichy Government was composed of willing French, which would be why it did not include the entire nation of France. The rest of the country still resisted the Nazis. Only Vichy France submitted to and helped the Nazis. You should research more. And it was a puppet government, but one that was supported by the people it governed, and one that was composed of French people who willingly aided the Nazis. Do more research.
Salbania
28-10-2004, 03:40
England and France were enemies for centuries. Perhaps France needs someone closer to hate than America. Look right across the Channel!
Well.. I guess I should have said Normans, but still. That was in the 11th century, and didn't the vicious hatred of the French start a bit after that?
Utracia
28-10-2004, 03:44
After the Hundred Years War, I believe those two are done. By the way, France has not been a superpower since the French and Indian War. Napoleon came close to reclaiming glory, but his strategic knowledge completely failed him and he decided to invade Russia, in winter, while his troops were equipped only with summer uniforms. 400,000 went in, and 10,000 made it out. Now, France is a nuclear power, but then again with their lack of military power it seems logical that they would want to possess the "Great Equalizer", all the while condemning the US for having nuclear weapons.

Napolean was stupid to attack Russia to begin with.
Branin
28-10-2004, 03:45
The point is, Americans don't hate the French, we were just a little ticked that they bailed out on us when were it not for us, they would all be speaking German today.

And if not for the French we'd still all be speaking english. Hey...wait a second we are... But seriously, our countries have helped each other out a lot over their histories, and are overall (with the exeption of the currnet administration) quite friendly. An occasional diversion of paths is no reason for anger or hate. They dislike us for the same reasons we dislike them. So lets all xhut our mouths. The world is not black and white. Just because someone's shade of grey doesn't match yours doesn't mean they are wrong.
Salbania
28-10-2004, 03:47
Except that the Vichy Government was composed of willing French, which would be why it did not include the entire nation of France. The rest of the country still resisted the Nazis. Only Vichy France submitted to and helped the Nazis. You should research more. And it was a puppet government, but one that was supported by the people it governed, and one that was composed of French people who willingly aided the Nazis. Do more research.

Didn't I say that the Vichy government supported the Nazis?
Salbania
28-10-2004, 03:50
And if not for the French we'd still all be speaking english. Hey...wait a second we are... But seriously, our countries have helped each other out a lot over their histories, and are overall (with the exeption of the currnet administration) quite friendly. An occasional diversion of paths is no reason for anger or hate. They dislike us for the same reasons we dislike them. So lets all xhut our mouths. The world is not black and white. Just because someone's shade of grey doesn't match yours doesn't mean they are wrong.

Uhh.. well Americans speak English. And even if they were still a bunch of colonies, which wouldn't be true, they would speak the American dialect of English. But, if you go back really far, if it weren't for the French, we would be either not living here, or be speaking German.
Salbania
28-10-2004, 03:56
The point is, Americans don't hate the French, we were just a little ticked that they bailed out on us when were it not for us, they would all be speaking German today.

Don't forget that if it weren't for the UK they would be speaking German, or that if it especially weren't for Canada they would be speaking German (Dieppe taught a lot of lessons, and if it never happened, D-Day would have been a complete an total massacre for the Allies). And a bunch of other countries too.
Pikistan
28-10-2004, 04:13
And if not for the French we'd still all be speaking english. Hey...wait a second we are... But seriously, our countries have helped each other out a lot over their histories, and are overall (with the exeption of the currnet administration) quite friendly. An occasional diversion of paths is no reason for anger or hate. They dislike us for the same reasons we dislike them. So lets all xhut our mouths. The world is not black and white. Just because someone's shade of grey doesn't match yours doesn't mean they are wrong.

Uhh.. well Americans speak English. And even if they were still a bunch of colonies, which wouldn't be true, they would speak the American dialect of English. But, if you go back really far, if it weren't for the French, we would be either not living here, or be speaking German.

What I am focusing on however is recent history. Quite frankly, I don't think anyone in France cares that they helped us in the Revolutionary War (in fact, I'd venture to say many wished they didn't help us today). I don't think anyone cares about such far-back stuff as that anymore. I mean, you don't see British people scowl at Americans and mutter "Traitors to the Crown!" under their breaths do you?

True, while we may have inherited many cultural aspects from France or it's predecessors (indeed, France contributes much in the way of culture to the world), in the present time, France to me seems more of a political annoyance-indeed, I believe that it's seat on the UN security council is a leftover from WWII.

So, while we have some things to thank them for in terms of culture and identity, it seems to me that today they are just the snail-eaters across the sea. Of course, that's no reason to hate them or become judgemental about them.

Call that American arrogance if you will-but it's what a great many of us think.
Meriadoc
28-10-2004, 04:42
I tried posting this earlier but my browser was being stupid. :mad: I would like to make a note that this will be the extent of my involvement in this thread as the last time I got involved in a thread about the French, I got into an argument and the other person and I are now on each other's ignore lists.

For the record, the name "French" Fries comes from the term "To French" which means to cut into small slices. Not because they are from France. Just wanted to clear that up.
Is it that same way with french toast? Because that's not usually "frenched." Either way, it is good stuff.
Evinsia
28-10-2004, 04:44
What's wrong with the French? Let me count the ways:
They let us use their navy during the Revolution, but only for two months
They fire about three shots at invading enemies before hoisting their kepis on their bayonets and using them as flags of surrender
They make too much wine
Their language is really nasal
They appease everyone
They supplied Iraq with arms
They didn't go to war with Iraq
They have evil little shifty eyes
They fathered Canada
And they made the Chauchat.
Dobbs Town
28-10-2004, 04:51
America is envious, plain and simple. They can't attract with vinegar the flies France can with honey, and rather than change their ways, America instead takes the low road and disparages the French.

Same old - same old.
Andaluciae
28-10-2004, 04:58
Eh, it's part of this whole "globl realignment" thing. Whatever that means. DOOM!
New Granada
28-10-2004, 06:20
Their wine is too good!
Their country is too beautiful!
Their women are too beautiful!
Their food is too delicious!


It's called jealous, envious, hate
Peopleandstuff
28-10-2004, 06:49
Most excellent, you just compared America to Nazi Germany. Once again, a liberal who considers all Republicans to be Nazis. If this is the closest thing to an intelligent post that you can make, then why are you wasting your time in this forum?
Firstly the poster didnt make such a comparison, secondly comparing two things is not equating them, so even if the poster had compared America to Nazi Germany, (which they didnt) this wouldnt give you any logical reason for believing the poster considers Americans or a particular group of Americans to be Nazis.

Now, I personally dislike the French Government based on several reasons. One is that during World War II Vichy France actively assissted the Nazis in deporting the Jewish population, and committed atrocities that were never punished.
You dislike the current French Government because of the actions of a Government that existed in France half a century or so ago...?

I dislike the French government because it is Socialist, and because despite that it still has a 9.3% unemployment rate. I hate the French government because despite the fact that it is obviously as selfishly motivated as that of America, it attempts to lay claim to the moral high ground in this dispute, when the real truth is that it was merely making millions in its dealings with Hussein.
That's ironic because I've heard many non-Americans claim to hate the American Government because despite the fact that it is obviously as selfishly motivated as any that it points the finger at, it attempts to lay claim to the moral high ground in every dispute when the real truth is that the war against Hussein was posited on grounds that were utterly untrue...
In fact, the only beef I have with the French people is that they tolerate such an abominable administration, while criticizing that of the USA.
And again it's ironic that only beef many people I know have with the American people is that so many of them seem to be prepared to tolerate such an abominable administration while criticizing anyone.

Seeing as of the two of them, only the American Government actually started a war under false pretences, the case against the French people for tolerating their 'abominable' Government tends to look a bit petty in comparison...
MunkeBrain
28-10-2004, 06:52
I can't understand you neolibs sycophants hating the American government for not going with Saint Chiraq on Iraq.
New Granada
28-10-2004, 06:53
You dislike the current French Government because of the actions of a Government that existed in France half a century or so ago...?

That's ironic because I've heard many non-Americans claim to hate the American Government because despite the fact that it is obviously as selfishly motivated as any that it points the finger at, it attempts to lay claim to the moral high ground in every dispute when the real truth is that the war against Hussein was posited on grounds that were utterly untrue...

And again it's ironic that only beef many people I know have with the American people is that so many of them seem to be prepared to tolerate such an abominable administration while criticizing anyone.

Seeing as of the two of them, only the American Government actually started a war under false pretences, the case against the French people for tolerating their 'abominable' Government tends to look a bit petty in comparison...



The barbarians may grasp at straws of idiotic reasoning but the truth remains that they are envious, petty visigoths and vandals.
New Granada
28-10-2004, 06:54
I can't understand you neolibs sycophants hating the American government for not going with Saint Chiraq on Iraq.


Do you seriously not know what the difference between a conservative and a neo-conservative is?
MunkeBrain
28-10-2004, 06:56
Do you seriously not know what the difference between a conservative and a neo-conservative is?
Evidently s lot of people do not, they toss around the label at everyone even remotly conservative..
Los Banditos
28-10-2004, 06:59
England and France were enemies for centuries. Perhaps France needs someone closer to hate than America. Look right across the Channel!

I was under the impression that the British and French still hated each other. My brother-in-law has told me many storys of British and French troops getting in fights with each other during Desert Storm.

Part of are hatred for France could come from our English background. I also think that after years of the French hating the USA for unknown reasons, we grew tired of their arrogance. We just now see it on a major scale. I have heard French jokes long before Bush was in office. It is not a new thing.
Laskin Yahoos
28-10-2004, 07:00
In this forum there is relentless blasting of French people.
You think French-bashing on this forum is 'relentless'? When how do you describe the American-bashing on this forum? All-consuming?

I hate the French because the French hate me. And they beheaded the greatest ally the United States ever had.
New Granada
28-10-2004, 07:08
Evidently s lot of people do not, they toss around the label at everyone even remotly conservative..

Indeed, but there is still no analagous movement among liberals that might be considered "neo-liberal." It debases the meaning of "neo-conservative," and as neoconservatives are playing an unprecedented and massive role in our nation's policies today, it serves our country ill to obfuscate them.
New Granada
28-10-2004, 07:09
You think French-bashing on this forum is 'relentless'? When how do you describe the American-bashing on this forum? All-consuming?

I hate the French because the French hate me. And they beheaded the greatest ally the United States ever had.


Who, marie antoinette?

I know that some of the corporate and connecticut old-money conservatives think that they are truly royalty, but that's just pushing it...
MunkeBrain
28-10-2004, 07:10
Indeed, but there is still no analagous movement among liberals that might be considered "neo-liberal." It debases the meaning of "neo-conservative," and as neoconservatives are playing an unprecedented and massive role in our nation's policies today, it serves our country ill to obfuscate them.
Well, see, I am not a neo-con, but I have been labled one more often than I can count on this Forum. most people do not know what one is, so ignorance is the order of the day round here.
Zhaid
28-10-2004, 07:11
Well, the way this thread is going, it certainly puts the original post in perspective. There's about ten times the USA-bashing going on here as there is France-bashing. In the light of the postings here, the complaint seems rather hypocritical.

On a side note, France is okay, I guess. I totally hate the language though.
Shasoria
28-10-2004, 07:20
I'm Canadian, so I have the right to hate the French.
YOU CANNOT RUN A NATIONAL ECONOMY ON EXPORTS OF BAD TECHNO MUSIC AND MAPLE SYRUP!
New Granada
28-10-2004, 07:21
Well, see, I am not a neo-con, but I have been labled one more often than I can count on this Forum. most people do not know what one is, so ignorance is the order of the day round here.

Indeed, but you should be ashamed for being an evangelist of ignorance with your disingenuous banter about fictional 'neo liberals.'

Dont give in to the mode du jour.
Lacadaemon
28-10-2004, 07:23
The french love Micheal Moore and Jerry Lewis. That alone is reason enough to despise them.
New Granada
28-10-2004, 07:25
The french love Micheal Moore and Jerry Lewis. That alone is reason enough to despise them.


American love michael moore too.
He's a very popular man in the american mainstream.
Lacadaemon
28-10-2004, 07:27
American love michael moore too.
He's a very popular man in the american mainstream.

