NationStates Jolt Archive

France backpedals on Iran, Chirac says he misspoke
PARIS (CNN) -- The French government backpedaled Thursday after French President Jacques Chirac, thinking he was speaking off the record to reporters, said he did not think Iran having a nuclear weapon was a "problem," and then went further to say if they used that weapon against Israel, Tehran would be "razed."

Officially, France supports U.N. Resolution 1737, which calls for Iran to abandon its nuclear program, a program that could result in Iran having the technology to build a nuclear weapon.

In an interview Monday with the New York Times, the International Herald Tribune and Nouvel Observateur, Chirac said the opposite.

"I would say that what is dangerous about this situation is not the fact of having a nuclear bomb -- having one, maybe a second one a little later, well, that's not very dangerous. But what is very dangerous is proliferation," he said. (Posted 10:37 a.m.)

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

Well now that is cleared up. Clearly stating the obvious if Iran nuked Israel.

Chirac has never given me the impression that he is a capable politician...much less a capable leader.

When are France's next elections again??

Well, at least we now know how he feels. France is an ally, why?

Chirac has never given me the impression that he is a capable politician...much less a capable leader.

When are France's next elections again??

Why, you planning on voting?

Why, you planning on voting?

What, I can't have an interest in the political landscape of other nations?

Whaddya know? They're in April! :D

only something like 28% of French voters actually vote anyway, not like its going to matter

Chirac, pfft, he didn't come with us to Iraq, he makes me sick. I'm from Australia. And we place a lot of value on a thing we call mateship. That's sticking by your friends through good and bad times. Like when your a kid, if your friend does something illegal/rude/naughty/dangerous your going to do it to just to let him know you have his back because you are friends.

The USA saved us in WW2. I am against leaving Iraq now. Although, i do admit the allies went to Iraq on false evidence, that should have been considered better. The big plus that came from the war was Saddam being removed from power. Which could have been done other ways.

BUT that bridge came and was crossed. We cannot undo history, and i believe we should stay in Iraq. And the troop surge shouldn't of happened now. It should have happened in March 2003, thank you secretary rumsfeld. For your incompetency that has made a war far worse then it should have been made.

Anyways, america made a mistake going to Iraq, but i 100% support my governments choice in supporting america. Because friendship and alliance is extremely important. Especially if/when Indonesia or India or China gets ants in their pants and start invading other countries.

Now, back to chirac, if only we lived in more dangerous times. I wish France was invaded by Germany or Russia or Luxembourg. Then they would be crying to us to help them. America sent a million men to France to save europe from a country that by 1944 was in no position to affect the USA.

America made a mistake, but true friends would be right behind you making the mistake with you. Not like those cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys. They should have been in their, sent a few hundred soldiers, and everything would have been fine. A small token of thanks for the million american men that saved France. America probably wouldn't have defeated Hitler if it was alone. But Hitler would not have been defeated if continental europe didn't have america.

only something like 28% of French voters actually vote anyway, not like its going to matter

What are you smoking??

The turnout for the first round of the elections in 2002 was 71.6%...the second round turnout was 79.7%'

http://www.electionresources.org/fr/president.php?election=2002

Perhaps you should, I don't know...verify your information before you speak??

Chirac, pfft, he didn't come with us to Iraq, he makes me sick. I'm from Australia... SNIP

Glad to see you're pro 'Might is right'

The U.S. did not 'save' Europe in WWII.
Japan brought the U.S. into the war
Germany and Italy declared war on the U.S.

Any fool can go to war, it takes a greater man to avoid it.

Watch the latest videos from Iraq where our soldiers are fighting, it's worrying how so many ignorant children are in a deadly situation.

Ahh, I love teh France-bash...

Chirac, pfft, he didn't come with us to Iraq, he makes me sick. I'm from Australia. And we place a lot of value on a thing we call mateship. That's sticking by your friends through good and bad times. Like when your a kid, if your friend does something illegal/rude/naughty/dangerous your going to do it to just to let him know you have his back because you are friends.
Why? Are you telling me that all friendship is about is smiling, nodding, and "yes sir, yes sir, three bags full sir?" To me, friendship is never that simple, nor should it be.

The USA saved us in WW2. I am against leaving Iraq now. Although, i do admit the allies went to Iraq on false evidence, that should have been considered better. The big plus that came from the war was Saddam being removed from power. Which could have been done other ways.

