Anti French behavour worries me, I thought JREF forum users would be above it.

[Whyatt]

I've not come here for a while as i have too much work on, but i've just popped back and i'm bit scared by what i see.

There is so much anti-france talk on here, and elsewhere that i really didn't expect.

I'm british. I'm neither pro-war nor anti-war. Though now the war is starting i think it needs to be seen throught o completion this time. Generally, I haven't decided on many issues. Because this is not a black and white issue like so many people here seem to think it is. Its a continuum of murky shades of grey.

Whilst war is abhorent, it seems wrong to leave a dictator in power, so something must be done. hence why i'm not anti-war. I think the right things being done for the wrong reasons.

I don't think oil is a motivation for war. I think anger and collective desire for action after 9-11 is a more significant factor here. Thats why after 12 years of inaction, only now is something done to combat this horiffic dictator.

Don't hate the UN, don't hate the french. Even if they are making the wrong decisions. They goverment is making decisions based on the opinions of it populace. Thats democracy. That is a good thing. The lack of democracy is what make Iraq a horrible place.

I'm deeply suspicous of people who have deep seated opnipons one way or the other. The world is not that simple.

Sorry i've not made myself very clear here, but i've just noted the logical and skeptical thought processes, normally so strong here, slipping a little.

I hope this doesn't offend anyone, because i consider most people here to be very intelligent people, who i have a lot of respect and admiration for. Its also only based on only a brief view of some of the threads, so i may be completely wrong.

-Will

(Edited to coreect spelling- but then decided just to apologise!)

[armageddonman]

That shouldn't surprise you. People tend to react like this to propaganda. Let's quote Hermann Goering again:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

[originalgagster]

Yeah, i agree it is pretty frightening, even if you disagree with the french stance on Iraq, they are still holding a completely legitimate position, and IMO are providing a valuable service by presenting us with a dissenting voice.

[Mike B.]

I don't like French bashing either. I think it is silly for the most part.

I have been to France and I have been to Germany and loved both places and found the people very helpful. A local Frenchman took me to places in Normandy. In Germany, a man took a lot of his own time to help me find some birth records in a church in Kline-Nesterstal (spelling?)

However, there has been US bashing on this site since it started, everything from fast food to the lack of American culture...

So to answer armeggodanmann's other thread about stopping the bashing, I agree, but it should be across the board.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by armageddonman
That shouldn't surprise you. People tend to react like this to propaganda. Let's quote Hermann Goering again:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Fat Herman manages to utter one profound statement - in between the make-up and the morphine - and it is trotted out and quoted as gospel everytime a decision to use force is made.

Contrary to what you may believe AGM - sometimes wars/force ARE necessary - against HG's boss for instance. You may consider war some atavistic holdover from mankinds less than peaceful past. Fact is that guys like SH see the act of negotiation and the offer to compromise as weakness - they understand only force.

WHY CAN'T YOU SEE THAT??????????????????

Since the subject has turned - AGAIN - to Nazis, here is a parable to frame the issue;
"Ghandi vs. Hitler Using His Philosophy of Non-Violence"

G: Can't you see that what you are doing is wrong?
H: No, I don't think so.

G: Well, if you don't change your ways I'm not going to eat for days on end.
H: Well, OK then I'll stop. Sorry about all that nastiness.

G: Now boys and girls the moral of this story is that bad men will always end up being good when they encounter a morally superior argument.

Then Ghandi wakes-up from the coma induced by his repeated beatings only to find himself in a bunk at Treblinka.

G: Oh sh*t!

The End.


Barkhorn.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by armageddonman
That shouldn't surprise you. People tend to react like this to propaganda. Let's quote Hermann Goering again:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

The Nazi quote...trotted out yet again.

Herr Goering was speaking however of a state controlled media. The man had little to no real experience with an actual democracy, except to help subvert it. His quote has no real bearing on what is happening today. We in the US were not "told" we were being attacked, we saw it live on TV. (Unless of course you are saying that 9/11 didn't really happen??....Or is a gubmint conspiracy,...or perhaps like Carlos says it was an alien attack by UFO and Saddam and UBL are innocent????)

Your use of the Nazi quote is...(yawn)...to say the least banal and trite. It's overuse is becoming sickeningly predictable.

-zilla

[Lothian]

Originally posted by rikzilla



We in the US were not "told" we were being attacked, we saw it live on TV. (Unless of course you are saying that 9/11 didn't really happen??....Or is a gubmint conspiracy,...or perhaps like Carlos says it was an alien attack by UFO and Saddam and UBL are innocent????)