He is fat, and an offense to nature and God.

Only the stupid could like him.
Saudir
28-10-2004, 07:48
I don't hate the French in any way. I lost my virginity to a French girl. They've added a lot to culture. It disgusts me the foreign affairs attitude the US has gotten recently, the "you're either with us or against us," stance.

I had thought my fellow countryment would do better than that.

Gymoor,there is such a thing as TOO much information.some information is better left private me thinks.such as losing virgnity and whatnot.
Alinania
28-10-2004, 09:05
Only the stupid could like him.
I guess you live in a stupid world then.
Graecio-romano Ruslan
28-10-2004, 09:26
Napolean lost twice
three times. once against the Russians and twice against the British.
Lacadaemon
28-10-2004, 09:31
I guess you live in a stupid world then.

Yes, it is difficult being surrounded by the stupid and intolerant. Thank you for your concern.
Alinania
28-10-2004, 09:40
Yes, it is difficult being surrounded by the stupid and intolerant. Thank you for your concern.
Any time. I know how hard it is. it's a serious condition. yes. indeed.
Siljhouettes
28-10-2004, 13:03
I don't really hate the French, but I don't really care for them. They're a bunch of stinky smoking snobs... apparently. I've never been to France
Many pof us feel the same way about Americans. And I actually have been to America.
Siljhouettes
28-10-2004, 13:18
Now, I personally dislike the French Government based on several reasons. One is that during World War II Vichy France actively assissted the Nazis in deporting the Jewish population, and committed atrocities that were never punished. I dislike the French government because it is Socialist
The Vichy French government has nothing to do with the current government, which is descended from Charles de Gaulle's WW2 government-in-exile of London.

Your argument lost all credibility here. The French government is right-wing conservative. The only time when they really had a left-wing government is under Mitterand in the 80s. In the last presidential election the choice was between conservative Chirac and Nazi Le Pen. So how are they socialists again?

And it was a puppet government, but one that was supported by the people it governed,
Of course the Vichy government enjoyed widespread "support" - it was a dictatorship.

What's wrong with the French? Let me count the ways:

They let us use their navy during the Revolution, but only for two months
They fire about three shots at invading enemies before hoisting their kepis on their bayonets and using them as flags of surrender
They make too much wine
Their language is really nasal
They appease everyone
They supplied Iraq with arms
They didn't go to war with Iraq
They have evil little shifty eyes
They fathered Canada
And they made the Chauchat.
1. Well, the did defeat the British navy for you
2. I don't even want to get into this one.
3. You can never make too much wine.
4. So is your accent.
5. Even America?
6. So did America.
7. Oh Noes! They did what most of their population wanted!
8. Lol, no, most of them don't.
9. Britain did that.
10. ?

Evidently s lot of people do not, they toss around the label at everyone even remotly conservative..
There are hardly any similarities between real conservatives and neo-conservatives that run the USA.

You think French-bashing on this forum is 'relentless'? When how do you describe the American-bashing on this forum? All-consuming?

I hate the French because the French hate me.
There isn't much America bashing, there is a lot of Bush bashing which isn't the same thing.

How do you know the French hate you?

Well, see, I am not a neo-con, but I have been labled one more often than I can count on this Forum. most people do not know what one is, so ignorance is the order of the day round here.
People call you that because you agree with about 98% of the Bush Admin policies.
Louisiana-Mississippi
28-10-2004, 13:28
I don't hate the French. But I don't like people from Paris (most are VERY obnoxious) and I don't like the French government. I also think too many of them are ungrateful for the US saving them in both world wars. One of the reasons the US got involved in Vietnam was because we were keeping a promise to the French government to assist them and democratic South Vietnam.
I don't think the French should help in the occupation of Iraq, because their army really is of poor quality, and because the French Army is probably tired of being beaten around by everyone. We would be better off having the German army help out. This is isn't an intended insult of France, but their army does suffer from poor training and equipment.

The main thing that bugs me about the way France acts is that they still think they're a world power. If we hadn't financially backed their rebuilding, and then given them the technology for the Atomic bomb, they'd be nothing.
There is no reason France (or China) should be on the UN security council either. They have no real power, and all it does is let them veto acts proposed by other progressive nations. And I'm not saying let a country that wants to lick America's boots be on the security council either. Let Germany or Australia or India be on it. They are growing, strong nations.

To sum up, I don't like the French government. But I also think Bush is a %#*.
Jabbaness
28-10-2004, 13:45
I think most of the ill will comes from a sense that the french people are pompus and that they look down their noses at Americans.

Now this may or may not be true, but that's probably the main reason why.

One question for all you historians. Wasn't Napoleon a Corsican, i.e. Not French by birth?
Helioterra
28-10-2004, 13:51
I think most of the ill will comes from a sense that the french people are pompus and that they look down their noses at Americans.

Now this may or may not be true, but that's probably the main reason why.

One question for all you historians. Wasn't Napoleon a Corsican, i.e. Not French by birth?
He was born there. But Corsica is part of France.
Or was it back then...http://www.corsica.net/corsica/uk/discov/hist/
Soviet Haaregrad
28-10-2004, 14:01
I can't understand you neolibs sycophants hating the American government for not going with Saint Chiraq on Iraq.

You're obviously misunderstood, neo-liberals are the Ayn Rand libertarian types who want no restrictions on the free market.

Neo-conservatives are the chickenhawk types that Bush has running the place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_%28United_States%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
Psylos
28-10-2004, 14:26
I don't hate the French. But I don't like people from Paris (most are VERY obnoxious) and I don't like the French government. I also think too many of them are ungrateful for the US saving them in both world wars.It is the other way around actually. France saved the US in WW2. You'd be speacking german if France wasn't there.

One of the reasons the US got involved in Vietnam was because we were keeping a promise to the French government to assist them and democratic South Vietnam.Poor job there.
Maybe if your military didn't suck that much...

I don't think the French should help in the occupation of Iraq, because their army really is of poor quality, and because the French Army is probably tired of being beaten around by everyone. We would be better off having the German army help out. This is isn't an intended insult of France, but their army does suffer from poor training and equipment.
The US military must be quite shit then since the french one is better trained. France has an actual secret service also, especially when the arab world is conserned, which mean they have some clue about the situation, unlike some blind countries.

The main thing that bugs me about the way France acts is that they still think they're a world power. If we hadn't financially backed their rebuilding, and then given them the technology for the Atomic bomb, they'd be nothing.When the US entered Paris, the first thing they did was to go to the french central bank and take the gold. So much for the financial backing. Oh and the Breton woods monetary organisation, what a genius organisation.
As for the atomic bomb, it must be the other way around because french nuclear technology is a lot more advanced than the US one.

There is no reason France (or China) should be on the UN security council either. They have no real power, and all it does is let them veto acts proposed by other progressive nations. And I'm not saying let a country that wants to lick America's boots be on the security council either. Let Germany or Australia or India be on it. They are growing, strong nations.
I'd say the US should have its veto removed since it is the least reasonable country when using it.
I suggest Iran, or Saudi Arabia instead since they have more influence than the US in today world.
Psylos
28-10-2004, 14:46
The french love Micheal Moore and Jerry Lewis. That alone is reason enough to despise them.
The french don't know who the hell Jerry Lewis is and they barely heard about Michael Moore.
Psylos
28-10-2004, 14:52
But seriously, if anyone has any disagreements with my post, let me know. or is it just that it was reasonable and therefore you don't want to draw attention to it for fear of making us "French-Haters" look like we might have a reasonable excuse for feeling the way we do?
Your post was just not worth responding to.
You said the french government was too socialist and stuff. What could I say about it? Inform youself.
Facist Morons
28-10-2004, 14:54
I believe that they took over England, and because of that, there was the invention of a language I like to call 'English'.

Thankfully the Anglo-Saxons (English) actually had a language before the Norman invasion. The Normans spoke french so Anglo-Saxon inevitably took on some of the words. They did not however invent the language you like to call 'English'.

The French did collaborate and fight alongside the Germans in WWII against the allies but Churchill insisted they must be given a place on the security council to ensure there was a strong counter balance to Germany in mainland Europe.

The French were trying to protect their oil interests in Iraq when they stood up to the US. They are doing the same in the Sudan despite the genocide taking place.

Still they're no worse than the rest of us.
Planta Genestae
28-10-2004, 15:28
Not to flamebait but I found it hilarious when some american companies changed the name of french fries to freedom fries, ignoring the fact that they are called french fries not because they originate from France but because the guy who invented them was called Adam French.

And he was american! That is what you call IRONY!
Psylos
28-10-2004, 15:36
Not to flamebait but I found it hilarious when some american companies changed the name of french fries to freedom fries, ignoring the fact that they are called french fries not because they originate from France but because the guy who invented them was called Adam French.

And he was american! That is what you call IRONY!
I call that STUPIDITY.
LauraGrad
28-10-2004, 15:47
Up the French for actually trying to stand up for world security. Granted the world is way better off with out Saddam, but no where near being safer. As for the american hatred of the french it's like the supposed increase in anti amercanism in Europe it's the government the people dislike not the people.
Shalrirorchia
28-10-2004, 15:50
There is nothing wrong with French people. This bile being spouted off is by little-minded idiots who are being plied by the Bush Campaign.

May I remind my fellow Americans that our French FRIENDS helped us achieve independence from Great Britain? And that we then later on saved France from Nazi Germany? We have a history of friendship with France.
Demented Hamsters
28-10-2004, 16:09
I hate the French because the French hate me.
Isn't that a tad arrogant of you? What have you done for an entire nation to hate you? You're not GWB by any chance?


There is no reason France (or China) should be on the UN security council either. They have no real power, and all it does is let them veto acts proposed by other progressive nations. And I'm not saying let a country that wants to lick America's boots be on the security council either. Let Germany or Australia or India be on it. They are growing, strong nations.
China has no real power? China isn't a growing, strong nation?
Do you even know where China is?
FYI, it has a population of 1.2Billion (1/5 of the World's population). It has one of the fastest growing economies in the World and has recorded significant growth every quarter over the last thirty years. It is averaging over 9% growth per quarter. That's every THREE months (sorry to drum it in, but I thought it needed to be with such a outrageous comment as above).
It's second only to the US in terms of oil usage, and this ranking expected to reverse within the next few years. The US is majorly worried because at present the Chinese have pegged their currency against the US dollar (over valued it too, which helps their exports), but if they were to peg it against the Euro, it would totally screw the US economy.
In 1984 LA games, they won their first ever gold medal. That made the Govt decide to do something. 20 years later, they win 32. That should tell you something about how single-minded they can be.
They have nuclear weapons. They have an army that runs into the millions. And they have a controlled media that has indoctrinated their ppl into believing anything the Govt tells them.
Psylos
28-10-2004, 16:14
China has no real power? China isn't a growing, strong nation?
Do you even know where China is?
FYI, it has a population of 1.2Billion (1/5 of the World's population). It has one of the fastest growing economies in the World and has recorded significant growth every quarter over the last thirty years. It is averaging over 9% growth per quarter. That's every THREE months (sorry to drum it in, but I thought it needed to be with such a outrageous comment as above).
It's second only to the US in terms of oil usage, and this ranking expected to reverse within the next few years. The US is majorly worried because at present the Chinese have pegged their currency against the US dollar (over valued it too, which helps their exports), but if they were to peg it against the Euro, it would totally screw the US economy.
In 1984 LA games, they won their first ever gold medal. That made the Govt decide to do something. 20 years later, they win 32. That should tell you something about how single-minded they can be.
They have nuclear weapons. They have an army that runs into the millions. And they have a controlled media that has indoctrinated their ppl into believing anything the Govt tells them.
The economy is not everything.
I agree with you that china is a major player in world though, but for other reasons.
Helioterra
28-10-2004, 16:21
There is no reason France (or China) should be on the UN security council either. They have no real power, and all it does is let them veto acts proposed by other progressive nations. And I'm not saying let a country that wants to lick America's boots be on the security council either. Let Germany or Australia or India be on it. They are growing, strong nations.


I think you're absolutely right: France and China should loose their veto rights.
But then again,
So should the rest of them too.