BUT that bridge came and was crossed. We cannot undo history, and i believe we should stay in Iraq. And the troop surge shouldn't of happened now. It should have happened in March 2003, thank you secretary rumsfeld. For your incompetency that has made a war far worse then it should have been made.
What does the USA saving Australia in WW2 have to do with Iraq?

Anyways, america made a mistake going to Iraq, but i 100% support my governments choice in supporting america. Because friendship and alliance is extremely important. Especially if/when Indonesia or India or China gets ants in their pants and start invading other countries.
A friend of mine is moving to Australia and told me you guys are terrified of Indonesia and China. Tell me, why on earth would Indonesia or China want to invade Australia - and do you really think the world would do nothing if they did?

Now, back to chirac, if only we lived in more dangerous times. I wish France was invaded by Germany or Russia or Luxembourg. Then they would be crying to us to help them. America sent a million men to France to save europe from a country that by 1944 was in no position to affect the USA.
That's a false analogy. There is a difference between invading a country illegally and defending an innocent party. And in other news, Germany was in a position where it could have caused severe trouble for the USA.

America made a mistake, but true friends would be right behind you making the mistake with you. Not like those cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys. They should have been in their, sent a few hundred soldiers, and everything would have been fine. A small token of thanks for the million american men that saved France. America probably wouldn't have defeated Hitler if it was alone. But Hitler would not have been defeated if continental europe didn't have america.
*vomits*

Why? France has been hardly liberated if it is now forced to pay de facto tribute to the United States.

Anyways, america made a mistake going to Iraq, but i 100% support my governments choice in supporting america. Because friendship and alliance is extremely important. Especially if/when Indonesia or India or China gets ants in their pants and start invading other countries.


Don't be naive. The US government will happily throw you overboard the very instant it thinks there is an advantage to be gained from it.

If you wanted a form of collective security based upon 'mateship' you should have pushed for a federal commonwealth.

[...]America made a mistake, but true friends would be right behind you making the mistake with you. Not like those cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys. They should have been in their, sent a few hundred soldiers, and everything would have been fine. A small token of thanks for the million american men that saved France. America probably wouldn't have defeated Hitler if it was alone. But Hitler would not have been defeated if continental europe didn't have america.

A true friend would try to stop you from making the mistake even though you would not like the message.

Chirac has never given me the impression that he is a capable politician...much less a capable leader.

Your ignorance of the man and French politics is glaring.

Your ignorance of the man and French politics is glaring.

He did stuff up the olympic bid. Then again, maybe he meant to do that.

Wasn't he a bit corrupt when he was the Mayor of Paris too?

Your ignorance of the man and French politics is glaring.

I don't pretend to be an expert regarding either.

You, however, are apparently an expert in all fields.

By all means, enlighten me...what makes Chirac a good politician and leader?

He did stuff up the olympic bid. Then again, maybe he meant to do that.

Wasn't he a bit corrupt when he was the Mayor of Paris too?

He has several insinuative scandals (Clearstream being one of the more current) behind him, but they never seem to drag him down. It is not without a keen sense of political navigation that he has been able to get to where he is today.

I don't pretend to be an expert regarding either.

You, however, are apparently an expert in all fields.

I do stay apprised of French happenings by reading and tuning into French media, and while I do not like him one iota and remain opposed to most of his politics, there is no denying that Jacques Chirac knows how to play the French political game and no denying that he has shown solid leadership qualities on numerous occasions.

By all means, enlighten me...what makes Chirac a good politician and leader?

Do your own homework.

The United States on Thursday played down French President Jacques Chirac's retracted statement that a nuclear-armed Iran would not be "very dangerous," and said Tehran must not get atomic weapons.

[...]

"The fact is our position on Iran is clear, they shouldn't have any nuclear weapon and furthermore they ought to take steps to suspend uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities," said [a Whitehous spokesman].

"That is not only the stated position of the United States but also its allies, including France, in terms of dealing with the Iranians," the spokesman told reporters.

[...]

After Chirac recanted, an Elysee official later criticized the reports as an attempt to create a "shameful polemic on an issue where France and the president of the Republic have always been consistent and determined."

"This is not surprising from certain media across the Atlantic that do not hesitate to use any pretext against France," said the official.


Which is stating the obvious, but...

Article and video here (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/france/20070202-Chirac-Iran.html). For those who are interested in knowing what happened, instead of just indulging in a bit of gleeful, ignorant Chirac-bashing.

