Stupid french

[Alyrium Denryle]

I know many germans, and am in a german class. We ppartake in good-natured france bashing. But when it really comes down to it, the french our our friends. Leave them alone

[Alyrium Denryle]

Right, which is why they're standing up for life, liberty, and the pursuit of cheap Iraqi oil.

Yeah, life, liberty, and keeping their economy from going tits up. They trade iraqi oil for food. Yes, they pay in food to feed the population of iraq. They dont produce any oil of their own, and they dont have the kind of oil reserves we do. Their transportation and industry will come to a standstill if they dont get that oil.

They made a choice, they made a choice to preserve their economy until they get proof that Iraq has WMD. Oh well, it isnt that they dont like America, it is that they like their own well-being more.

[Utsanomiko]

Right, which is why they're standing up for life, liberty, and the pursuit of cheap Iraqi oil.

And why America stands for life, liberty and all that - unless you happen to be muslim.

Hmmmm. I hear an echo. Why, I think someone's talking out his ass!

I have no less than three muslim families living in my school community. One of their sons is a moderately good friend of mine. None of them consider themselves to be in danger.

Of course they don't feel they're in danger; they know what date they're supposed to stop drinking Coca-Cola.

[Kuja]

Of course they don't feel they're in danger; they know what date they're supposed to stop drinking Coca-Cola.

I really should smack you for that, but I'm too busy laughing.

[Coyote]

Oh, the fucking irony!

How odd it is that when America supports a tyrant dictator in a third world country in order to secure some national goal, we are corrupt imperialists.

But when the French take up the cause of a tyrant dictator in a third world country in order to secure some national goal, they are great heroes with honor, dignity, and big steel cajones?

Two faced suck asses.

[Lagmonster]

Oh, the fucking irony!

How odd it is that when America supports a tyrant dictator in a third world country in order to secure some national goal, we are corrupt imperialists.

But when the French take up the cause of a tyrant dictator in a third world country in order to secure some national goal, they are great heroes with honor, dignity, and big steel cajones?

Two faced suck asses.

'Taking up his cause'? Give me a good reason why the French should do anything in Iraq.

Most French people I know couldn't give a shit who runs Iraq as long as their own accustomed lifestyle remains the same. Besides that, they see no reason in fighting America's battles for them, and they want cheap oil. Fucking sue them.

[Ted]

"The Americans will always do the right thing after they have exhausted every other option." - Sir Winston S. Churchill

Think before you rant.

The French have more balls than the Americans.

Think before you take a quote out of context. The US wasn't interested in getting involved in another European War. There's a difference between that and cowardice.

Who has said the French are cowards, besides the uninformed?

If you knew anything about military history, you would not say they were cowards.

As well, France isn't interested in a war in Iraq, yet the Americans call them cowards for that.

No difference, is there?

You say France is coward and supporting Iraq now, then I say that America was cowardly and SUPPORTING HITLER IN WWII.

[Coyote]

...But when the French take up the cause of a tyrant dictator in a third world country in order to secure some national goal, they are great heroes with honor, dignity, and big steel cajones?

'Taking up his cause'? Give me a good reason why the French should do anything in Iraq.

Most French people I know couldn't give a shit who runs Iraq as long as their own accustomed lifestyle remains the same. Besides that, they see no reason in fighting America's battles for them, and they want cheap oil. Fucking sue them.

By stalling and buying time and making excuses for him, they are taking up his cause even if it is unintentional. But face it, the policy of the French government has been to support Arab regimes in many social and political situations. They do this to buy peace and maintain their comfy lifestyles.

America has done the same thing in the past, but when we do it we're the cesspit of all evil on the planet. When the French stick up for Saddam they are great heroes and role models. We sure as hell don't need them to fight our war for us, we are asking them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess Saddam has made of his corner of the world. The French will still get their precious oil.

Funny-- "No blood for oil?" Well, according to French national policy, it is "No Western blood for oil". Pierre and Jacques can rest with their conscience clean knowing that they will not have to fight Saddam. Just keep the oil flowing into their Renaults no matter how many Shi'ites and Kurds and political dissidents are jailed, tortured, killed, gassed, etc. They can keep on suffering and dying as long as France gets its Iraqi oil.

Does America have interests in the same oil? Damn straight. But is it a better choice to just swallow the corrupt regime of Saddam, a proven threat to neighboring countries (besides Israel) and his own populace? But France is using its position as some sort of moral high ground, which is bullshit, because they are just as cynically and cruelly exploiting the Iraq situation for their own selfish ends. And the rest of the world is swallowing the French propaganda.