What has Saddam got to do with what happened on 9/11 ? If the American media has mixed the two then Goering was right. Then agian it could be your mistake to mix the two, or you could back up the connection.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Whyatt, over in Banter we've been mocking the French backlash (or should that be Freedom backlash) for weeks now. It's all well and good to mock the French for their day to day foibles, but it's stupid of America throw away Lafayette, Louisiana, the Eiffel Tower and D-Day over something as stupid and agenda driven as Gee DubYah's personal vandetta..

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Whyatt
Don't hate the UN, don't hate the french. Even if they are making the wrong decisions.

Americans do not hate the French nor the UN. That said, just because France and the UN disagrees with US security policy doesn't mean the US should hand over our sovereignty to the UN and France.

That is why the US military is about to liquidate Iraq and the UN ran away from their responsibility. It is a matter of will.

JK

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Whyatt, over in Banter we've been mocking the French backlash (or should that be Freedom backlash) for weeks now. It's all well and good to mock the French for their day to day foibles, but it's stupid of America throw away Lafayette, Louisiana, the Eiffel Tower and D-Day over something as stupid and agenda driven as Gee DubYah's personal vandetta..

The French, the French,
a curious race,
they fight with their feet,
and they fu#k with their face.

This is the response your post deserves. That is the level of Unrepentant Sinner's rhetoric. :rolleyes:

We have spent months discussing the reasons for this attack of Iraq. Yet still you parrot the unthinking left. You are dense, yet unflaggingly stupid. :p

[ssibal]

Stuff like this does not lessen the French bashing:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=2400456

[Nie Trink Wasser]

The French Revolution is a damn fine example of why most things French, don't smell good.

[Tmy]

I find that there is too much French defending. The US gets bashed 24/7, threaten not to buy French wine and everyone comes to their aid. The reason the French are being targeted is because they are going out of their way to ruin Bush.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by Tmy
I find that there is too much French defending. The US gets bashed 24/7, threaten not to buy French wine and everyone comes to their aid. The reason the French are being targeted is because they are going out of their way to ruin Bush.

What is your justification for saying the French are "going out of their way to ruin Bush" ?
The French government are representing the settled will of their own people which according to every opinion poll is 70-80% opposed to the war.
I believe this is what is commonly known as democracy.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by Mike B.


However, there has been US bashing on this site since it started, everything from fast food to the lack of American culture...

So to answer armeggodanmann's other thread about stopping the bashing, I agree, but it should be across the board.

Yes this is a good point. All xenophobia is surely a bad thing, anti-americanism, francophobia or otherwise.
It would be good if we could accept someones point of view without reference to the nationality of the person holding the point of view.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by originalgagster


What is your justification for saying the French are "going out of their way to ruin Bush" ?
The French government are representing the settled will of their own people which according to every opinion poll is 70-80% opposed to the war.
I believe this is what is commonly known as democracy.

Weren't they lobbying African nations to join their side. Didnt Jacque threaten to leave countries out of the EU should they back the Americans. They dont have to follow along but they also dont have to champion Saddam's case. These guys are supposedto be our allies.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Whyatt, over in Banter we've been mocking the French backlash (or should that be Freedom backlash) for weeks now. It's all well and good to mock the French for their day to day foibles, but it's stupid of America throw away Lafayette, Louisiana, the Eiffel Tower and D-Day over something as stupid and agenda driven as Gee DubYah's personal vandetta..

Let's see . . . Ladybird, Ladybug, Ladyfinger . . . OK, here it is: Lafayette. Actually, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, his full name was -- I am not making this up -- Marie Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert Motier, Marquis de Lafayette. As a result, he had a hellish childhood. His mother would lean out the kitchen window and shout: ''Marie Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert Motier, Marquis de Lafayette! You get back in here and finish your snails THIS INSTANT!'' Hearing this, the other French children would tease Lafayette, calling him ''Marie'' and threatening to brush his teeth. So as soon as he could, he left France and came to America, where he joined the army and told everybody his name was Mark.

Originally posted by Whyatt

Sorry i've not made myself very clear here, but i've just noted the logical and skeptical thought processes, normally so strong here, slipping a little.


My take on it is, don't be disappointed. This isn't a board full of skeptics. This is a board with a few skeptics and a lot of people who like to THINK they're skeptics.