Chirac, pfft, he didn't come with us to Iraq, he makes me sick. I'm from Australia. And we place a lot of value on a thing we call mateship. That's sticking by your friends through good and bad times. Like when your a kid, if your friend does something illegal/rude/naughty/dangerous your going to do it to just to let him know you have his back because you are friends.

[...]

Anyways, america made a mistake going to Iraq, but i 100% support my governments choice in supporting america. Because friendship and alliance is extremely important.


I shouldn't dignify your pathetic, ignorant, childish rubbish with a reply, but it's so easy...

Friendship (as has been pointed out) does not mean jumping to orders when your stronger "friend" tells you to do something. It means telling them when they're wrong, and trying to prevent them from doing something very stupid.

Your comparison disgusts me. Invading Iraq wasn't a playground prank, a silly mistake you can forget at the end of the day. It was a disaster which has left tens of thousands of innocent people dead. Your sense of priorities is extremely screwed up if you think it's fine to take part in being the cause of mass slaughter out of "friendship".


Especially if/when Indonesia or India or China gets ants in their pants and start invading other countries.


You're an idiot, and a cowardly, ignorant idiot at that, if you think Australia is in any way threated by Indonesia or China. "Yellow peril" scaremongering tactics from the Australian government died thirty years ago. Grow up.

Sucking up to the schoolyard bully in the hopes that they'll help you out in the future is not "mateship"; it's grovelling. At least New Zealand had a bit of backbone when it closed its ports to nuclear vessels, despite the US then suspending NZ from ANZUS.

What are you smoking??

The turnout for the first round of the elections in 2002 was 71.6%...the second round turnout was 79.7%'

http://www.electionresources.org/fr/president.php?election=2002

Perhaps you should, I don't know...verify your information before you speak??

don't show me french propaganda

don't show me french propaganda

You're kidding, right? I mean, you're being sarcastic and making fun of anyone who would really be stupid enough to say that?

I lose track, and sarcasm is not always easy to spot in a forum full of people who do say very, very stupid things.

don't show me french propaganda

Sarcasm?

Don't be naive. The US government will happily throw you overboard the very instant it thinks there is an advantage to be gained from it. We'll be children overboard! (Aus politics thing)

If you wanted a form of collective security based upon 'mateship' you should have pushed for a federal commonwealth. Umm, we are a federal commonwealth.....

Let me just say that I don't care for the Iraq thing. I (of many) predicted that either Iraq would slide into anarchy or would get annother dictator (still ongoing but signs point to anarchy) and also that the WMD theory was incorrect (proven).

Australia isn't as bad as some people say in terms of racism (unless you work in a Queensland fish and chip shop).

There still is some leftovers from the White Australia policy (among a few older people) but for the most part people at least try to go along with the multicultural future. Most Australians are rather favourable of other asian countries.

With Indonesia Australians (for the most part) don't really research it that much. There is a less favourable thought but not really outright hatred. Some mistrust thats all.

I must agree though that the more that feeling exists in Australia the worse it will get, especially with the Liberal [center-conservative] party in charge of federal matters. Just lately the Office of Immagration and Multicultural affairs was changed to Immagration and Citizenship.

It will also get worse the more some right wing lots are continuing, with recent comments about 'arabs, and africans with their diseases'.

You can see some of the isolationist bent though (such and the tampa affair and 'boat people').

The main problem with Indonesia is that, whilst a relatively poorer nation, they are more populous (and thus a much larger army) that is close enough to be a threat, unlike the much smaller nations in Australia's region. That and the fact the Australia has tied itself tightly to the U.S.A whilst keeping the asian countries at arms length just as trade partners. This also had the problem of the federal (Australia) government allowing the actions made by the Indonesian army to continue in return for a favourable navy line at East Timor (thus allowing Australia to hold most of the oil in the waters).

After the people got uppity once the scope of what was happening was revealed the (new) federal government was forced into action to allow East Timor to secede. However, not to be beaten, that federal government (that still is in power) forced the East Timor government to accept the same naval borders (thus allowing Australia to continue keeping the oil, instead of the much poorer and weaker East Timor).

Addendum: Australia and USA sounds like he should be saying "I don't like it" (use a female Queenslander accent when reading that) about criticism of Australia/U.S.A.

What a sad, sad example of Australia.

Do your own homework.

If your going to state that I'm ignorant on the subject, then the least you could do is provide an example for the rest of the people on here as to why that is the case.