Saddam is a powerbroker partly due to US influence in the past. Therefore, we have an obligation to clean this up. If left untouched, do any of you really truly believe that Saddam wil take that hard-earned oil money and build schools, libraries, bus systems, orphanages...? Get real!

And notice, I said "French government policy" is the problem, not the French people. Throughout all the war-and-Europe threads on this board I have railed against what I think are cowardly or naive positions of some European countries while recognizing their domestic concerns, needs, and goals. In the case of the French, my disagreement is more pointed for what I think are good reasons.

[Kuja]

"The Americans will always do the right thing after they have exhausted every other option." - Sir Winston S. Churchill

Think before you rant.

The French have more balls than the Americans.

Think before you take a quote out of context. The US wasn't interested in getting involved in another European War. There's a difference between that and cowardice.

Who has said the French are cowards, besides the uninformed?

If you knew anything about military history, you would not say they were cowards.

That wasn't my point, Ted. Your statement implies that the Americans were acting cowardly. I'm pointing out that this was not that case.

As well, France isn't interested in a war in Iraq, yet the Americans call them cowards for that.

No difference, is there?

At least America didn't bully other countries when they decided to get involved in WWII. Not true of France today.

You say France is coward and supporting Iraq now, then I say that America was cowardly and SUPPORTING HITLER IN WWII.

ROTFLMAO! Go ahead and say it Ted, shove your leg a little farther down your throat.

[NecronLord]

People need to stop French bashing. Because we helped them in WW1 and WW2 doesnt obligate them to support us.

Particularly as they supported the americans during their early existance. (hell in 1812 when they were busy, the british invaded and burnt down the white house, does this make the americans "Arson victims" for the next gazillion years?:roll:

[weemadando]

As well, France isn't interested in a war in Iraq, yet the Americans call them cowards for that.

No difference, is there?

At least America didn't bully other countries when they decided to get involved in WWII. Not true of France today.

And America isn't pressuring nations into signing up for a war? I smell hypocrisy.

You say France is coward and supporting Iraq now, then I say that America was cowardly and SUPPORTING HITLER IN WWII.

ROTFLMAO! Go ahead and say it Ted, shove your leg a little farther down your throat.

Actually, he's correct. America was politically and economically supporting both the UK and Germany until min-1940 IIRC. I believe that the modern terminology is "hedging your bets".

[MKSheppard]

Actually, he's correct. America was politically and economically supporting both the UK and Germany until min-1940 IIRC. I believe that the modern terminology is "hedging your bets".

The Kennedy Clan was very pro-nazi in the 1940s...but they fell in
line when Germany declared war on the US

[Kuja]

ROTFLMAO! Go ahead and say it Ted, shove your leg a little farther down your throat.

Actually, he's correct. America was politically and economically supporting both the UK and Germany until min-1940 IIRC. I believe that the modern terminology is "hedging your bets".

No, the modern terminology is "staying neutreal". You can't very well stay neutral by selling only one side supplies, can you?

Besides, did the US offer Germany a Land-Lease Act? Don't think so. Did they offer Germany a Cash and Carry Act? Nope. Fact is, the US was far from neutreal long before it entered the war.

[Coyote]

Funny... France wants to stay out of the Iraq war because they have no immediate reason to benefit from a war, and would prefer things to remain quiet. That makes them heroes.

When America wanted to stay out of World War Two because they had no immediate reason to benefit from a war and would have preferred things to remain quiet, they were cowards.

The alternating display of hypocrisy further convinces me that this is all about anti-Americanism rather than real issues.

[Colonel Olrik]

Funny... France wants to stay out of the Iraq war because they have no immediate reason to benefit from a war, and would prefer things to remain quiet. That makes them heroes.

When America wanted to stay out of World War Two because they had no immediate reason to benefit from a war and would have preferred things to remain quiet, they were cowards.

The alternating display of hypocrisy further convinces me that this is all about anti-Americanism rather than real issues.

The scaling is quite different. The third reich and allies had conquered most Europe, Asia and Africa and was on his way to conquer the rest. They were proven murders and their regime a visible risk to all democratic countries.

Iraq is insignificant. It invaded a very small country, once, and got spanked for it. It is basically teethless, now. Most people don't see them as a giant threat. I think Saddam is ruthless and evil, yes, but I don't fear him, or any arab nation for that matter, invading my country. The only nation capable of doing that would be the U.S, and I know that, deep down, you guys love us *


*Besides, we already have plenty WMD

[Alyrium Denryle]

Funny... France wants to stay out of the Iraq war because they have no immediate reason to benefit from a war, and would prefer things to remain quiet. That makes them heroes.