Took me a while to figure that out too.

[Troll]

I'm just being fair to the poor French. I mean what if they saw all the US and Israel bashing that takes place here and felt unimportant or insignificant because they weren't getting the attention?

[LeFevre]

how can skepticism be used in politics, how is it used? Why would the JREF users be above it (esspecially when anyone can sign up)?

The French seem to be being blamed for having made a pre-meditated decision to trash the 2nd resolution. They are being blamed fro saying they would veto "no matter what". The thing is - pretty much everyone who has been watching this knows perfectly well that it is the USA which decided long ago that there was going to be regime change in Iraq "No matter what". Blair and Powell convinced Bush to go the UN route only relunctantly, and it has only ever been an attempted political fig-leaf. This was has been absolutely inevitable for a very long time. All the French did was take the same attitude toward granting UN approval for a pre-emptive war against Iraq that the USA had decided on its own was going to happen. It seems almost a new level of hypocrisy. America has decided that the UN does not matter when compared to its own interests. The French merely forced this to be demonstrated. The French were not responsible for damaging the UN, merely for exposing the US disregard for the UN which has already rendered it pointless.

[Michael Redman]

You are assuming that, without the French effort, the security council would still not have approved the war. After all, if it had authorized the war, then the US wouldn't be disregarding the UN in deciding to go to war, it would be cooperating with it. To say that the US disregarding the UN was a forgone conculsion is to say that the UN failing to approve the use of force is a forgone conclusion.

If the US were disregarding the UN (before 2 days ago) the US would never have sought UN authorization, and this war would have been fought and finished already. The French could not have known that the US would act without UN approval unless they knew that the US would not get UN approval.

[CapelDodger]

From M.Redman:
If the US were disregarding the UN (before 2 days ago) the US would never have sought UN authorization, and this war would have been fought and finished already.
I don't think the forces and planning were in place to have started this any sooner. And it seems entirely plausible that the White House was persuaded to go to the UN on the grounds that gaining UN backing would be a plus while not gaining it isn't a negative - basically, screw 'em.
Whyatt - you made an invalid assumption, I'm afraid. You find a lot of closed minds and cliched (Oh no! French!) thinking on this forum. But it still has a certain je ne sais quoi - I just don't know what it is.

[Whyatt]

Originally posted by originalgagster
Yeah, i agree it is pretty frightening, even if you disagree with the french stance on Iraq, they are still holding a completely legitimate position, and IMO are providing a valuable service by presenting us with a dissenting voice.

I very much agree. I think something needs to be done, but there view is a valid one.

[Whyatt]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Americans do not hate the French nor the UN. That said, just because France and the UN disagrees with US security policy doesn't mean the US should hand over our sovereignty to the UN and France.

That is why the US military is about to liquidate Iraq and the UN ran away from their responsibility. It is a matter of will.

JK

I never ment that, it just seems certain people, i didn't and don't specify nationality, seem too. I never aim to taint a nation with one brush.

[Whyatt]

Originally posted by Tmy
I find that there is too much French defending. The US gets bashed 24/7, threaten not to buy French wine and everyone comes to their aid. The reason the French are being targeted is because they are going out of their way to ruin Bush.

Ignoring the latter part of your comment, i also think theres a lot of american bashing. This too i find horrible. Around me day to day i see lots of people hating america, when what they mean to hate is their president.

Hate itself is one of the big problems here IMO. (But George bush is still a cock IMO as well).

[Tmy]

As far as "americans hating french", its sort of a running joke here in the States. Its not like any Frenchmen are going to be beat up in the streets of New York (well, unless their being mugged). "hate" is a little harsh. Its more of a rivalry-resentment. Sort of like ribbing someone who cheers for the opposing football team.

[Whyatt]

Originally posted by sundog


My take on it is, don't be disappointed. This isn't a board full of skeptics. This is a board with a few skeptics and a lot of people who like to THINK they're skeptics.

Took me a while to figure that out too.

I don't want to agree with you, but its looking that way.

I just expected people like ourselves to see the shades of grey, this isn't uri gellar conning money out of the public or some fraud saying they can so this that or the other. Thats just a case of "prove it then". Thats falseifable.

This is 6 Billion people with different thoughts ideas and opinions being told different things, experiencing different events, growing up in different places. And living different lives. This isn't black and white. But people some people here seem to think it is.