Nothing wrong with France (ok, some minor problems), But then again, I shouldn't take part as I'm not American (or French).
But I love French cinema.
Andaluciae
28-10-2004, 16:21
There isn't much America bashing, there is a lot of Bush bashing which isn't the same thing.

People call you that because you agree with about 98% of the Bush Admin policies.

What about the "America's most unjust wars thread". That seems to be anti-american. Or possibly the "Americans are out for oil" thread, where thy say that we are all out for oil, not just Bush. Or maybe the "America deserved 9/11" thread. Might I bring up the conspiracy theory thread that insinuates the US hit the pentagon with a cruise missile?
Helioterra
28-10-2004, 16:27
What about the "America's most unjust wars thread". That seems to be anti-american. Or possibly the "Americans are out for oil" thread, where thy say that we are all out for oil, not just Bush. Or maybe the "America deserved 9/11" thread. Might I bring up the conspiracy theory thread that insinuates the US hit the pentagon with a cruise missile?
An American started the thread and almost everyone discussing about it is American. You should have a thread with titled "World's most unjust war" to get people bashing other countries.
Wandern
28-10-2004, 16:36
Personally, I like the French.
McGeever
28-10-2004, 16:39
The fact that most of the America-bashers are themselves American just shows how dumb it is. A lot of the opposition to Bush's and America's policy is based on innuendos or outright lies perpetuated by the overwhelmingly anti-Bush media.

As for the French, we (conservatives and moderates) don't like them because they attack us; because they oppose our fight against terrorist states, and in particular because their government took huge oil bribes from Saddam to veto our invasion of Iraq. They have done everything short of shouting, "we declare ourselves an enemy of the USA!"

I won't be suprised at all if in the next ten years we find that Chiraq has knowingly sheltered and/or hidden islamicists in France. If we do find evidence of it, there will be war...
Helioterra
28-10-2004, 16:42
I won't be suprised at all if in the next ten years we find that Chiraq has knowingly sheltered and/or hidden islamicists in France. If we do find evidence of it, there will be war...
Goosh, You certainly know alot about France. :rolleyes:
Chiraq sheltering islamistics...
aaaaaaaaaahhh
Can't deal with this kind of stupidity, have to leave before I start screaming...
Kanabia
28-10-2004, 16:43
I won't be suprised at all if in the next ten years we find that Chiraq has knowingly sheltered and/or hidden islamicists in France. If we do find evidence of it, there will be war...

You obviously have no idea of the problems France has with its Muslim minority (And are probably uninterested in rectifying that.) Furthermore, the idea that there would be war between the two nations is absolutely ludicrous to the point where I had to read that THREE times to actually let it truly sink in.

Then again, I should have stopped reading your post once you said anti-bush media. I apologise, I should have realised you were one of those.
Psylos
28-10-2004, 16:47
The fact that most of the America-bashers are themselves American just shows how dumb it is. A lot of the opposition to Bush's and America's policy is based on innuendos or outright lies perpetuated by the overwhelmingly anti-Bush media.

As for the French, we (conservatives and moderates) don't like them because they attack us; because they oppose our fight against terrorist states, and in particular because their government took huge oil bribes from Saddam to veto our invasion of Iraq. They have done everything short of shouting, "we declare ourselves an enemy of the USA!"

I won't be suprised at all if in the next ten years we find that Chiraq has knowingly sheltered and/or hidden islamicists in France. If we do find evidence of it, there will be war...
War with France? lol.
Try North Korea for a start.
Utracia
28-10-2004, 17:19
Hey two democracies never go tho war with each other right?

Besides I would like to see Paris before I die and no American bombs are going to mess the city up!!
Planta Genestae
28-10-2004, 17:23
Hey two democracies never go tho war with each other right?

Besides I would like to see Paris before I die and no American bombs are going to mess the city up!!

I'm British and have to admit that central Paris is a far nicer city than any we have over here.
Planta Genestae
28-10-2004, 17:29
Up the French for actually trying to stand up for world security. Granted the world is way better off with out Saddam

How is the world better off without Saddam?

Now because we went to war with Iraq most countries would rather be Islamist Fundamentalist states or Totalitarian than be democracies like the countries that they now hate even more because of this stupid war.

British people are far more in danger of being terrorist targets both at home and abroard than they ever were.

If foreign policy is designed to further British interests abroard and make Britain more secure then this government has done the complete oppsite.

Saddam was a bad guy, true. But speaking selfishly Britain was better off when he was in power.
Iakeokeo
28-10-2004, 18:24
[QUOTE: Siljhouettes #1]
In this forum there is relentless blasting of French people. I can understand you neocon sycophants hating the French government for not going with Saint Bush on Iraq. But why do you extend your hatred to the entire nation and people of France. I can't tell you how many times I've seen "I just hate the French" and "I'm boycotting everything French". How is this mature?

You'd think that the French people had dropped an atomic bomb on Washington from the way you Bush loyalists act. What have you got against the French people? Sure, most of them were anti-war, but that goes for everyone, even your ally Britain.

The french are quite fun to make fun of, and they (unintentionally) encourage their own being made fun of, therefore they are looked down on as one would look down on a bad comedian who insists that he is a good comedian.

The jokes are awful, but...

His reaction to being booed is hilarious, but...

That makes him actually angry, but...

That's even more hilarious, but...

He wants us to laugh at the jokes, not him..! So...

He gets really angry and degenerates into a 3 year-old, so...

We whince and walk away from his performance saying, "Sheesh, what a freakin' loser..!"
Utracia
28-10-2004, 18:27
Shouldn't make fun of any country with nukes... Besides I have nothing against France. China is the most annoying country. They make crap and ship it here. Didn't products used to be quality than trash we get at Wal-Mart.
Iakeokeo
28-10-2004, 18:32
[QUOTE=Planta Genestae #117]
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraGrad
Up the French for actually trying to stand up for world security. Granted the world is way better off with out Saddam

How is the world better off without Saddam?

Now because we went to war with Iraq most countries would rather be Islamist Fundamentalist states or Totalitarian than be democracies like the countries that they now hate even more because of this stupid war.

British people are far more in danger of being terrorist targets both at home and abroard than they ever were.

If foreign policy is designed to further British interests abroard and make Britain more secure then this government has done the complete oppsite.

Saddam was a bad guy, true. But speaking selfishly Britain was better off when he was in power.

And we'd all be much "better off" under a world dictator that told us precisely what to think and what is good and what we can have, and who's german speaking descendants would rule the world forever and ever because the world was being efficiently and systematically depopulated of all the non-their-race groups of people.

Sometimes the cake requires a few eggshells to be broken.
McGeever
28-10-2004, 18:49
Since you apparently want to argue about these subjects, let me first say this: even though to me you are with "them" on the left, I will calmly make my points and try not to insult you; you should do the same. On the other hand, if you prefer incoherent shouting to reasoned discussion, I can write rude slogans as well. It is your choice.

I am familiar with France's problems with Islamicists; I just don't think Chiraq is going to do anything effective. In fact, I think that since he took bribes from Saddam to support him, it is completely reasonable to expect him to do the same thing again, this time with terrorists. Chiraq is already in legal trouble for being caught taking bribes while he was Paris's mayor; once his presidential immunity to legal prosecution ends, he will go to jail for it.

As for war with France, while Bush is probably too moderate to do it, remember: both the Republican and the Democratic parties' platforms call for treating states that "aid and abet" terrorists exactly the same as the terrorists themselves. That's why we invaded Iraq. Being a European nation does not grant protection. If France launched missiles at our ships, we wouldn't care that they were France and not Iraq; being caught hiding terrorists could have the same result.

On the issue of liberal media, they themselves say in every poll that they are liberal. This is the most recent one: http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp#conservative
Note the key statistic: 62% liberal, 15% conservative. If you have actual polls that show differently, feel free to post the links to them.

In the US population it is either evenly divided or more conservatives than liberals. Look at the polls; no one predicts 60% to 15% for Kerry, every poll is within 10% of even.

As for North Korea, well, Bush has already cleaned up the world's messes in Afghanistan and Iraq. Two wars is enough for one president to run, so North Korea will have to wait. Of course, Bush is running multilateral talks with North Korea, China, and Russia, but I doubt the North Koreans will give up the nuklear weapons Clinton gave them the time to make.

As for being better off without Saddam, it depends how much you are worried about terrorist attacks. If you think that each country should just wait for the terrorists to attack its own people before fighting them, maybe you should not be in the war. However, your people picked your leader, and he picked your side of the War on Terror until you elect someone else.
Allers
28-10-2004, 18:58
but i don't give a fuck .
and what concern U.S i have one tip for you go away it stink there.
so eat more french fries and get even dikker then you will surely be stuk to you chair and truth
whith a lot of fun absurdity.com cheers :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:
Pikistan
28-10-2004, 19:27
but i don't give a fuck .
and what concern U.S i have one tip for you go away it stink there.
so eat more french fries and get even dikker then you will surely be stuk to you chair and truth
whith a lot of fun absurdity.com cheers :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

Excuse moi, monseur, but if you're going to insult us Americans, at least use English that is remotely decipherable. It's pointless to yell at us if we can't understand what you're saying.

Merci Beaucoup! Au Revoir!
Hertzland
28-10-2004, 19:28
Bush being too moderate to do it? I think more aptly it's Bush not being crazy enough to do it, or further, Bush seeing no profit or gain in it. I don't believe he'll ever send troops to North Korea for that matter either. A lot of people in this thread have been arguing on the basis of political principles. I think some are forgetting political and economic profit.

On to france:
France, at least these days, weilds a disproportionate amount of power for its size and scope, at least, I believe it does. It has veto power in the UN, as does Russia, China, the US, and Britain. But even so, if it decides to use or even threaten to use its power (and I might add, to thwart unilateral military action by an imperialist nation) It should be allowed to do so.

And earlier on, I read somebody claiming that people judge the American people by its leader and not by its country in a whole, but at the same time, I think I read that they were using a similar excuse to pin Chirac against a wall for aiding and abetting (this is a liberal media phrase coined by Washington's spin doctors) the world's terrorist regimes. For the rest of the world, Bush represents america because his democracy put him into power. His electoral college did, anyway.) If Chirac represents France, he only does so, politically.

It's time to put this ugly business with the French to bed. I'm Canadian. I didn't support the war in Iraq, and neither did my government. A nation shouldn't be chastised for holding its own beliefs. That's why we're here in Nationstates, isn't it?
McGeever
28-10-2004, 19:56
Bush isn't out to get political gain, he is supporting what his half of America thinks we should be doing. For example, he has supported privatisation of Social Security. This is a reasonable idea, but a politically unfavorable one because Democrats usually respond with scare tactics.

France does have too much power. As for unilateral... Can you understand that a coalition can exist without France, Germany, or Canada being members? Look, for starters, at: Britain, Poland, Italy, and Australia. They are the major powers which support us with troops. Many, many other smaller countries have troops fighting bravely, including:

Czech Republic — 296 troops and three civilians running a field hospital in Basra, and a small detachment of military police.
Denmark — 406 troops, including light infantry, medics and military police. An additional 90 soldiers are being sent.
Georgia — 69 troops, including 34 special forces soldiers, 15 engineers and 20 medics.
Estonia — 55 troops.
Hungary — 300 transportation troops.
Italy — 3,000 troops.
Japan — Delays a decision Thursday on sending troops to Iraq, citing security concerns after a surge in anti-coalition violence.
Kazakhstan — 27 troops.
Latvia — 106 troops.
Lithuania — 90 troops.
Macedonia — 28 troops.
Moldova — Dozens of de-mining specialists and medics.
Netherlands — 1,106 troops, including 650 marines, three Chinook transport helicopters, a logistics team, a field hospital, a commando contingent, military police and a unit of 230 military engineers.
New Zealand — 61 army engineers for reconstruction work in southern Iraq.
Norway — 156 troops, including engineers and mine clearers.
Philippines — 177 troops.
Poland — 2,400 troops, command of one of three military sectors in Iraq.
Portugal — 120 police officers.
Romania — 800 troops, including 405 infantry, 149 de-mining specialists and 100 military police, along with a 56-member special intelligence detachment.
Slovakia — 82 military engineers.
South Korea — 675 non-combat troops with more forces on the way. But Seoul will cap its force at 3,000 rebuffing Washington's request for additional soldiers.
Spain — 1,300 troops, mostly assigned to police duties in south-central Iraq.
Thailand — 400 troops assigned to humanitarian operations.
Ukraine — 1,640 troops.
United Kingdom — 7,400 troops, with an additional 1,200 planned.