If you can't or won't back up your claim, then kindly keep such thoughts to yourself.

don't show me french propaganda

http://www.electionresources.org/

French? :rolleyes:

Again...verify your information before you open your mouth. Any credibility you might have is quickly dissapearing.

Wasn't he a bit corrupt when he was the Mayor of Paris too?If your own Gov is NOT corrupt.. then -be my guest- you can trow the first stone at Chirac.

If your own Gov is NOT corrupt.. then -be my guest- you can trow the first stone at Chirac.

WTF so no one can comment on any one else's government as, as far as I know there almost no corruption free governments?

Thats a silly level of achievement just to discuss someone else's actions

Thats a silly level of achievement just to discuss someone else's actions silliness is human

as far as I know there almost no corruption free governments?
most politician are corrupt before they enter politics, others are corrupted by the system, very rare are the ones that stay clean.. I think Chirac is not corruption-free.

WTF so no one can comment on any one else's government ? (FreedomOfSpeech) Let me put it this way..
You are free to say Chirac is corrupt.. and I am free to be in-yo-face comparing him to your own pres.. If I am on-line.. that is.

If I am busy (you are lucky) .. you can indulge in -yet-another- French bashing fest. :D

silliness is human

most politician are corrupt before they enter politics, others are corrupted by the system, very rare are the ones that stay clean.. Chirac is probably not one of them.

(FreedomOfSpeech) Let me put it this way..
You are free to say Chirac is corrupt.. and I am free to be in-yo-face comparing him to your own pres.. If I am on-line.. that is.

If I am busy (you are lucky) .. you can indulge in -yet-another- French bashing fest. :D

Why would I indulge in a French bashing fest? and whats with the "yet another" I have never known myself to ever have "bashed" the French in any post so how could I do another?

I was just saying it was silly to require someone to have a blameless government in order to question something about another politician, thats it.

Why would I indulge in a French bashing fest? and whats with the "yet another" I have never known myself to ever have "bashed" the French in any post so how could I do another?"French bashing fest"
I was not speaking about you in particular.. but about us all in General.

It like a NSG carnaval... Its like we are all busy at the Cafeteria.. and someone is bored, suddenly he stands up and screams "food fight".. and we all start trowing the food at each other.. :D

"French bashing fest"
I was not speaking about you in particular.. but about us all in General.

It like a NSG carnaval... Its like we are all busy at the Cafeteria.. and someone is bored, suddenly he stands up and screams "food fight".. and we all start trowing the food at each other.. :D

Lol alright sorry I have been up for like 48 hours now and starting to confuse things sometimes

...

Sucking up to the schoolyard bully in the hopes that they'll help you out in the future is not "mateship"; it's grovelling. At least New Zealand had a bit of backbone when it closed its ports to nuclear vessels, despite the US then suspending NZ from ANZUS.

That would be why I don't use the word 'mateship.' It seems to mean different things to different people.

And even if you call it grovelling, there'd be many Australians who think it's a wise policy to do whatever the US government asks of us. A 'down payment on the US alliance' our Prime Minister called it, and it's a quite revealing analogy. The US is the issuer of the loan or insurance plan, and when it asks for payment -- you pay, or it's a breach of contract.

Neither of our major parties opposed sending troops to Iraq. You have to look down the list to the Greens at 7% of the national Senate vote to find that position represented at the time.
I guess most Aussies don't mind a bit of grovelling if it makes them feel safer.

* Dns resolved www.electionresources.org to 216.92.67.71

-
* Dns resolved www.radiofrance.fr to 216.92.67.71

* Dns resolved www.electionresources.org to 216.92.67.71

-
* Dns resolved www.radiofrance.fr to 216.92.67.71

Um you may want to retry that I get a DNS resolve for radiofrance.fr 62.210.65.157

Glad to see you're pro 'Might is right'

The U.S. did not 'save' Europe in WWII.
Japan brought the U.S. into the war
Germany and Italy declared war on the U.S.

Any fool can go to war, it takes a greater man to avoid it.

Watch the latest videos from Iraq where our soldiers are fighting, it's worrying how so many ignorant children are in a deadly situation.
Great strategy during WWII. If only Poland would have listened to that one...


oh, wait.

Come on, reply to my massive post... please.


Not to sound needy but I feel like being involved in a post.

That, and it was a very nice post, chock full of opinion (and marrowbone jelly[Jelly, not jam]!).

Glad to see you're pro 'Might is right'

The U.S. did not 'save' Europe in WWII.
Japan brought the U.S. into the war
Germany and Italy declared war on the U.S.