I would like to see the news reports in the USA. And i would like to see those in france. In the demon haunted world carl sagan said something very appropriate about Sadam Hussien, but i cant remeber it. Does any one have a quote?

Its like before WW II, with Neville Chamberlain and his piece of paper, no one could see where things lead, so bare that in mind. And just hope that as time goes on things get better.

And that the right descisions lead us there quickly.

But we can never be sure what those correct descisions are going to be. So remember that.

Sorry to rant. And my thoughts go out to anyones friends and families who have gone to fight. And the civilians who are trapped with life under a immoral dictator or in a war zone.

And also to the men in the Iraqi army. They too must believe they are doing what is right or they would not fight (I hope). This is a truely sad fact. Possibly the saddist of all.

[errolo]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Whyatt, over in Banter we've been mocking the French backlash (or should that be Freedom backlash) for weeks now. It's all well and good to mock the French for their day to day foibles, but it's stupid of America throw away Lafayette, Louisiana, the Eiffel Tower and D-Day over something as stupid and agenda driven as Gee DubYah's personal vandetta..

Hey! I live in Lafayette, LA and we ain't givin' it back. There is a stong contingent of French ancestry around this part of the state (myself included) and some major bashing of the French going on here.

There is even talk of cutting ties with "twinned" cities in France from the ones in Louisiana. And this is comming from first language French, speaking Americans.

A little irrational at this point, perhaps, but I can understand the sentiment.

acajun

[RandFan]

Originally posted by armageddonman
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials Therefore what?

Does the statement obviate Saddam's obligations? Should we assume that Bush's intentions are dishonarable because of something Goering said? Should Goering's words cause us to believe that every military action taken by a nation wrong?

The statement is interesting but all by itself it is like a turd on the front lawn. What does it have to do with belatedly dealing with a 12 year old problem?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Whyatt
Don't hate the UN, don't hate the french. Even if they are making the wrong decisions. They goverment is making decisions based on the opinions of it populace. Thats democracy. That is a good thing. The lack of democracy is what make Iraq a horrible place. Fair enough, and thanks Whyatt, but please understand that when American boys were being mowed down by machine guns on the beaches of Normandy, America was not threatened directly by Germany. Some people wondered why we were fighting the Germans. Why not focus all of our attention on Japan?

Many French were devastated and heartbroken that their country was controlled by a foreign dictator. They wanted desperately to be liberated. Unfortunately this was not the first time. America had come to the aid of France before. America had sacrificed much of its youth to liberate France.

Sure France had given aid to America previously. We invaded on D-Day because in addition to fearing Hitler we believed that we were allies with France, they were our friends. We would support them if they would support us.

Now, a mere 50 years later we extend our hand to the French and ask them to return a favor. But even though the grave markers of our fallen young boys litter french graveyards France turns its back on us.

They can't be bothered removing a murderous thug from office.

Ok, that's fine. We at least understand the true nature of our relationship now. I won't make any anti French statements but I will say this. I hope that if France is ever threatened again that none of our young men die in defense of them.

We have repaid our debt for the help they gave us during the Revolutionary War. The graves of our boys are proof of the payment.

It is time to go our separate ways. With friends like France.... well you know the rest.

[DavidJames]

"My take on it is, don't be disappointed. This isn't a board full of skeptics. This is a board with a few skeptics and a lot of people who like to THINK they're skeptics."

Oh they're skeptical all right, skeptical of things they don't believe in or agree with. ;)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by rikzilla


The French, the French,
a curious race,
they fight with their feet,
and they fu#k with their face.

This is the response your post deserves. That is the level of Unrepentant Sinner's rhetoric. :rolleyes:

We have spent months discussing the reasons for this attack of Iraq. Yet still you parrot the unthinking left. You are dense, yet unflaggingly stupid. :p

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

Let's see . . . Ladybird, Ladybug, Ladyfinger . . . OK, here it is: Lafayette. Actually, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, his full name was -- I am not making this up -- Marie Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert Motier, Marquis de Lafayette. As a result, he had a hellish childhood. His mother would lean out the kitchen window and shout: ''Marie Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert Motier, Marquis de Lafayette! You get back in here and finish your snails THIS INSTANT!'' Hearing this, the other French children would tease Lafayette, calling him ''Marie'' and threatening to brush his teeth. So as soon as he could, he left France and came to America, where he joined the army and told everybody his name was Mark.

Wow, nice to see someone put the jerk back in knee-jerk. And two responses for the price of one? I must have made a point.