When America wanted to stay out of World War Two because they had no immediate reason to benefit from a war and would have preferred things to remain quiet, they were cowards.

The alternating display of hypocrisy further convinces me that this is all about anti-Americanism rather than real issues.

First of all, the world does not revolve around the US. There are other things to consider. Other countries have an economy to support, France depends heavily in oil from Irq. It isnt about comfortable lifestyle, it is more about "how will I get to work if my car will not operate" and "how will we lubricate parts in our factories sithout petroleum products?" There conomy will come to a standstill without that oil, and asking for proof, supporting the accusations the US is trying to justify a "pre-empive" war*coughcoughwarofaggressioncoucough* is not unreasonable.

Much like I dont think of the US as cowards for not entering WW2 bofore peal harbor. We had our own problems to deal with, and our own economy to worry about.

[Coyote]

Funny... France wants to stay out of the Iraq war ...

When America wanted to stay out of World War Two ...

The scaling is quite different. The third reich and allies had conquered most Europe, Asia and Africa and was on his way to conquer the rest. They were proven murders and their regime a visible risk to all democratic countries.

While it is true that the scaling is different, the truths behind it remain valid. The Hussein regime has killed hundreds of thousands or maybe a couple million at most, rather than the tens of millions of deaths caused by the Nazis.

But suffering is relative-- I cannot go to a Shi'ite or Kurd in Iraq (or a Hutu in Rwanda, or a Magyar in China, etc) and say "chill out, you only lost 100,000 people. Call us when it reaches six millions, that's the international benchmark for concern."

Iraq is insignificant. It invaded a very small country, once, and got spanked for it. It is basically teethless, now. Most people don't see them as a giant threat. ...I don't fear [Saddam], or any arab nation for that matter, invading my country.

Well, remember, that Iraq also not only invaded Iran but used gas in the attempt, and the atrocities against his own people are well documented also. And let's face it, his Scud attacks on Israel show that he is willing and able to reach out to his neighbors and cause damage. While I recognize the issues the Arab world has with Israel, legitimate or otherwise, Iraq had little justification for doing that.

If we let him develop unimpeded, he may well become a threat to others, whether Israel or anyone else. I think his past actions have demonstrated that he is a danger; it's not like he just erupted on the scene one day after years of peaceful living. And a toothless Saddam may be more tempted to hand out (or "accidentally loose track of") other WMDs so that radical groups will carry out his will for him. International attacks can be carried off without neccessarily being a prelude to an invasion, terrorism being an obvious one.

The only nation capable of doing that would be the U.S, and I know that, deep down, you guys love us *

Portugal, right? (Checks list) Yeah, you guys are all right. Seriously, no American in his right mind, even the most rabid among us, want to take and keep any part of the Middle East. It would be a long, slow suicide. If we really wanted to take Iraq and keep it for ourselves, and the oil, trust me we would have done it 12 years ago when the world backed us up and saw us as heroes. We could have done damn near anything we pleased back then.

But now we see Saddam: an angry, warlike man, with a proven history of unwarranted aggression, with gallons of blood on his hands, who has openly used and developed weapons of mass destruction against soldiers and civilians alike. He actually presents a more obvious, recognizable, and coherent threat than Hitler did-- Hitler was far more sly about hiding his motives.

Many in America really do see a clear line between Resolution 1441 and the Versailles Treaty, and Chirac and Chamberlain. While many think that Europe is being weak, I understand the concerns-- refugees, war near the backyard, terrorism, etc-- I and many others feel that it would be irresponsible to let him sit and fester. One Iraq with three or four nukes, well, maybe it can be brushed aside.

But will Europe feel the same way when Libya, Algeria, Egypt, Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia do some test-detonating and developing missiles? Once one Arab regime has them, they will all need them for "parity" and then think of just ten or twelve nuclear-tipped missiles sitting in Libya or Syria, in a decade? Is nuclear proliferation really such a great choice?

Or this: One crazy Muslim Brotherhood type guy siezing control of a nuclear-capable Arab regime. Five nukes will eradicate Israel. The rest of the world will come down on him like a ton of bricks, but waht does he care? He will live in history as the guy that "eliminated the infidels forever" and went down fighting the "crusaders' counter-attack". He'll die as a "heroic martyr" and be a spiritual light to the fanatics of the world. And it cannot be denied that suicide attacks are standard operating proceedure down there.

Any counter-attack would probably also be met with Arab nukes... but what else can be done? We can't let a leader who has done that sit and do nothing. What does that say to others, sitting on their own stockpiles? To the Pakistanis and Indians? They can nuke as they please and the West will do nothing out of fear?