Our problem with French opposition over Iraq is not that they opposed us but that Chiraq blatantly took bribes from Saddam and was funding his military, and abused the UN veto to prevent the UN from actually voting to support us (which they would have done otherwise).

Bush is America's president, and if there are Americans who don't want to have him they can always move to France, or vote him out.

The same goes for French under Chiraq. They can always move here or vote in a better man.
Freedomfrize
28-10-2004, 19:57
I keep an eye on US press, and I'd be curious to know how all the self righteous readers there would feel if the word "French" was replaced by any other nationality or minority's name, like "Mexican" or "Black" or "Jew"... ewww, nasty, isn't it? You wouldn't dare to do it with anyone else... and yet, your stupid murderous war was also refused by a lot of other people, among others Germany and Russia, but it's so good to have a scapegoat: blame it on the French! It really stinks a lot, a lot more than presumably the French...
Iakeokeo
28-10-2004, 20:40
Bush being too moderate to do it? I think more aptly it's Bush not being crazy enough to do it, or further, Bush seeing no profit or gain in it. I don't believe he'll ever send troops to North Korea for that matter either. A lot of people in this thread have been arguing on the basis of political principles. I think some are forgetting political and economic profit.

On to france:
France, at least these days, weilds a disproportionate amount of power for its size and scope, at least, I believe it does. It has veto power in the UN, as does Russia, China, the US, and Britain. But even so, if it decides to use or even threaten to use its power (and I might add, to thwart unilateral military action by an imperialist nation) It should be allowed to do so.

And earlier on, I read somebody claiming that people judge the American people by its leader and not by its country in a whole, but at the same time, I think I read that they were using a similar excuse to pin Chirac against a wall for aiding and abetting (this is a liberal media phrase coined by Washington's spin doctors) the world's terrorist regimes. For the rest of the world, Bush represents america because his democracy put him into power. His electoral college did, anyway.) If Chirac represents France, he only does so, politically.

It's time to put this ugly business with the French to bed. I'm Canadian. I didn't support the war in Iraq, and neither did my government. A nation shouldn't be chastised for holding its own beliefs. That's why we're here in Nationstates, isn't it?

Yes,.. you are CANADIAN.

(( "Canadian" being the operative insult here. :) ))
Iakeokeo
28-10-2004, 20:45
I keep an eye on US press, and I'd be curious to know how all the self righteous readers there would feel if the word "French" was replaced by any other nationality or minority's name, like "Mexican" or "Black" or "Jew"... ewww, nasty, isn't it? You wouldn't dare to do it with anyone else... and yet, your stupid murderous war was also refused by a lot of other people, among others Germany and Russia, but it's so good to have a scapegoat: blame it on the French! It really stinks a lot, a lot more than presumably the French...

No,.. the french deserve all the jibes they get, because they are masochistic by nature.

They actually like it. And the "complaining" is part of the game. It makes them feel "important".

They are no more important than anyone else (and much less so than America), and that fact pisses them off no end. And they need some "love" because of it.

So do a surrender-monkey a favor, and give 'em another big old whack on the ass..!!
Ulrichland
28-10-2004, 21:00
Bush isn't out to get political gain, he is supporting what his half of America thinks we should be doing. For example, he has supported privatisation of Social Security. This is a reasonable idea, but a politically unfavorable one because Democrats usually respond with scare tactics.

France does have too much power. As for unilateral... Can you understand that a coalition can exist without France, Germany, or Canada being members? Look, for starters, at: Britain, Poland, Italy, and Australia. They are the major powers which support us with troops. Many, many other smaller countries have troops fighting bravely, including:

Czech Republic — 296 troops and three civilians running a field hospital in Basra, and a small detachment of military police.
Denmark — 406 troops, including light infantry, medics and military police. An additional 90 soldiers are being sent.
Georgia — 69 troops, including 34 special forces soldiers, 15 engineers and 20 medics.
Estonia — 55 troops.
Hungary — 300 transportation troops.
Italy — 3,000 troops.
Japan — Delays a decision Thursday on sending troops to Iraq, citing security concerns after a surge in anti-coalition violence.
Kazakhstan — 27 troops.
Latvia — 106 troops.
Lithuania — 90 troops.
Macedonia — 28 troops.
Moldova — Dozens of de-mining specialists and medics.
Netherlands — 1,106 troops, including 650 marines, three Chinook transport helicopters, a logistics team, a field hospital, a commando contingent, military police and a unit of 230 military engineers.
New Zealand — 61 army engineers for reconstruction work in southern Iraq.
Norway — 156 troops, including engineers and mine clearers.
Philippines — 177 troops.
Poland — 2,400 troops, command of one of three military sectors in Iraq.
Portugal — 120 police officers.
Romania — 800 troops, including 405 infantry, 149 de-mining specialists and 100 military police, along with a 56-member special intelligence detachment.
Slovakia — 82 military engineers.
South Korea — 675 non-combat troops with more forces on the way. But Seoul will cap its force at 3,000 rebuffing Washington's request for additional soldiers.
Spain — 1,300 troops, mostly assigned to police duties in south-central Iraq.
Thailand — 400 troops assigned to humanitarian operations.
Ukraine — 1,640 troops.
United Kingdom — 7,400 troops, with an additional 1,200 planned.

Our problem with French opposition over Iraq is not that they opposed us but that Chiraq blatantly took bribes from Saddam and was funding his military, and abused the UN veto to prevent the UN from actually voting to support us (which they would have done otherwise).

Bush is America's president, and if there are Americans who don't want to have him they can always move to France, or vote him out.

The same goes for French under Chiraq. They can always move here or vote in a better man.

Nice post man, but don´t forget:

Do you get any popular support from those nations? Hell no. Most of those "governments" didn´t listen to their own people and decided to give Bush the cunilingus he asked for...

Oh well.

BTW, next time you cut and paste such crap, be sure to check your facts. Last time I check there weren´t 1300 SPANISH troops down there...

And spare us statements like "troops fighting bravely", because most of those troops sit eitehr far behind and dangerous combat zone OR are dug in somewhere in the desert and don´t dare to get close to anything which remotley looks like a Iraqi...
East Canuck
28-10-2004, 21:03
Our problem with French opposition over Iraq is not that they opposed us but that Chiraq blatantly took bribes from Saddam and was funding his military, and abused the UN veto to prevent the UN from actually voting to support us (which they would have done otherwise).

First of all, Chirac didn't take bribes from Irak. Second of all, some americans companies are as much guilty of funding Saddam as french ones (haliburton).

About the veto: If the french didn't veto, the germans and russia would have. Also, when someone screams misuse of veto, it has to look no further than the us who are the biggest user of the veto power. Not to mention that many countries complained that their hand was being forced by the US in voting for them in the first place.
Ulrichland
28-10-2004, 21:08
About the veto: If the french didn't veto, the germans and russia would have. Also, when someone screams misuse of veto, it has to look no further than the us who are the biggest user of the veto power. Not to mention that many countries complained that their hand was being forced by the US in voting for them in the first place.

Dude, Germany holds no veto-power in the UN...
East Canuck
28-10-2004, 21:24
Dude, Germany holds no veto-power in the UN...
My mistake. My point stands with Russia though.
Friedmanville
28-10-2004, 21:25
What I like about the French is that they don't take any shit from Greenpeace and they don't ratify treaties when it's not in their interest. GO FRANCE!
Caelisia
28-10-2004, 21:38
My mistake. My point stands with Russia though.

Don't forget China. They, too, were leaning towards veto.
Caelisia
28-10-2004, 21:52
Bush isn't out to get political gain, he is supporting what his half of America thinks we should be doing.

You mean, "he is doing what his political support base thinks he should be doing." That's leadership. Following the will of the minority you're dependant upon to win re-election, regardless of its effect on the nation.


For example, he has supported privatisation of Social Security. This is a reasonable idea, but a politically unfavorable one because Democrats usually respond with scare tactics.

Or because it's a batsh*t insane idea, that, if implemented when he first proposed it, would have resulted in millions losing their Soc. Sec. coverage due to the market downturn. If that had happened, Soc. Sec. would have *lost* money over the last four years. Market's lower than in 2000, bub. Quick history lesson:
1. 1929 market crash.
2. Millions of seniors starve due to market instability.
3. Social security enacted to act as buffer against market instability.
4. Bush proposes linking social security directly to market.

Great idea.


France does have too much power.

Yes, a nuclear power which also happens to be the dominant member of the EU should have no say in geopolitics. Because only Americans should be able to say what other countries should be doing.


As for unilateral... Can you understand that a coalition can exist without France, Germany, or Canada being members?

Yes. But I'd prefer our coalition to be made up of actual world players instead of satellite states.


Look, for starters, at: Britain, Poland, Italy, and Australia. They are the major powers which support us with troops.

If you ignore the fact that Italy's pulled out and Poland's looking to, yes. And if you want to call Australia, Poland, and Italy "Major Powers," despite the fact that only Australia could even be considered a REGIONAL power, and even then only by default of the fact that isn't much competition in Oceana.

Many, many other smaller countries have troops fighting bravely, including:
Long list of nations sending double-digit armies, most of which did so in exchange for bribes, and many of which have pulled out by now.

Our problem with French opposition over Iraq is not that they opposed us but that Chiraq blatantly took bribes from Saddam and was funding his military, and abused the UN veto to prevent the UN from actually voting to support us (which they would have done otherwise).


Um...we blatantly gave bribes too. And, moreover, Chirac himself didn't so much take "bribes" as made "under-the-table business deals." Sorta like Bechtel did. And KBR. And, yes, Halliburton.

And the UN supporting us?! Are you on crack? Disregarding the fact that the majority of the council was against the resolution, CHINA AND RUSSIA BOTH pledged to veto!

And, as for the military funding...
http://cnparm.home.texas.net/911/Backg/Rumsfeld-Saddam.jpg
They weren't the only ones.
McGeever
28-10-2004, 22:12
Insulting an ethnic or religious group is different, because they usually do not abide by their leader's decisions to the extent countries do, and their leaders can't throw them in prison for disobeying. Also, our insults of France are generally based on reality, so comparing them to another country doesn't work unless that country has the same faults. Remember what I said earlier about insults? your "stupid, murderous" leaders are doing nothing as we protect the entire world from terrorists.

As for the governments, you are correct that Spain is no longer one of the more than 30 countries supporting Bush. As for the fighting, maybe you should check your "crap", too. We annihilated the last of the Iraqi army some time ago. Now we are just acting as security guards to kill the (non-Iraqi) terrorists who are streaming in to try to kill us before the Iraqi elections set up a peaceful government. They intentionally attack civilians everywhere in Iraq to create terror, and no soldier is more safe or less safe anywhere in Iraq. If anything, just carrying a gun and wearing a uniform makes them targets. Finally, I will say this: the soldiers are bravely fighting to protect you. Don't even you feel a little guilt at insulting their sacrifice? It is generally reasonable to disagree with a general's decision, but I think it is beyond the bounds of civil discourse to insult those fighting to protect you. Don't you think so?

This brings me to an important country that wasn't on the list: Iraq. Their soldiers are fighting with ours, and as we phase back our troops, they will continue to protect their own country with their blood. Most of them don't even agree with the islamicists.

Chirac DID have a bunch of corruption scandals. Look here: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Corruption_scandals_in_the_Paris_region

Halliburton is just a liberal bogeyman. I have above posted an independent site describing Chirac's crimes. Post your best source for actual wrongdoing by Halliburton; I researched them and they seem clean to me. Can you find anything more substantial than "halliburton...bad..."?

About the veto: If Chirac hadn't been taking bribes we might have worked something out with the Russians. It is misuse of the veto power to be paid to use it for another country's benefit, just like selling your vote in an election is voter fraud. Similarly, using the veto appropriately and often, like voting normally in many elections, is completely reasonable.