Get back to me when you can...

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by errolo


Hey! I live in Lafayette, LA and we ain't givin' it back. There is a stong contingent of French ancestry around this part of the state (myself included) and some major bashing of the French going on here.

There is even talk of cutting ties with "twinned" cities in France from the ones in Louisiana. And this is comming from first language French, speaking Americans.

A little irrational at this point, perhaps, but I can understand the sentiment.

acajun

I guess it was the whole stupid Freedom Fry thing that pushed me to my uncommonly zealous defense of the French. Hell, I love making fun of mimes, French movies, dogs in resturaunts, Inspecter Cluseau, etc, but the rediculous irrational xenophobia exhibited because Franch (shocke inhallation) dared to disagree with us on foreign policy.

Just give me one big break.

Why don't you France bashers aim your guns at a more deserving target - Natalie Manes.

[DrChinese]

Yes, in the future there will be one world. A world in which the United States sets the example for all. The French will submit to our will, as will all less unenlightened countries.

We won't need the U.N. in this world, and so the French won't have a veto. Since America has all the answers - even though it has but 5% of the world's population - it will be redundent to have anyone else on the Security Council other than the U.S. So why bother?

What a wonderful world to look forward to! A blissful world, in which all of the answers are provided with neither debate nor dissent. Since it is obvious that only American points of view are worthy, action will be swift and efficient. And in all cases, in the best interests of our subjects...er, allies.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
...that pushed me to my uncommonly zealous defense of the French. ... Why? They wouldn't defend you...

Trust me, the French don't give a damn that you want to defend them. But if you feel like defending a group of people with nothing but contempt and disdain for you then by all means.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DrChinese
Yes, in the future there will be one world. A world in which the United States sets the example for all. The French will submit to our will, as will all less unenlightened countries. ********...and a straw man. The United States has tried to work with the UN. A body that agreed that Saddam needed to disarm. A body that could not in 12 years effect change in Iraq.

We won't need the U.N. in this world,... It has nothing to do with need, the UN has proved that they are impotent and now irrelevant.

...and so the French won't have a veto. Cool, they won't be able to stab us in the back.

Since America has all the answers - Another straw man. No one said we had all the answers. (2 in one post not bad) Telling Saddam to disarm but refusing to use force is a joke. If you like to live in a fantasy world where a world body fails after 12 years to complete a job and refuses to use force then please help them relocate to this world of yours.

...swift and efficient. Are you out of your mind? TWELVE YEARS! How is 12 years swift and efficient? You must have a different dictionary than I do. I would not consider 12 years swift or efficient.

On the other hand the French wanted NO deadlines. I guess when you compare 12 years to eternity it is swift and efficient.

And in all cases, in the best interests of our subjects...er, allies. You got that one wrong didn't you. WE were attacked on 911. WE believe that Iraq is a threat to America. Guess what, we are not going to wait around for the UN to protect us. So, the accurate statement would read, in the best interests and for the safety of the United States... For any countries who would seriously like to be on of our allies I would suggest that you don't stab us in the back the way the French did.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by RandFan
Why? They wouldn't defend you...

Trust me, the French don't give a damn that you want to defend them. But if you feel like defending a group of people with nothing but contempt and disdain for you then by all means.

You know the mind of the French? I'm speaking from actual recorded History, you're speaking from some imagined waiter who's pissed off at you for mispronouncing "boeff"

Give me a break. :rolleyes:

[evildave]

Bah!

Current events haven't caused anti-French sentiment!

It's always been there.

Probably jealous of the Eiffel tower.

Of course, the Statue of Liberty was a gift from France.

Not that someone like Dubya would remember.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
You know the mind of the French? I'm speaking from actual recorded History, you're speaking from some imagined waiter who's pissed off at you for mispronouncing "boeff" History? History recorded that Americans paid a price of blood to liberate France, TWICE.

Current history has shown that when we needed the help of the French they turned their back on us.

So tell me about this "history". I have conceded that they helped us win the Revolution but what does France care about America today? When asked to help disarm Saddam the French responded that they would NEVER vote to use force.

So, how do we disarm Saddam using the French method. He refused to allow the inspectors in until he realized that Bush might be serious about force after 911.

Saying that they would NEVER vote to use force was the ultimate "screw you". That told Saddam once and for all that if the United States did not act alone Saddam would NEVER have to comply. Unless you think saying "stop that" would really have any effect on Saddam?