Any fool can go to war, it takes a greater man to avoid it.

Watch the latest videos from Iraq where our soldiers are fighting, it's worrying how so many ignorant children are in a deadly situation.

Firstly, The USA was doing enough to protect itself from the european part of the axis without invading. If they didn't send 1 soldier to normandy it would not have affected them badly. Germany was crumbling already. It didn't have the power to do any sort of effective offensive. Least of which to attack the USA directly.

America would have finished Japan a lot quicker if they just went on the defensive in the atlantic, and concentrated all their power on the pacific. Japan would have been finished by late 1943. But, America did something to help its allies, because that is what allies do.

And about the Iraq war, i agree with you 100% that President Bush made a mistake by going to war in Iraq. But i strongly oppose withdrawl before the time is right. But i do agree with my government supporting the U.S in Iraq. Yes it seems like a contradiction but whatever.

* Dns resolved www.electionresources.org to 216.92.67.71

-
* Dns resolved www.radiofrance.fr to 216.92.67.71

Oh, terribly clever of you.

Isn't it painfully obvious that your 28% claim was utterly unfounded, and calling a much more realistic estimate 'propaganda' isn't going to magic up any evidence for your own position?

You're trying to reverse the burden of proof. You were called out on your figure, given contrary evidence, and in the time since then you've come up with ... a dns query attacking that evidence.

If you don't provide some source for your own claim, or admit you were wrong, your goose is cooked.

Here's another bit of evidence for you to attack, so you can set a really high standard of proof for when you trot out your own evidence: http://www.idea.int/vt/country_view.cfm?CountryCode=FR (http://www.idea.int/vt/survey/voter_turnout_pop2.cfm)

Come on, reply to my massive post... please.

<snip>
I enjoyed your post.
I made some points on the same subject without disagreeing with you. That's about as close to praise as you'll generally get here. :)

* Dns resolved www.electionresources.org to 216.92.67.71

-
* Dns resolved www.radiofrance.fr to 216.92.67.71
nice..
how do you do figure?
a Dns finding tool?

America would have finished Japan a lot quicker if they just went on the defensive in the atlantic, and concentrated all their power on the pacific. Japan would have been finished by late 1943.

I've often wondered why the US paid Germany and Italy any attention at all in WW2. Yes, Germany declared war on the US, but they were sort of pre-occupied at the time and not in any position to threaten the US.

I've often wondered why the US paid Germany and Italy any attention at all in WW2. Yes, Germany declared war on the US, but they were sort of pre-occupied at the time and not in any position to threaten the US.actually I have a question for the Germans..

Why did they declare war on US?
on this side of the pond there is few answers.. I wonder what German historians say.

I've often wondered why the US paid Germany and Italy any attention at all in WW2. Yes, Germany declared war on the US, but they were sort of pre-occupied at the time and not in any position to threaten the US.

Probably the red scare thing. Considering that the final days of the Pacific theater saw at least some consideration to the Soviet Union influencing the atomic bombing decisions, it's not that hard to imagine it also influencing how the US entered the war.

The Soviet Union was already beginning to push back the German forces with signs showing that they'd push into Germany itself by the time the US forces began their landings. If the US delayed, there was a distinct possibility that greater chunks of Europe would be under Soviet control, wrested from Nazi Germany.

It's pretty obvious that the Soviet Union and the US weren't on very friendly terms, and it's likely that part of the decision to enter the European theater was to keep US friendly allies after everything was done with and to serve as a stopgap to Soviet expansion. Japan could be safely ignored for a while as the Soviet war machine wasn't moving there at the time, occupied as it was with Germany.

I'm not saying it's the only reason, but probably a good part of it.

*snip*

Well said. :)

* Dns resolved www.electionresources.org to 216.92.67.71

-
* Dns resolved www.radiofrance.fr to 216.92.67.71

Oh, fine...not satasfied???

http://www.electionguide.org/results.php?ID=425

http://www.binghamton.edu/cdp/era/elections/frn02pres.html

http://www.ulb.ac.be/soco/cevipol/documentation-e/France/Presidential/2002-e.htm

http://www.robert-schuman.org/anglais/oee/france/resultats/default.htm

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/05/05/france.win/




...are you done yet?

Don't be naive. The US government will happily throw you overboard the very instant it thinks there is an advantage to be gained from it.
We'll be children overboard! (Aus politics thing)
Now there's your first problem. Everyone can see that it's a long post you've made, and long gets you no points at all unless every word is necessary. There are chattier threads than this, but still brevity is the essence of wit.
You just made an in-joke, then called it as such. You just lost everyone who didn't get it, they're reading the next post.