Follow the paths to its logical conclusion-- letting Saddam go unimpeded will set a very, very bad precedent and leaving us with much bigger messes to clean up tomorrow. Best to get him now, before he has this capability.

[Coyote]

First of all, the world does not revolve around the US. There are other things to consider. Other countries have an economy to support, France depends heavily in oil from Irq.

Which is part of my point. The US is criticized for propping up dictatorial regimes around the world for the purpose of obtaining natural resources from them: Mobuto Sese Seko, for example, or Ferdinand Marcos. We are criticized for this loudly (and fairly, I think, I don't like the idea either).

But now France is bending over backward to shield Saddam, and for what? For the exact same reasons-- to secure oil from a tyrant who openly aggresses against numerous neighbors and his own people. Yet when France defends the guy, they are "world Heroes". That's why I point out the hypocrisy.

It isnt about comfortable lifestyle, it is more about ... [The] conomy will come to a standstill without that oil,

A lot of people's economies will grind to a halt without oil, which makes fighting for oil a reasonable action. The US sees almost no oil from Iraq at all, it is a European supplier. They even price their barrels in Euros, or at least they were planning to.

and asking for proof, supporting the accusations the US is trying to justify a "pre-empive" war*coughcoughwarofaggressioncoucough* is not unreasonable.

But the onus of proof is not on the US. It is on Iraq. The Gulf War came to a close solely on the promise, signed by Iraq, tha they would open up to inspections. That is the legality of the situation. Iraq has been most uncooperative and in truth they have violated both spirit and letter of the agreemant many times. We could have-- and had 100% legal justification-- gone in there at any time in the last 12 years. We did not. The game has gone on long enough.

Besides, there is enough circumstantial evidence to go after Saddam. We know he has chem and bio weapons; we've seen them being used against natives and neighbors alike, and he's suppose to get rid of them. He refuses inspections of certain facilities and we sometimes catch images of materials being avacuated. Defectors speak of WMD programs that continue, quietly and unimpeded. Hans Blix himself, an Iraqi apologist and practically hand-picked by Saddam to lead the inspections, himself admits that 1,000 tons of nerve gas is missing and unaccounted for.

It is very hard for me to comprehend how the people who support peace and despise war are putting maximum spin control and manufacturing excuses, rationales, and justifications to defend a man who openly seeks to gain nuclear and similar weapons and has demostrated a willingness to use them. The groups that demand an end to nuclear proliferation and were outraged at the US position on the Test Ban Treaty are gleefully giving little political back-rubs to a man who wants nothing more than to nuke and gas his enemies into the dustbins of memory.

That is why I reiterate: the protest movement is misguided, uncomprehending, and more based on anti-Bush or anti-American stances than logic or principles. "Principles" do not include manfacturing fig leaves by the bushel for a nuke-hungry aggressive warmonger like Saddam Hussein.

[Ted]

That wasn't my point, Ted. Your statement implies that the Americans were acting cowardly. I'm pointing out that this was not that case.

You say France is coward and supporting Iraq now, then I say that America was cowardly and SUPPORTING HITLER IN WWII.

ROTFLMAO! Go ahead and say it Ted, shove your leg a little farther down your throat.

Look Iggy, stop maintaining a FUCKING DOUBLE STANDARD.

You say that the French are SUPPORTING SADDAM HUSSEIN BY BEING AGAINST THE US POSITION.

WELL, THE USA WAS SUPPORTING HITLER IN WWII BY THE SAME LOGIC.

[Alyrium Denryle]

But the onus of proof is not on the US. It is on Iraq.

You should no that proving a negative is ompossible. The burden of proof should always be on the prosecution. Now they probably do have WMD, but no matter how much proof they could provide that they dont have them, Bush will always say that they still do. I am not sure what its going on today, but last time i heard, both France and Germany would support us if prof was provided. it is not unreasonable in my opinion to want proof that the country that sells you your fuel has WMD. Why piss off the person that fuels your country for no reason?

I support war with Iraq if it is really necessary, but I do think there are better options(like assassination) but I will not stand for Americans bashing Europe for taking a different, but no less logical stand on the issue.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Oh and by the way, there where people advocating genocide against arabic people, and europeans in my german class today. I am a bit on edge so if I lash out at someone...i am not being myself

[Coyote]

But the onus of proof is not on the US. It is on Iraq.

...The burden of proof should always be on the prosecution. Now they probably do have WMD, but no matter how much proof they could provide that they dont have them, Bush will always say that they still do.

And here is a large part of the problem-- Saddam will aslo always say that he has no weapons of mass destruction. So it comes down to this: Bush accuses, Saddam denies, who do you believe? Bush has his faults, but seriously-- to say that Saddam Hussein has more believability and credibility than George Bush?