I don't know about China either but I suspect they could be turned around if France werent going to veto. They have a big problem with islamicists too you know. For that matter, so does Russia.
Caelisia
28-10-2004, 22:17
I am familiar with France's problems with Islamicists; I just don't think Chiraq is going to do anything effective. In fact, I think that since he took bribes from Saddam to support him, it is completely reasonable to expect him to do the same thing again, this time with terrorists. Chiraq is already in legal trouble for being caught taking bribes while he was Paris's mayor; once his presidential immunity to legal prosecution ends, he will go to jail for it.


You're obviously completely and totally unaware of the situation in France. Chirac merely does what is popular at home. He's a poll-driven pol. Now, the Iraq war was extremely unpopular in France, and not because of Chirac's opposition, either. However, Muslims in general do tend to annoy the French. I assume you're aware of the "France for the French" reactionary movement. The French people wouldn't be averse to kicking North African ass for us. Or, that is, wouldn't have been if we hadn't completely severed ties with them. Sorry. Oh, and your final statement there is laughable.

As for war with France, while Bush is probably too moderate to do it, remember: both the Republican and the Democratic parties' platforms call for treating states that "aid and abet" terrorists exactly the same as the terrorists themselves. That's why we invaded Iraq. Being a European nation does not grant protection. If France launched missiles at our ships, we wouldn't care that they were France and not Iraq; being caught hiding terrorists could have the same result.

You're insane. You're f*cking insane. You are worse than insane. You are a warped, maniacal madman. This isn't just ad hominem at you. You seriously have no command of...anything.

1. France has a military. You may not have noticed this, but the French do indeed have a military. Now, we could indeed whip them, but there is the problem of Iraq. And North Korea. Our military can't be everywhere.

2. The EU *would* come to France's aid. They would have to by EU charter. We would have just declared war on all Europe. That's Germany we'd have to plow through too. And the UK would most likely just sit on the sidelines. So the war got a little harder, but still manageable, right?

3. France has nuclear weapons. Both tactical and strategic. Any landing or concentration of US forces would be obliterated, as would most American cities. France, of course, would go down too. Ain't that a trade?

4. Any other nation can do whatever the f*ck it wants to. North Korea could invade Japan. China could take down Japan, North Korea, South Korea, and Taiwan. India could nuke Pakistan and vice-versa, and China might try conquering them too. Who cares? The US is involved in an idiotic war against one of its allies, and physically cannot do anything to stop th.

On the issue of liberal media, they themselves say in every poll that they are liberal. This is the most recent one: http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp#conservative
Note the key statistic: 62% liberal, 15% conservative. If you have actual polls that show differently, feel free to post the links to them.


That number is meaningless. Journalists don't choose what gets put up, editors do. And editors lean conservative. But, nonetheless, let's look at favorable/negative coverage of Bush/Gore...
http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/campaign2000/lastlap/default.asp
Hmm? Did Bush get more positive than Gore? And did Gore get more negative than Bush? Yes? OMG! CRAZY LIBRUL MEEDIA TRIYING TO TRIK US!


As for North Korea, well, Bush has already cleaned up the world's messes in Afghanistan and Iraq. Two wars is enough for one president to run, so North Korea will have to wait. Of course, Bush is running multilateral talks with North Korea, China, and Russia, but I doubt the North Koreans will give up the nuklear weapons Clinton gave them the time to make.


Um...we can't invade North Korea. Even with a draft. They have nukes. They've pretty much achieved battlefield parity with us. We concentrate troops, our troops die. They concentrate troops, their soldiers die. More to the point, Tokyo dies, Seoul dies, LA dies, SF dies, Hawai'i dies. Our missile defense system *does not work.* Moreover, in case you missed it, DPRK kicked out inspectors and shut off cameras *under Bush.* Bush did *nothing.* Why? Because we were in the buildup to war with the major nuclear threat of Iraq.

As for being better off without Saddam, it depends how much you are worried about terrorist attacks. If you think that each country should just wait for the terrorists to attack its own people before fighting them, maybe you should not be in the war. However, your people picked your leader, and he picked your side of the War on Terror until you elect someone else.

But the Iraq war has actually increased Al Qaeda's recruitment numbers. And Saddam Hussein was not a threat. He had no conventional strength, he had no WMD programs, much less WMD, and was not supporting international terrorism (he did support anti-Israeli terror, but that's a whole different ballgame. It's childish to link the two.)

We're creating terrorists faster than we're killing them. Hydra effect. 98% of Iraqis think we're illegal occupiers, and want us out immediately. Allawi blames the United States for the ground situation. They hate us, and Bush is making it worse. Perhaps fighting terrorism--and not fighting Arabs--might be the better choice.
Kramers Intern
28-10-2004, 22:18
I don't hate the French in any way. I lost my virginity to a French girl. They've added a lot to culture. It disgusts me the foreign affairs attitude the US has gotten recently, the "you're either with us or against us," stance.

I had thought my fellow countryment would do better than that.

Eewww, what is wrong with you, I have no problem with France or the people but, French girls dont shave, and from what I have seen they are pretty ugly. But thats just what Ive seen, some might be hot.
Alinania
28-10-2004, 22:20
Eewww, what is wrong with you, I have no problem with France or the people but, French girls dont shave, and from what I have seen they are pretty ugly. But thats just what Ive seen, some might be hot.
yes. as we all know french people are ugly. it lies in their families. :rolleyes:
Caelisia
28-10-2004, 22:32
Um...I don't think the French care that you believe you're insulting them based on "fact." They obviously don't believe the same 'facts' you do. And that is where tact comes into play in politics.

Next, we didn't "annihilate" any Iraqi army. They dispersed in the main war and now we're still fighting them. Secondly, are you seriously claiming that we're not fighting Iraqis? Only 6% of those we've captured were non-Iraqi. Are the residents of Fallujah foreign-born? How about al-Sadr's army? I'm terribly sorry to break it to you, but you're arguing against both the DoD and the State Dept. here: the Iraq insurgence is a homegrown mess, and it's getting worse.

How in the hell am I insulting the troops? The administration and pentagon screwed this one up. Every success has been in spite of Bush and Rumsfeld, and entirely to the credit of our men in uniform. Don't tell me I don't support the troops.

Oh, good. Most Iraqi soldiers don't agree with islamicists. Surprisingly, it only takes one or two in a unit to betray 50 over to the fanatics. But that isn't the point. However, the Iraqi army, while brave, is moderately useless. They've yet to be able to sustain their own offensives. While Samarra was hopeful, remember what happened to the Fallujah brigade.

Independant...source? LOL! That's a farking Wiki article! It has no more credibility than you just writing it there!

Here:http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/02.03E.Hallib.Iraq.htm
Yeah, it's a lefty blog, but it's a Wash Post article.

Now you're just making things up. First of all, Saddam was not an islamist. He was a secular tyrant. Secondly, Chechnyans are seperatist rebels, not islamists. Thirdly, China has minor political problems in Xinjiang, and is peripherally involved in Kashmir, but doesn't really have a problem.

And you have absolutely no proof that Russia and China would have switched over if France would have too.

And America vetos left and right. Not "once in a while." We veto more than the other four permanant members combined.
Psylos
28-10-2004, 23:22
About the veto: If Chirac hadn't been taking bribes we might have worked something out with the Russians. It is misuse of the veto power to be paid to use it for another country's benefit, just like selling your vote in an election is voter fraud. Similarly, using the veto appropriately and often, like voting normally in many elections, is completely reasonable.

I don't know about China either but I suspect they could be turned around if France werent going to veto. They have a big problem with islamicists too you know. For that matter, so does Russia.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2828985.stm

USSR/Russia: 120 vetoes. Only two vetoes since the collapse of the Soviet Union
US: 77 vetoes. Blocked 36 resolutions criticising Israel.
UK: 32 vetoes, 23 times with the US. All solo UK vetoes on Zimbabwe
France: 18 vetoes, 13 with the US and UK
China: 5 vetoes

Since 9/11, the US has gone mad. It was a duty for France to use its veto, as an ally of the US, especially since France know what islamic terrorism is for having fought a war against Algeria already. Too bad the US was too badly shaken to act reasonably. Many people have died because of this.

Believe me no amount of oil and dollar was worth it.
Siljhouettes
28-10-2004, 23:29
There is no reason France (or China) should be on the UN security council either. They have no real power, and all it does is let them veto acts proposed by other progressive nations. And I'm not saying let a country that wants to lick America's boots be on the security council either. Let Germany or Australia or India be on it. They are growing, strong nations.
China is a rising world economic and military power, I think that they have more reason than ever to be on the UN Security Council. Where do you get the idea that Germany and Australia are "growing, strong nations"? I agree with putting India on the council permanently. Maybe Japan and Brazil too.
Siljhouettes
28-10-2004, 23:39
What about the "America's most unjust wars thread". That seems to be anti-american. Or possibly the "Americans are out for oil" thread, where thy say that we are all out for oil, not just Bush. Or maybe the "America deserved 9/11" thread. Might I bring up the conspiracy theory thread that insinuates the US hit the pentagon with a cruise missile?
"Most unjust wars" thread is against US governments in general, not people. The other two threads don't exist.

They have done everything short of shouting, "we declare ourselves an enemy of the USA!"

I won't be suprised at all if in the next ten years we find that Chiraq has knowingly sheltered and/or hidden islamicists in France. If we do find evidence of it, there will be war...
The French helped you out in Afghanistan, which, unlike Iraq, was an actual terrorist state. Your lusting for war with France is just perpetuating Republican stereotypes.
Psylos
28-10-2004, 23:52
A war between France and the US is actually what the islamic terrorists are dreaming about. Their past and present agressors fighting each others. They could just finish off the survivors.

Some republicans are so stupid they are becoming the biggest threat to the US. If only we could send them in the front line, it would be a good riddance.

Salaam aleikoum.
East Canuck
29-10-2004, 00:53
Insulting an ethnic or religious group is different, because they usually do not abide by their leader's decisions to the extent countries do, and their leaders can't throw them in prison for disobeying. Also, our insults of France are generally based on reality, so comparing them to another country doesn't work unless that country has the same faults. Remember what I said earlier about insults? your "stupid, murderous" leaders are doing nothing as we protect the entire world from terrorists.
Skipping the veracity of your insult on France as total nonsense, I have to ask you: You are protecting the entire world from terrorist? By being the number one cause of recruitment for al-qaeda? Also, there's a great many terrorist organisations that are not islamic. I don't see you lifting a finger elsewhere than the middle east.


As for the governments, you are correct that Spain is no longer one of the more than 30 countries supporting Bush. As for the fighting, maybe you should check your "crap", too. We annihilated the last of the Iraqi army some time ago. Now we are just acting as security guards to kill the (non-Iraqi) terrorists who are streaming in to try to kill us before the Iraqi elections set up a peaceful government. They intentionally attack civilians everywhere in Iraq to create terror, and no soldier is more safe or less safe anywhere in Iraq. If anything, just carrying a gun and wearing a uniform makes them targets. Finally, I will say this: the soldiers are bravely fighting to protect you. Don't even you feel a little guilt at insulting their sacrifice? It is generally reasonable to disagree with a general's decision, but I think it is beyond the bounds of civil discourse to insult those fighting to protect you. Don't you think so?
the majority of what you call terrorist in Iraq are Iraqi that are rebelling fromwhat they consider an occupation army. They are using the only method availlable: terrorism. And don't play the "You're insulting the soldiers" card. It's a lie and you know it. Besides, one could argue that we are supporting the soldiers by making sure they are not thrust in the middle of a war that shouldn't be fought in the first place.

Chirac DID have a bunch of corruption scandals. Look here: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Corruption_scandals_in_the_Paris_region
And none of those scandals are involving Iraq. Where is your link to the veto of the UN?


Halliburton is just a liberal bogeyman. I have above posted an independent site describing Chirac's crimes. Post your best source for actual wrongdoing by Halliburton; I researched them and they seem clean to me. Can you find anything more substantial than "halliburton...bad..."?
This has been refuted previously. I just want to tell you that Halliburton did have dealings with Iraq under the food for oil program. The one you're accusing France and Chirac of using to have dealings with Saddam. Put simply: ethics and business don't match. If there's money to be done, even illegally, there is a big company doing it.