If you wanted a form of collective security based upon 'mateship' you should have pushed for a federal commonwealth.

Umm, we are a federal commonwealth.....
Fair enough.
Let me just say that I don't care for the Iraq thing. NSG must be one of the few places where this would need to be said. Here there are people who apparently believe 'the Iraq thing' is totally excellent, and like the idea of it going nuclear. You'd have strong allies if one of them tried to make that case ... so this could be a little punchier. You know, more strongly worded.
I (of many) predicted that either Iraq would slide into anarchy or would get annother dictator (still ongoing but signs point to anarchy) and also that the WMD theory was incorrect (proven).

Australia isn't as bad as some people say in terms of racism (unless you work in a Queensland fish and chip shop).
That seems like a non-sequitur to me. It seems you abandon talking about Iraq at this point, making the rest of the post pretty wide of the thread topic. Then you threw in another in-joke, which wasn't particularly funny and might have alienated Queenslanders or anyone who works in a shop.

I could go on. If you want people to argue with you, keep your posts short and unambiguous, and don't mix humour with serious opinion.

Duh! My own post is now way too long!

Chirac, pfft, he didn't come with us to Iraq, he makes me sick. I'm from Australia. And we place a lot of value on a thing we call mateship. That's sticking by your friends through good and bad times. Like when your a kid, if your friend does something illegal/rude/naughty/dangerous your going to do it to just to let him know you have his back because you are friends.

The USA saved us in WW2. I am against leaving Iraq now. Although, i do admit the allies went to Iraq on false evidence, that should have been considered better. The big plus that came from the war was Saddam being removed from power. Which could have been done other ways.

BUT that bridge came and was crossed. We cannot undo history, and i believe we should stay in Iraq. And the troop surge shouldn't of happened now. It should have happened in March 2003, thank you secretary rumsfeld. For your incompetency that has made a war far worse then it should have been made.

Anyways, america made a mistake going to Iraq, but i 100% support my governments choice in supporting america. Because friendship and alliance is extremely important. Especially if/when Indonesia or India or China gets ants in their pants and start invading other countries.

Now, back to chirac, if only we lived in more dangerous times. I wish France was invaded by Germany or Russia or Luxembourg. Then they would be crying to us to help them. America sent a million men to France to save europe from a country that by 1944 was in no position to affect the USA.

America made a mistake, but true friends would be right behind you making the mistake with you. Not like those cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys. They should have been in their, sent a few hundred soldiers, and everything would have been fine. A small token of thanks for the million american men that saved France. America probably wouldn't have defeated Hitler if it was alone. But Hitler would not have been defeated if continental europe didn't have america.

Like someone above said very few of the french people vote...I will assume it is mostly those in the cities. After returning from Iraq I was Made Commander of the local VFW, I am learning a lot from the WW2 guys and the other vets one thing the WW2 guys told me was when they last went over a couple of years ago for memorials in France the locals turned out and showered them with thanks and devotion. It seems the country folk over there still appreciate the Americans and the sacrifice they made along with the Brits and the COmmonwealth, and will always support us. It is just the socialist few like those in power like chirac who do not remember or care to remember what it means to stand with your friends. So please do not blame all the french for a few fools.

Probably the red scare thing. Considering that the final days of the Pacific theater saw at least some consideration to the Soviet Union influencing the atomic bombing decisions, it's not that hard to imagine it also influencing how the US entered the war.

The Soviet Union was already beginning to push back the German forces with signs showing that they'd push into Germany itself by the time the US forces began their landings. If the US delayed, there was a distinct possibility that greater chunks of Europe would be under Soviet control, wrested from Nazi Germany.

It's pretty obvious that the Soviet Union and the US weren't on very friendly terms, and it's likely that part of the decision to enter the European theater was to keep US friendly allies after everything was done with and to serve as a stopgap to Soviet expansion. Japan could be safely ignored for a while as the Soviet war machine wasn't moving there at the time, occupied as it was with Germany.

I'm not saying it's the only reason, but probably a good part of it.

the only reason the Soviets were pushing the Germans back was the millions upon millions in aid they were receiving from the US. Human waves can only due so much good if you have no supplies. So do not blow too much sunshine up the former Soviets Unions backside. They could not have done as well as they did without help from the other allies, and that includes the Brits and the commonwealth.