Dismiss for a moment emotional hyperbole or partisan rhetoric. I don't care if a person hates George Bush/Republicans/conservatives to the depths of Hell. Seriously-- do you, or anyone else, actually believe Saddam Hussein is more truthful about his intentions than George Bush? Who is more likely to honor an agreement?

And even if you think George Bush, as an individual man, is no different that Saddam, try this: which one of these two men is more answerable to his people and laws? Bush can be pulled down, impeached, or swayed by public opinion, etc. far more so than Saddam.

I am not sure what its going on today, but last time i heard, both France and Germany would support us if prof was provided. it is not unreasonable in my opinion to want proof that the country that sells you your fuel has WMD. Why piss off the person that fuels your country for no reason?

Very good point, but again, just because a country sells us (or our friends) fuel also should not be a blanket acceptance of their warmongering, invading the neighbors, hurling missiles at others, and gassing different ethnic groups for the crime of being alive. Then we're back to the old accusation-- that a wealthy, comfy Western democracy talks freedom but supports tyrants in order to secure selfish goals.

I support war with Iraq if it is really necessary, but I do think there are better options(like assassination) but I will not stand for Americans bashing Europe for taking a different, but no less logical stand on the issue.

Europe-- actually, three countries in Europe, the rest are with the US or neutral-- has its own reason for taking its stance, some logical and some not. As I was leaving to go to Uni today I saw a report on Fox that a French company had been selling military parts to Iraq as recently as January. So I find it hard to believe that the French (as one example) are defying the US for purely humanitarian or diplomatic purposes. That military equipment will-- as it has in the past-- be used for the killing of Kurds, what about the morality of that?

Europe has along history of cataclysmic wars and I don't fault them for being weary of such endeavors. They feel that Iraq can be "contained" as the USSR was. But do we really want another 50 years of Cold War with a nuclear-armed Arab bloc? The last Cold War was no fun at all, and consumed vast amounts of resources. Europe didn't enjoy it much and we'll look at another 50 years of paranoia, US bases, debates on stationing missiles in places like Sicily and Crete and Malta and Gibraltar...

Europe is not, in my mind, taking the long view. We can nip in the bud right now a nascent Arab nuclear buildup. The Arab nations have the oil and economies to prolong a confrontation far, far, longer than the USSR ever did. The Arab nations, especially those with a hard-core Islamic viewpoint, will be much more ideaologically motivated than the Communist workers. They will be much more likely to fund and engage in terrorism and hole the Nuclear Sword of Damocles over the heads of those that dare retaliate.

Anyone that offers genocide as a solution, I don't care against who, is a nutcase, though...

[Alyrium Denryle]

It isnt a matter of who I believe. I believe Iraq had WMD, but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is the logic of the situation. If we provide proof that Iraq has them that will get us support from Germany at least.

Also i completely understand anti-war sentiment, Europe, germany especially, has been through some nasty wars.

To be honest, we are the cause of this in the firstplace. Remember the 80s? We played both sides in the war between Iraq and Iran, we told them to use the very biological weapons that Bush said he has used before. Not only that, but we encouraged uprisings, and refused to support them. It is no small wonder the iraqis hate the US.

Again, it isnt a metter of who i support, it is a matter of simple diplomacy, Give the inspectors more time, and a concrete deadline for Saddam to disarm, and Germany, France, And Russia will support us. Even if the time is only a token 2 or 3 weeks. That small concession will help us.

[Stravo]

Again, it isnt a metter of who i support, it is a matter of simple diplomacy, Give the inspectors more time, and a concrete deadline for Saddam to disarm, and Germany, France, And Russia will support us. Even if the time is only a token 2 or 3 weeks. That small concession will help us.

TIME is preceisely what we don't have. Sadaam and the obstructionists are well aware that we are unwilling to fight in the summer. It is now March, leaving us with precious few weeks in which to launch the strike. They are arguing for time BECAUSE they know we won't go in the summer, thus every week they delay is time lopped off our time table.

This is unacceptable, he's had 12 YEARS to comply. A few weeks ain't going to cut it. The other side has had more than enough time. Maybe no one noticed that Sadaam declared in WRITING he had no WMD yet the inspectors keep finding stuff. He is in default. Pure and simple. Time will not redress this breach.

[Frank Hipper]

Look Iggy, stop maintaining a FUCKING DOUBLE STANDARD.

You say that the French are SUPPORTING SADDAM HUSSEIN BY BEING AGAINST THE US POSITION.

WELL, THE USA WAS SUPPORTING HITLER IN WWII BY THE SAME LOGIC.

So what exactly are you talking about?