About the veto: If Chirac hadn't been taking bribes we might have worked something out with the Russians. It is misuse of the veto power to be paid to use it for another country's benefit, just like selling your vote in an election is voter fraud. Similarly, using the veto appropriately and often, like voting normally in many elections, is completely reasonable.
Tell me why then the US is misusing his veto to help Israel build a wall that has been universally condemned?

I don't know about China either but I suspect they could be turned around if France werent going to veto. They have a big problem with islamicists too you know. For that matter, so does Russia.
The best you could have got from both Russia and China is a "no-vote". And believe me you had to spend quite a lot of money and political clout to get them to abstain.
The Cassini Belt
29-10-2004, 01:20
What's bad about the French government (not people)... off the top of my head...

* the military-industrial complex owns the newspapers

* their military advisers played a big part in the genocide in Rwanda

* they have always supported the insane Palestinian leaders who want to "throw the Zionist entity into the sea"

* their oil companies collected billions from Saddam with illegal oil deals under the UN's watchful eye, and their politicians collected tens of millions in bribes

* they tried to block any effective American counterattack after 9/11 using their position in the UN

* they have sold weapons to just about everyone who is anti-America or anti-UK (remember Exocet?)

* in Iraq, we are being shot at with brand new, shiny French Roland AA missiles manufactured in 2003

... do I need to continue?

We are not - quite - at war, but we are certainly enemies, no doubt about it.
Kanabia
29-10-2004, 02:51
What's bad about the French government (not people)... off the top of my head...

* the military-industrial complex owns the newspapers

General Electric owns NBC as well as making equipment for nearly every aircraft in the USAF. Your point?

I'll let others tackle the rest as they would likely have more knowledge than I.
Goed
29-10-2004, 03:25
* they have always supported the insane Palestinian leaders who want to "throw the Zionist entity into the sea"
And the US blindly supports any and everything Isreal is doing. I'm not taking sides, I'm just pointing out that we practically do the same.

* their oil companies collected billions from Saddam with illegal oil deals under the UN's watchful eye, and their politicians collected tens of millions in bribes
As did good ol' Halli, as Zeph stated earlier

* they tried to block any effective American counterattack after 9/11 using their position in the UN
When? They were with us for Afghanistan. If you mean Iraq, then you're mistaken-Iraq and 9/11 are not connected.

* they have sold weapons to just about everyone who is anti-America or anti-UK (remember Exocet?)
Actually, they probebly just sell weapons to everyone who will buy them. That's called "capitalism."

* in Iraq, we are being shot at with brand new, shiny French Roland AA missiles manufactured in 2003
As apposed to the weapons we sold them?

We are not - quite - at war, but we are certainly enemies, no doubt about it.
And another wrong statement. A winner is not you.
HadesRulesMuch
29-10-2004, 03:27
They have food that tastes good, but just isn't very filling. I say, a big ol' steak and potato works fine. At least their food is better than English food. Americans have the best food though, because of all the Chinese chefs.
Kanabia
29-10-2004, 03:38
* their military advisers played a big part in the genocide in Rwanda

Actually, come to think of it, i'd like to see a source of this...preferably not from Freerepublic, etc.

* in Iraq, we are being shot at with brand new, shiny French Roland AA missiles manufactured in 2003

Oh, look what I found.

http://www.jayreding.com/archives/2003/10/04/poles-backtrack-on-missile-claims

"France said it stopped producing any type of Roland missile in 1993."
The Cassini Belt
29-10-2004, 06:12
Actually, come to think of it, i'd like to see a source of this...preferably not from Freerepublic, etc.

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/04/return-to-rwanda-hat-tip-to-reader-bm.html

"France said it stopped producing any type of Roland missile in 1993."

Or so they claim. It's not just the Poles who found them, US troops have also found brand-new Rolands:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040908-123000-1796r.htm

"A week after Ewald's A-10 was downed, an Army team searching Iraqi weapons depots at the Baghdad airport discovered caches of French-made missiles. One anti-aircraft missile, among a cache of 51 Roland-2s from a French-German manufacturing partnership, bore a label indicating that the batch was produced just months earlier."

... and new Matra SNEB 68-millimeter rockets:

"The French missiles were "pristine," Navy SEAL commandos reported. "They were either new or kept in very good condition," said one SEAL who inspected the rocket tubes. The rockets were thought to have been taken from Iraq's French-made Alouette or Gazelle attack helicopters. "

... and there's plenty of other goodies, night-sights, parts for Mirage F-1 jets, helicopters, etc, that France imported during the sanctions.

I think Poland had to back off their claims in order not to jeopardise its EU membership.

Yep, France is an enemy all right.
Queensland Ontario
29-10-2004, 06:30
I live in Canada, and the whole multi cultural thing is a joke. French people hate english people in canada, its a rivalry between upper and lower canada. The whole things based on a time difference.....their living twenty years behind us. They do however make some pritty good maple syrup. Sticky bastards! but thats just canada.
Kanabia
29-10-2004, 06:35
Yep, France is an enemy all right.

Heh, interesting reads. Still can't tell whether they're completely accurate or not, but *shrugs* the French government is only the lesser evil to me :p
Peopleandstuff
29-10-2004, 07:13
As for the governments, you are correct that Spain is no longer one of the more than 30 countries supporting Bush.
You posted a list that includes numbers of troops and stated these countries have troops fighting in Iraq. Why post Spain (with troop numbers) on a list of current foreign troops fighting in Iraq if they are not (currently fighting in Iraq)?

Are you being dishonest intentionally, or are you unaware that the list you posted includes troops that are not currently fighting in Iraq, for instance Spain and New Zealand (at a quick glance)?
Zhaid
29-10-2004, 07:30
They have food that tastes good, but just isn't very filling. I say, a big ol' steak and potato works fine. At least their food is better than English food. Americans have the best food though, because of all the Chinese chefs.

Should come to Flanders, the real country of fries :D And then I'm not even mentioning the beer.
Psylos
29-10-2004, 08:03
What's bad about the French government (not people)... off the top of my head...

* the military-industrial complex owns the newspapers
Wrong. I'll concede that they may own 1 or maybe 2 newspapers, like any military-industrial complex in the world

* their military advisers played a big part in the genocide in Rwanda
Are you aware the genocide in Rwanda happened after the US insulted the UN and refused to acknowledge something was happening?

* they have always supported the insane Palestinian leaders who want to "throw the Zionist entity into the sea"
Maybe that is why France gave the nuclear weapon to Israel...

* their oil companies collected billions from Saddam with illegal oil deals under the UN's watchful eye, and their politicians collected tens of millions in bribes
The US supports Saudi Arabia's dictatorship and does the same.

* they tried to block any effective American counterattack after 9/11 using their position in the UN
Nothing to do with 9/11

* they have sold weapons to just about everyone who is anti-America or anti-UK (remember Exocet?)
But everyone is anti-US.

* in Iraq, we are being shot at with brand new, shiny French Roland AA missiles manufactured in 2003
And palestinians are shot with brand new F-16 and whatever.

... do I need to continue?

We are not - quite - at war, but we are certainly enemies, no doubt about it.
No you need to start over and find new reasons.
Cambridge Major
29-10-2004, 09:00
You *do* know that was supposed to be sarcastic, right? I suppose here it's rather hard to convey that via extremism. Sorry if it didn't come across.

How could it NOT have come across? It was positively dripping.
McGeever
29-10-2004, 17:15
Caelisia, remember what I said earlier about politeness?

You know, I imagined that most lefties just couldn't comprehend the wisdom that is conservatism, but you take it to the extreme. You are just spouting your opinion, sometimes supported by the opinions of equally biased newsmen. All your opinions are completely wrong, but since you won't listen to reason, I will ignore your ludicrous claims and respond mostly to the ones where you post actual facts.

France has a military; and I am sure both of their soldiers have guns and everything. Do you remember when the EU was planning to make a 60,000 man "quick response" team? They wanted to have a European force to fight wars with. They had trouble finding enough men to form it. 10,000 men to a division; 60,000 is 6 divisions. During WWII we had a peak of 95 army divisions deployed overseas and 6 marine divisions. We have (approximately) 200,000 men in Iraq, or 20 divisions. That leaves 81 if we mobilized for a real war, and we probably aren't using more than 30 divisions elsewhere. We could whip all of Europe (except for England which is still on our side) without breathing hard. That doesn't even count the vastly better training and equipment we give our soldiers compared to the Europeans. Our troops have been stationed in Europe protecting them so long that their armies are completely unprepared to fight any modern nation, much less the world's only superpower.

Furthermore, We don't need to invade them, because we have enough aircraft carriers (not used in Iraq at all) to conventionally bomb them into the stone age. We have 14 aircraft carriers (http://web.singnet.com/~jtann/facts.htm#List%20of%20Active%20American%20Aircraft%20Carriers), and I doubt France has even one.

France has nuklear weapons? who cares? I don't think they can fire enough to get past our missile defense( which DOES work), and even if they did, you know that unless a country has top-level maintenance and actually FIRES their nukes every so often, there is no way to tell which ones still work? There is no way to tell how many French nukes would blow up in the launch bay or just not work.

If any nation can do whatever the f*ck it wants to do, why are you so opposed to the US invading Iraq? No, wait, I've had enough of your incoherent slanderous stupidity for a lifetime, so don't bother to answer.

So you quote a... bunch of journalists... who say journalists aren't biased. But you think I am quoting a bad source? L O L!!! Also, if you had paid any attention to my link, you would have noticed that they also did a poll of editors: http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp#Newspaper
Who are also liberal. Even more, the journalists write the stories and the editors usually only choose what stories are run, so the journalists decide how biased the stories are.

As for North korea, once again, nukes won't deter a committed president. This isn't the first time we've had nukes pointed at us; look how we did in the Cold War. Oops, I guess you wouldn't want to apply that analogy; a conservative republican president whipped a (nuklear-armed) evil empire. As for that whole kicking out the inspectors, they only had to do it because all the stuff that Clinton let them build was about to be discovered by inspectors under Bush.

Iraq has vastly decreased Al Qaeda's recruitment numbers. 98% of Iraqis are worried that we will leave too soon and terrorists will get them. Now that Saddam isn't helping Al Qaeda, and Afghanistan is free too, most of the Al Qaeda leaders are dead. Personally, I think Osama Bin Laden is dead in a remote cave somewhere, but he is no longer important now because all the terrorists attacking us now are syrians and palestinians and iranians whom the Iraqis hate, and who are with groups like Hamas and Al-aqsa. Saddam did support Al Qaeda, and we have the documents in which he proposed a "general alliance". He wasn't religious but he hated America more than the terrorists; after all, they hadn't kicked his butt like we did under Bush senior.

As for WMDs, have you read the key document known as the Duelfer report? The short version is that Saddam was waiting impatiently for sanctions to end (which was inevitable given the then-UN political situation) so he could immediately reactivate his WMD program. Bush's message has always been one of pre-emptive strikes, hitting Iraq before it becomes a North Korea. After all, if it did, there would be many people like you saying "well, we can't invade now that they built WMDs". So when would you have us stop them? After they use all their WMDs on us?

When you say that "most of them are nowhere near anyplace dangerous", it is an insult to all the soldiers who are fighting terrorists and do not know whether a terrorist will attack their city block, and it is especially insulting to those who have died from foreign attacks.

My ideas just fly right over your head, don't they? who the **** do you think I was talking about being biased? Of course the biased journalists and editors don't think they are biased! Even if they did, they wouldn't say it in public! They would try to muddy the waters by claiming the opposite bias and then saying, "well, people on both sides say there is bias towards the other side, so we are fair," ... Oh wait, you linked to them doing that. As for the truth, look here: http://www.mediaresearch.org/SpecialReports/2004/report063004_p1.asp
Of course, I don't know if you can stand the caustic truth long enough to actually read all the facts there, unlike last time...