Well said. :)



Oh, fine...not satasfied???

http://www.electionguide.org/results.php?ID=425

http://www.binghamton.edu/cdp/era/elections/frn02pres.html

http://www.ulb.ac.be/soco/cevipol/documentation-e/France/Presidential/2002-e.htm

http://www.robert-schuman.org/anglais/oee/france/resultats/default.htm

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/05/05/france.win/




...are you done yet?

see it says it right there "28 percent of voters stayed at home."

"French bashing fest"
I was not speaking about you in particular.. but about us all in General.

It like a NSG carnaval... Its like we are all busy at the Cafeteria.. and someone is bored, suddenly he stands up and screams "food fight".. and we all start trowing the food at each other.. :D

If it is ok to bash the US why not bash the French once in awhile...have to take a break and give the US a chance to heal.:rolleyes:

Glad to see you're pro 'Might is right'

The U.S. did not 'save' Europe in WWII.
Japan brought the U.S. into the war
Germany and Italy declared war on the U.S.

Any fool can go to war, it takes a greater man to avoid it.

Watch the latest videos from Iraq where our soldiers are fighting, it's worrying how so many ignorant children are in a deadly situation.

If the US did not send supplies and raw materials to the allies before actually declaring war things would not have gone as they did. Also US Destroyers did convoy duty for Convoys from Canada to England and Russia. Not to mention the millions of dollars loaned, Equipment sold, and all kinds of other aid lent to the Allies before officially joining the war. So do not try to sell your tripe that the US did not need to help or did not help save Europe.

And I do not have to watch the videos from Iraq I have been there. The only ignorance is that some like you feel it is ok to just sit back and watch people kill each other over something so stupid as a few lines of difference in a sect of religion, but would whine and cry if nothing was done to stop it if we were not there.

see it says it right there "28 percent of voters stayed at home."

Hahahaha! Are you for real?

only something like 28% of French voters actually vote anyway, not like its going to matter

see it says it right there "28 percent of voters stayed at home."

:eek:

Duh! My own post is now way too long!

Mwuahaha, my plan worked!

Note ot self: got to lay off the in jokes/references.

*Serious bit*

This is mostly a response to Australia and USA's remarks

I thought that the Iraq war/occupation would not end up well yet my country has allowed itself to bind too tightly to the U.S thus we got dragged into it.

We need to diversify our major alliances a bit more (such as greater EU links and asian links, which is already [slowly] happening).

Only problem with the alliances is that some Australians mistrust the asian countries but in recent times the country that is mistrusted the most is Indonesia (because of the large population and closeness I guess).

The main problem with the future of Australian foreign relations are the more conservative groups which think that they should 'stick by your mates' even when they do extremely questionable acts (i.e: Go to a war on false evidence, various torture and 'extraordanairy extraditions' that have occurred) and allowed the U.S.A and other governments to pass rather draconian security laws all with the promise that 'this will help you').

Like someone above said very few of the french people vote...*snip*.

The United States doesn't have a very good track record when it comes to voter turnout either: Roughly only 60% of the eligable turned up for the 2004 presidential elections (http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2004.htm)

Also in 2006 midterm elections only approximately 41% eligable turned up (http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2006.htm).

P.S: Sorry for double posting, did wait for someelse to reply.

Like someone above said very few of the french people vote...
Sorry to interrupt, but that person was wrong. "They"=The Phoenix Militia, and they were wrong. About twice the proportion of eligible voters actually voted in the last Presidential (or even parliamentary) elections in France than in the last US Presidential election.

I will assume it is mostly those in the cities. After returning from Iraq I was Made Commander of the local VFW, I am learning a lot from the WW2 guys and the other vets one thing the WW2 guys told me was when they last went over a couple of years ago for memorials in France the locals turned out and showered them with thanks and devotion. It seems the country folk over there still appreciate the Americans and the sacrifice they made along with the Brits and the COmmonwealth, and will always support us. It is just the socialist few like those in power like chirac who do not remember or care to remember what it means to stand with your friends. So please do not blame all the french for a few fools.

Jaques Chirac's re-election was a bit of a farce, the other serious contenders withdrawing to make a point about Le Pen apparently.

But it does not follow that the French people are opposed to his views on the invasion of Iraq. Opinion polls show them overwhelmingly opposed to the Iraq adventure, and it would be a brave president who'd commit troops on that basis.

What is the last remaining reason for the invasion of Iraq, now that the lies have been stripped away? US self-defence perhaps, but certainly US self-interest. (I'd argue it doesn't even serve that, but rather the interests of all the industries based on oil, which is most of them, but it still won't stop the oil running out.)
The French didn't see deposing Saddam and getting stuck in a civil war as being in their national interest. If you don't accept that reason, then it would follow that the US had no reason whatsoever to invade Iraq.

Friendship isn't unconditional, despite the matey sentiments of "Australia and the US." You don't shove your hand in a meat-grinder or burn down your parent's house just because your friend is going to do it too. Not unless you're very stupid, anyway.

The United States doesn't have a very good track record when it comes to voter turnout either: Roughly only 60% of the eligable turned up for the 2004 presidential elections (http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2004.htm)

Also in 2006 midterm elections only approximately 41% eligable turned up (http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2006.htm).

P.S: Sorry for double posting, did wait for someelse to reply.

... and before someone makes a fool of themselves, I'll point out that my "about twice" actually does make sense, because a higher proportion of eligible voters actually register to vote in France than in the US, and of those many more vote in any given election.
A higher proportion of their population is eligible to vote, too, but that's the aging population I guess.

Australia, btw, would have a miserable voter turnout if voting wasn't compulsory, and failing to vote punishable by a fine. Most aussies have a very dim view of all politicians, and might as well stay on the couch for all the good their votes do.

Like someone above said very few of the french people vote...I will assume it is mostly those in the cities. After returning from Iraq I was Made Commander of the local VFW, I am learning a lot from the WW2 guys and the other vets one thing the WW2 guys told me was when they last went over a couple of years ago for memorials in France the locals turned out and showered them with thanks and devotion. It seems the country folk over there still appreciate the Americans and the sacrifice they made along with the Brits and the COmmonwealth, and will always support us. It is just the socialist few like those in power like chirac who do not remember or care to remember what it means to stand with your friends. So please do not blame all the french for a few fools.

stand with your friends? what friends? the French stood with the Germans and other Europeans, real friends, you know.
the US have not yet grown up to understand that friendship is mutual and that the US should better not try to dictate terms of friendship to others. your self-centered attitude is abhorrent and a shame to humankind. and as for your support of the Iraq invasion, why don't you go there and "defend" your country in Baghdad? why don't you sacrifice yourself for your country there? i'd love to see that.

Gah! I forgot how to spell eligible!

Nobel, I agree with you about the voter turnout with Australia; I'd say about 65% at best, 35% at worst for both elections (state and federal).

Thats why compulsory voting is good most of the time (unless the country already has above 90% voter turnout). The next step would be to make the people who normally wouldn't vote less apathetic about politics (but that runs the risk of having the U.S partisan thinking).

Are you sure that they meant total population percentage? It seems they had above have the eligible population voting (an a lot of people are made ineligible in the U.S due to many states not allowing convicted people voting).

Australian penalties for not voting aren't that bad,hence the 5% or so of eligible people not voting.

only something like 28% of French voters actually vote anyway, not like its going to matter

see it says it right there "28 percent of voters stayed at home."



...you fail at life. Congratulations.

Jaques Chirac's re-election was a bit of a farce, the other serious contenders withdrawing to make a point about Le Pen apparently.Interesting..
How information gets deformed.

The socialists tried everything to defeat Chirac.. they never surrendered.. never gave-up.
They were defeated (by Chirac) fair and square.

Interesting..
How information gets deformed.

The socialists tried everything to defeat Chirac.. they never surrendered.. never gave-up.
They were defeated (by Chirac) fair and square.

Yeah, you're right for once. I didn't look into it very carefully, just at the last round of the presidential election.

The reason I didn't bother much is that it isn't really germane to the point I then went on to make. It was more a friendly sort of 'common-ground' statement, in light of the fact that Ashlyyn's rather wild opinion was politely expressed and contained personal anecdote. It was a worthwhile post even though I disagree with it, and I was trying to sweeten my reply a bit.

I'm OK with being corrected. I even appreciate it :)

France backpedals on Iran, Chirac says he misspoke
PARIS (CNN) -- The French government backpedaled Thursday after French President Jacques Chirac, thinking he was speaking off the record to reporters, said he did not think Iran having a nuclear weapon was a "problem," and then went further to say if they used that weapon against Israel, Tehran would be "razed."

Yes I was quite surprised when he said that, quite unlike him.

Well, at least we now know how he feels. France is an ally, why?
Are you desiring to make an enemy just so you can love them?