On the issue of vetoes, again you just can't seem to understand what I am saying: it doesn't matter how often a country uses their veto as long as they aren't being bribed to do it. Russia could veto twice as often as us and if they weren't being bribed it would be completely reasonable. As for switching, I didn't say they would, I said they might, because no one can know how they would have reacted if France weren't taking the heat for them. It doesn't matter anyway, because each country or person who votes (or vetos) a decision is responsible for the results; just as even a voter whose vote didn't make the difference in the election is responsible if his guy wins, even a veto-er whose veto didn't change the outcome is responsible for the consequences of that veto.

Pyslos, see my above points. Also, remember that it was France and Russia who got the corrupt oil deals, not us. We fought to kill terrorists, and we did a hell of a lot better than the French. Furthermore note that the Iraqis are getting all the oil in Iraq and we are paying to repair the damage that Saddam did. Not exactly the actions of a country trying to profit from a war, eh?

Siljhouettes, the american government is a representative government; it REPRESENTS the american nation and people. Insulting it is the same as insulting the country. Insulting individual members or policies is different, but that thread is definitely liberal. If you really want to know the truth, why not set up a poll of everyone's political views? I know what the result will be, but I think you will be suprised...

Psylos, you are ticking me off. Military personnel are overwhelmingly Republican. While we fight to protect our country, you slimy cowards on the left hide behind us and complain that we shouldn't be fighting. If you weren't hypocrites you would move to countries like Iran and see for yourself that terrorists don't care whether you support Bush or oppose him; to them, everyone who is not with them is evil, and they attack every country they can, trying to kill innocents.

As you, east canuck, you have nothing worth responding to: just unsubstantiated and wrong lies and insults. I have an accurate insult for you: canada is margarine to the butter that is america. Your country will never be successful or important in world affairs.

I have refuted all your arguments about everything I talked about already, in previous posts. I don't have time to correct you on every major political issue; look at the length of my post already. I could write a book about this stuff, but I have a real (and successful) life.

The rest of you... buzz off. You are wrong, and I am tired of arguing with so many of you (your numbers show just how lefty this place is). I have said enough about these issues, and while you may want to reply, I won't be looking at this thread again. There is no point for me to debate when you just don't listen to my points, or misrepresent them. If there are any other conservatives or moderates looking at this thread, feel free to continue where I am leaving off. :cool:
TooWeirdForWords
29-10-2004, 17:29
I was mugged in Paris, french people suck.
Iakeokeo
29-10-2004, 17:50
The french...

and Pyslos...

and Siljhouettes...

and Gigatron...

and East Canadia (Er,.. Canuck)...


..are worthy of our admiration for being such delightful examples of perfidious evil in their own special ways.

Thank you for your exemplary service in the unmasking of what the left is truly about.

All of humanity's subjugation cleverly disguised as intelligent humanitarianism.



OK,.. maybe that was a bit harsh,...

I'll grant the french an excuse due to history and nicotine addiction.

As to the rest of you....! <wags finger vehemently>




:D
TJHairball
29-10-2004, 19:59
France has a military; and I am sure both of their soldiers have guns and everything. Do you remember when the EU was planning to make a 60,000 man "quick response" team? They wanted to have a European force to fight wars with. They had trouble finding enough men to form it. 10,000 men to a division; 60,000 is 6 divisions. During WWII we had a peak of 95 army divisions deployed overseas and 6 marine divisions. We have (approximately) 200,000 men in Iraq, or 20 divisions. That leaves 81 if we mobilized for a real war, and we probably aren't using more than 30 divisions elsewhere. We could whip all of Europe (except for England which is still on our side) without breathing hard. That doesn't even count the vastly better training and equipment we give our soldiers compared to the Europeans. Our troops have been stationed in Europe protecting them so long that their armies are completely unprepared to fight any modern nation, much less the world's only superpower.
McGeever, you make some very poor conclusions here. There is a great deal of difference between digging up 60,000 troops to place under joint EU command to fight what will presumably be "exterior" wars that do not involve direct threats to Europe, and actually defending Europe.

France, in spite of being at peace, still has nearly 300,000 in the armed services, roughly 65% of these being in the army. If attacked, they will not be fighting alone.
Furthermore, We don't need to invade them, because we have enough aircraft carriers (not used in Iraq at all) to conventionally bomb them into the stone age. We have 14 aircraft carriers (http://web.singnet.com/~jtann/facts.htm#List%20of%20Active%20American%20Aircraft%20Carriers), and I doubt France has even one.
France, actually, does indeed have an operational nuclear fleet carrier, which puts them just below the UK and US with regard to naval carrier force projection, and unlike the Russians, they actually can afford to operate theirs. France, however, has generally concentrated on air force over navy, and their ground based air force has numbers and planes that are quite capable of competing with what the US Navy can project overseas on those terms. The USAF, of course, will proudly claim to be better trained, but if you think that the French air force would be an easy pushover the way the Iraqi air force was in the first Gulf War, you probably should think twice.

The Brazilians also have a fleet carrier... which they bought from the French. India and China have been making motions towards joining the elite club of fleet carrier operators, but aren't there yet.
France has nuklear weapons? who cares? I don't think they can fire enough to get past our missile defense( which DOES work), and even if they did, you know that unless a country has top-level maintenance and actually FIRES their nukes every so often, there is no way to tell which ones still work? There is no way to tell how many French nukes would blow up in the launch bay or just not work.
France has one of the most extensively tested nuclear programs, actually; they've detonated an estimated 200 nuclear devices and retain 350 for use last I heard. Haven't heard of many failures there, so if they drop the bomb on someone, it's probably going to work.

They have nuclear ballistic submarines, and if it came to it, probably would be able to deliver nukes onto American soil.
As for North korea, once again, nukes won't deter a committed president. This isn't the first time we've had nukes pointed at us; look how we did in the Cold War. Oops, I guess you wouldn't want to apply that analogy; a conservative republican president whipped a (nuklear-armed) evil empire.
Did you mean commited in the sense of determined, or commited in the sense of insane? It is, btw, nuclear, not nuklear... and the president who had nukes pointed at him and actually was in a situation where launch was likely was JFK, who - last I checked - wasn't a conservative Republican.

Did Reagan ever attempt military action against the USSR or any Soviet bloc members? It'd be a surprise to me to find that out. Small Latin American countries, yes; aid to train Afghanis, yes; sell arms to Iran and Iraq, yes. Attack the USSR? Heck no. Reagan wasn't that stupid. He "won" through economics, if you care to consider it solely his pressure to overspend and not largely the cumulative internal pressures resulting from, among other things, enormous spending on the space race, the military, and scientific research after the wholesale slaughter and destruction of WWII.
Iraq has vastly decreased Al Qaeda's recruitment numbers. 98% of Iraqis are worried that we will leave too soon and terrorists will get them. Now that Saddam isn't helping Al Qaeda, and Afghanistan is free too, most of the Al Qaeda leaders are dead. Personally, I think Osama Bin Laden is dead in a remote cave somewhere, but he is no longer important now because all the terrorists attacking us now are syrians and palestinians and iranians whom the Iraqis hate, and who are with groups like Hamas and Al-aqsa. Saddam did support Al Qaeda, and we have the documents in which he proposed a "general alliance". He wasn't religious but he hated America more than the terrorists; after all, they hadn't kicked his butt like we did under Bush senior.
Corrections: Al-Qaeda's recruitment office loves the Iraq war. Can you imagine a better source of anti-American propaganda? The lovely part is they don't even have to lie or exaggerate to produce material that most of their potential recruits find inflammatory! Iraqis are resisting. Most of the Iraqis would like to see us out of the country. Bush's claim only went as far as "75% of known Al-Qaeda leaders," which is probably a bad sign if you think about it too much... or, if you will, completely meaningless. How do you define a leader? How many aren't known? Those are the more dangerous ones. I have yet to see conclusive evidence that Saddam had a whit to do with the final WTC bombings. In fact, most of the "evidence" trying to show links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda has not panned out.
As for WMDs, have you read the key document known as the Duelfer report? The short version is that Saddam was waiting impatiently for sanctions to end (which was inevitable given the then-UN political situation) so he could immediately reactivate his WMD program. Bush's message has always been one of pre-emptive strikes, hitting Iraq before it becomes a North Korea. After all, if it did, there would be many people like you saying "well, we can't invade now that they built WMDs". So when would you have us stop them? After they use all their WMDs on us?
Never heard of it. Probably isn't even worth the paper it is written on.

Bush stated that Iraq had WMDs when he was justifying the invasion. Clearly, if he had to wait for sanctions to end, then ... voila, the sanctions were working. Not like that conclusion? Toss that report out then, because that logically follows.
Pyslos, see my above points. Also, remember that it was France and Russia who got the corrupt oil deals, not us. We fought to kill terrorists, and we did a hell of a lot better than the French. Furthermore note that the Iraqis are getting all the oil in Iraq and we are paying to repair the damage that Saddam did. Not exactly the actions of a country trying to profit from a war, eh?
"We" are paying Haliburton through the nose. It's very clear to me that certain parties within the US are profiting a great deal from the war on Iraq; that the whole country doesn't surprises me little.
Siljhouettes, the american government is a representative government; it REPRESENTS the american nation and people. Insulting it is the same as insulting the country. Insulting individual members or policies is different, but that thread is definitely liberal. If you really want to know the truth, why not set up a poll of everyone's political views? I know what the result will be, but I think you will be suprised...
If you think you know what the result is, you're unlikely to manage a fairly run poll. Speaking as an American... the government is not the same as the people. The government was not voted for by all of the people. There are opposing factions - in the case of Bush, a plurality of voters actually selected another candidate. Additionally, elected officials may deviate from what the people elected them to be; in no way is criticizing the politicians making up an administration equivalent to criticism of the entire country.
Psylos, you are ticking me off. Military personnel are overwhelmingly Republican. While we fight to protect our country, you slimy cowards on the left hide behind us and complain that we shouldn't be fighting. If you weren't hypocrites you would move to countries like Iran and see for yourself that terrorists don't care whether you support Bush or oppose him; to them, everyone who is not with them is evil, and they attack every country they can, trying to kill innocents.
A decorated ex-military fellow I knew explained it to me this way one time: "Soldiers vote for their pay raise." There is no hypocracy in not fighting and desiring also others not to fight. One does not expect quakers to cheer for neonazis. One also does a piss-poor job of protecting the country by launching wars around the globe, in my opinion, but the soldiers by and large did not make that decision.

Iran has not attacked the US in any way that I'm aware of since the hostage crisis back around 1980-81. In fact, Iran is rather isolationist last I checked, unlike a number of their neighbors. If the WTC attacks could be considered as originating in a nation, you would have to either pick Afghanistan (central operations location) or Saudi Arabia (funding and personnel source).

The one using "you are either for us or against us" rhetoric the most in these days is Bush & co.
As you, east canuck, you have nothing worth responding to: just unsubstantiated and wrong lies and insults. I have an accurate insult for you: canada is margarine to the butter that is america. Your country will never be successful or important in world affairs.
You will avoid flaming on these forums. Read the TOS.
Goed
29-10-2004, 20:21
You know, I imagined that most lefties just couldn't comprehend the wisdom that is conservatism, but you take it to the extreme. You are just spouting your opinion, sometimes supported by the opinions of equally biased newsmen. All your opinions are completely wrong, but since you won't listen to reason, I will ignore your ludicrous claims and respond mostly to the ones where you post actual facts.
So you start off by saying "I'm going to ignore everything you say, even if it's true?" That's top right there.

France has a military; and I am sure both of their soldiers have guns and everything. Do you remember when the EU was planning to make a 60,000 man "quick response" team? They wanted to have a European force to fight wars with. They had trouble finding enough men to form it. 10,000 men to a division; 60,000 is 6 divisions. During WWII we had a peak of 95 army divisions deployed overseas and 6 marine divisions. We have (approximately) 200,000 men in Iraq, or 20 divisions. That leaves 81 if we mobilized for a real war, and we probably aren't using more than 30 divisions elsewhere. We could whip all of Europe (except for England which is still on our side) without breathing hard. That doesn't even count the vastly better training and equipment we give our soldiers compared to the Europeans. Our troops have been stationed in Europe protecting them so long that their armies are completely unprepared to fight any modern nation, much less the world's only superpower.
Why, that's a great idea-we're arrogent, let's fuck up the world!

Furthermore, We don't need to invade them, because we have enough aircraft carriers (not used in Iraq at all) to conventionally bomb them into the stone age. We have 14 aircraft carriers (http://web.singnet.com/~jtann/facts.htm#List%20of%20Active%20American%20Aircraft%20Carriers), and I doubt France has even one.
Bombing is great and all, but it can't hold ground. YOu obviously have no knowledge of how the military or wars work.

France has nuklear weapons? who cares? I don't think they can fire enough to get past our missile defense( which DOES work), and even if they did, you know that unless a country has top-level maintenance and actually FIRES their nukes every so often, there is no way to tell which ones still work? There is no way to tell how many French nukes would blow up in the launch bay or just not work.
You wanna take that risk?

If any nation can do whatever the f*ck it wants to do, why are you so opposed to the US invading Iraq? No, wait, I've had enough of your incoherent slanderous stupidity for a lifetime, so don't bother to answer.
And nation can do whatever the fuck it wants to do without imposing on another unjustifiably. As the saying goes, "your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins"

So you quote a... bunch of journalists... who say journalists aren't biased. But you think I am quoting a bad source? L O L!!! Also, if you had paid any attention to my link, you would have noticed that they also did a poll of editors: http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp#Newspaper
Who are also liberal. Even more, the journalists write the stories and the editors usually only choose what stories are run, so the journalists decide how biased the stories are.
I don't even know what you're trying to prove here.

As for North korea, once again, nukes won't deter a committed president. This isn't the first time we've had nukes pointed at us; look how we did in the Cold War. Oops, I guess you wouldn't want to apply that analogy; a conservative republican president whipped a (nuklear-armed) evil empire. As for that whole kicking out the inspectors, they only had to do it because all the stuff that Clinton let them build was about to be discovered by inspectors under Bush.
Ok dumbshit, lets remember all those attacks and invasions we made during the Cold War.

Furthermore, Reagan didn't contribute nearly as much to ending it as you may thing. And wait, all the stuff Clinton let them build? I'm confused; do you mean the arms the US sold them, or the non-existing WMDs?

Iraq has vastly decreased Al Qaeda's recruitment numbers. 98% of Iraqis are worried that we will leave too soon and terrorists will get them. Now that Saddam isn't helping Al Qaeda, and Afghanistan is free too, most of the Al Qaeda leaders are dead. Personally, I think Osama Bin Laden is dead in a remote cave somewhere, but he is no longer important now because all the terrorists attacking us now are syrians and palestinians and iranians whom the Iraqis hate, and who are with groups like Hamas and Al-aqsa. Saddam did support Al Qaeda, and we have the documents in which he proposed a "general alliance". He wasn't religious but he hated America more than the terrorists; after all, they hadn't kicked his butt like we did under Bush senior.
Wrong, terrorism recuitment has skyrocketed. Saddam never supported Al Queda, read the 9/11 Report, retard.

As for WMDs, have you read the key document known as the Duelfer report? The short version is that Saddam was waiting impatiently for sanctions to end (which was inevitable given the then-UN political situation) so he could immediately reactivate his WMD program. Bush's message has always been one of pre-emptive strikes, hitting Iraq before it becomes a North Korea. After all, if it did, there would be many people like you saying "well, we can't invade now that they built WMDs". So when would you have us stop them? After they use all their WMDs on us?
Were the WMDs? No. Did he want them? Yes. Does it mean anything? No. Everybody wants WMDs. Wait, I'm sorry, you're stupid enough to suggest that we take on the world.

When you say that "most of them are nowhere near anyplace dangerous", it is an insult to all the soldiers who are fighting terrorists and do not know whether a terrorist will attack their city block, and it is especially insulting to those who have died from foreign attacks.
It's less insulting then sending them off to die for personal gain

My ideas just fly right over your head, don't they? who the **** do you think I was talking about being biased? Of course the biased journalists and editors don't think they are biased! Even if they did, they wouldn't say it in public! They would try to muddy the waters by claiming the opposite bias and then saying, "well, people on both sides say there is bias towards the other side, so we are fair," ... Oh wait, you linked to them doing that. As for the truth, look here: http://www.mediaresearch.org/SpecialReports/2004/report063004_p1.asp
Of course, I don't know if you can stand the caustic truth long enough to actually read all the facts there, unlike last time...
Once again, I don't see what you're getting at. Both sides have biased journalists.

On the issue of vetoes, again you just can't seem to understand what I am saying: it doesn't matter how often a country uses their veto as long as they aren't being bribed to do it. Russia could veto twice as often as us and if they weren't being bribed it would be completely reasonable. As for switching, I didn't say they would, I said they might, because no one can know how they would have reacted if France weren't taking the heat for them. It doesn't matter anyway, because each country or person who votes (or vetos) a decision is responsible for the results; just as even a voter whose vote didn't make the difference in the election is responsible if his guy wins, even a veto-er whose veto didn't change the outcome is responsible for the consequences of that veto.
I miss your point. Bad vetos are still allowed as long as money isn't involved? What kind of capitalist are you?

Pyslos, see my above points. Also, remember that it was France and Russia who got the corrupt oil deals, not us. We fought to kill terrorists, and we did a hell of a lot better than the French. Furthermore note that the Iraqis are getting all the oil in Iraq and we are paying to repair the damage that Saddam did. Not exactly the actions of a country trying to profit from a war, eh?
You forgot about good ol' Halli.

Siljhouettes, the american government is a representative government; it REPRESENTS the american nation and people. Insulting it is the same as insulting the country. Insulting individual members or policies is different, but that thread is definitely liberal. If you really want to know the truth, why not set up a poll of everyone's political views? I know what the result will be, but I think you will be suprised...
Why? I can insult the government all I want, and it doesn't mean crap on the people. That's just plain jingoism right there, to believe that the government = people. But eh, what did I expect from you, really.

Psylos, you are ticking me off. Military personnel are overwhelmingly Republican. While we fight to protect our country, you slimy cowards on the left hide behind us and complain that we shouldn't be fighting. If you weren't hypocrites you would move to countries like Iran and see for yourself that terrorists don't care whether you support Bush or oppose him; to them, everyone who is not with them is evil, and they attack every country they can, trying to kill innocents.
Military personnel are overwhelmingly republican because republicans have a better record of paying them more then democrats. The fact is, we don't NEED to be in Iraq. It has nothing to do with protecting our country. And don't try to take the moral high ground, because there was a single god damn person who cared about suffering in Iraq until AFTER we attacked them.

As you, east canuck, you have nothing worth responding to: just unsubstantiated and wrong lies and insults. I have an accurate insult for you: canada is margarine to the butter that is america. Your country will never be successful or important in world affairs.
Important =/= good. Soviet Russia was important. Canada has a higher standard of living in America, and they kill less innocent people. Imagine that. You jingoistic fucktard.

I have refuted all your arguments about everything I talked about already, in previous posts. I don't have time to correct you on every major political issue; look at the length of my post already. I could write a book about this stuff, but I have a real (and successful) life.
You have refuted nothing, and it's common for someone who can't prove a thing to pretend they already did, so they don't have to do it again.

The rest of you... buzz off. You are wrong, and I am tired of arguing with so many of you (your numbers show just how lefty this place is). I have said enough about these issues, and while you may want to reply, I won't be looking at this thread again. There is no point for me to debate when you just don't listen to my points, or misrepresent them. If there are any other conservatives or moderates looking at this thread, feel free to continue where I am leaving off. :cool:

So once again, you promise not to listen to us, even if you're wrong. Leave and don't come back, you ignorant little shit.
Dementate
29-10-2004, 20:58
I once asked someone (pre-invasion of Iraq) who was all anti-France and lets free the poor Iraqi people who he would trust to cover his back, a person from France or someone from Iraq. He said he would trust the Iraqi. I wonder if he's thought about changing his answer since then...
Drukania
29-10-2004, 21:04
A historical note:
during the american revolution there were more french solidiers fight for the indepence of america than there were amercan
East Canuck
29-10-2004, 21:13
As you, east canuck, you have nothing worth responding to: just unsubstantiated and wrong lies and insults. I have an accurate insult for you: canada is margarine to the butter that is america. Your country will never be successful or important in world affairs.

Insulting Canada, meh. Margarine is less fattening and actually better to live off than butter. My country has proven time and again that it is an important player on the internationnal level. Yes, the US is more important, but considering our population, I'm satisfied with our rank and involvement in internationnal affairs.


I have refuted all your arguments about everything I talked about already, in previous posts. I don't have time to correct you on every major political issue; look at the length of my post already. I could write a book about this stuff, but I have a real (and successful) life.

You tried to refute my arguments. In my mind you failed because your points were shaky at best. I'm waiting for your book.

Have a nice real (and succesfull) life. I'll go back to mine (just as succesfull).
Siljhouettes
29-10-2004, 21:17
We are not - quite - at war, but we are certainly enemies, no doubt about it.
Wow, it's like Osama's dreams coming true. I don't understand people like you who always jump at the chance for war as a first resort. I bet you support Bush too, you jingoistic fool!
TJHairball
29-10-2004, 21:17
So once again, you promise not to listen to us, even if you're wrong. Leave and don't come back, you ignorant little shit.

I'll repeat myself here, in case you missed it while you posted: No Flaming.

East Canuck, thank you for not flaming just now. That made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, because I've had to tell people to not flame entirely too many times lately.
Snowboarding Maniacs
29-10-2004, 21:21
I like France. I've only been there for a couple day trips when I was in Germany, but I want to go back and spend more time there. And in the parts I was in, nobody seemed stuck up, and there were soooo many beautiful women. ;)
East Canuck
29-10-2004, 21:24
I'll repeat myself here, in case you missed it while you posted: No Flaming.

East Canuck, thank you for not flaming just now. That made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, because I've had to tell people to not flame entirely too many times lately.

:p I made a mod all warm and fuzzy :p

Now, let's see if I can do the same with my girlfriend :cool:
Siljhouettes
29-10-2004, 21:33
Siljhouettes, the american government is a representative government; it REPRESENTS the american nation and people. Insulting it is the same as insulting the country. Insulting individual members or policies is different, but that thread is definitely liberal.

Psylos, you are ticking me off. Military personnel are overwhelmingly Republican. While we fight to protect our country, you slimy cowards on the left hide behind us and complain that we shouldn't be fighting.

I have an accurate insult for you: canada is margarine to the butter that is america. Your country will never be successful or important in world affairs.

I didn't bother quoting half your post because it consists of fantasies about America going Rambo on Europe - which is neither wise nor conservative.

The American government is not very representative at all. 52% of American voters didn't vote for your president. Senators and Congressmen get in even if 49% (or more!) of their constituents vote against them. Until you get Proportional Representation, you can't really claim that your government is representative of the people.

Right, so unless we're fighting in some oil war we're slimy cowards. Does this apply to you or only to those on the left?

Canada routinely comes above the USA in the UN Human Development Report. Of course they can never have the influence the USA does when they have only 10% of its population!
Sodium Hydroxia
29-10-2004, 21:39
I have an accurate insult for you: canada is margarine to the butter that is america. Your country will never be successful or important in world affairs.

So we're low-fat?

What?

You cause obesity? I don't get the comparison.

We're non-hydrogenated, maybe?
Peopleandstuff
30-10-2004, 03:28
The rest of you... buzz off. You are wrong, and I am tired of arguing with so many of you (your numbers show just how lefty this place is). I have said enough about these issues, and while you may want to reply, I won't be looking at this thread again. There is no point for me to debate when you just don't listen to my points, or misrepresent them. If there are any other conservatives or moderates looking at this thread, feel free to continue where I am leaving off.
Talk about the height of arrogance. You post a list stating that those listed are fighting in Iraq, yet at a glance we can find members of that list who are not currently fighting in Iraq. I assure you that I am correct in stating New Zealand does not have any soldiers fighting in Iraq, and you yourself conceeded that Spain is not there (and in fact has not been for quite some time). So either you lied or were mistaken, but either way, it's clearly you who posted wrong information. It's not a matter of not listening to your points, it the clear and obvious fact that your points are premised on 'facts' that simply are not (facts).