So tell us about this "recorded history" that shows that the French care about what you think or about what the Americans think.

Please, I'm dying to know. I'll try to listen but the actions of the French are screaming in my ears.

And you want ME to give you a break? Come on, get real.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by evildave
Of course, the Statue of Liberty was a gift from France.

Not that someone like Dubya would remember. Of course our boys died liberating France, not that Chirac or the people of France would remember.

[evildave]

You know, if Japan hadn't bombed the U.S., and if Germany hadn't declared war on the U.S. immediately afterwards, we'd have let Hitler keep France. And that is the plain truth. We were VERY out of the European war.

Realistically, we went through France on the way to Berlin.

We had no business at all getting mixed up in the first "World War". Aside from profiteering off the war, we had no business being there. And the only reason we were sucked in was ships that were potentially reinforcing Germany's enemies with weapons from the U.S. were also carrying passengers. France would have stood or fallen with their allies, and the U.S. would not have moved a finger.

The whole stupid philosophy of "what everyone owes us" is what has "everyone" hating our guts.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by RandFan
Of course our boys died liberating France, not that Chirac or the people of France would remember.

So now they "owe us" imperpituity while our debt to them is free and clear? You're clearly delusional.

I'm sure the French hate America so much they danced at 9/11.
http://www.costumegoddess.com/9-11mmrl.htm

I'm sure the French People hate America's dead being buried there.
http://www.normandy-dday.com/gb/08dday/normandy-dday/Default_Gb.asp?thema=news
"If there are no rooms available for returning veterans a system of accommodation in family homes will be established similar to the one witch operated in 1994."

You idiot...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by evildave
You know, if Japan hadn't bombed the U.S., and if Germany hadn't declared war on the U.S. immediately afterwards, we'd have let Hitler keep France. And that is the plain truth. We were VERY out of the European war. Hitler wanted a separate peace with America. It is arguable that we did not need to land at Normandy.

We had no business at all getting mixed up in the first "World War". Aside from profiteering off the war, we had no business being there. And the only reason we were sucked in was ships that were potentially reinforcing Germany's enemies with weapons from the U.S. were also carrying passengers. France would have stood or fallen with their allies, and the U.S. would not have moved a finger. Would have, could have, should have. We came to the aid of the French.

The whole stupid philosophy of "what everyone owes us" is what has "everyone" hating our guts. Everyone huh? We'll I guess I will have to just disagree.

"Everyone owes us" has never been part of my sentiments. However the action of France hurt. If that translates into "everyone owes us" to you then so be it.

[UnrepentantSinner]

http://www.newseum.org/frontpages/images/fra_lm.jpg

NOUS SOMMES TOUS AMERICAINS

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by RandFan
"Everyone owes us" has never been part of my sentiments. However the action of France hurt. If that translates into "everyone owes us" to you then so be it.

Did you have some terrible experience in a Paris Bistro you're not telling us about?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
So now they "owe us" imperpituity... You don't read to well do you?

RandFan
We have repaid our debt for the help they gave us during the Revolutionary War. The graves of our boys are proof of the payment.

It is time to go our separate ways.

while our debt to them is free and clear? You're clearly delusional. How many of our young boys must die before our "debt" is repaid?

I'm sure the French hate America so much they danced at 9/11. I won't bother reading the link since I never said that France "hate[s]" America. Do you understand what a straw man is?...

I'm sure the French People hate America's dead being buried there. ...I guess not. You see unrepentant, when you claim that someone takes a position that they do not hold so that you can easily rebut that position it is a straw man.

You can find more information about it here, ]Logic & Fallacies (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html) . Oh, for the record I never said or intimated that the French hate America's dead being buried in France. So I guess there is no relevance to that link either. Well, thanks for trying.

You idiot... Let's see now. You completely misconstrue my argument and make a straw man. You have 1440 posts so I am sure that somewhere along the line someone has told you about fallacious arguments. And I am the idiot? Well, isn't that special.

So the French will let Veterans have free room and board. Helping us out with Saddam though is a bit too much of an inconvenience.

Somehow I think this bit of good will is overshadowed by recent events.

Well your argument isn't going so great. Maybe you could use stronger epithets. If you need some help let me know. I have a whole list of epithets and put downs. Some are vulgar like "you are a f***ing moron". Some are witty, "your mother smells of elderberries". Do you see how those are much more effective than "you idiot..."?

Of course, such tactics do nothing to advance your argument but they might make you feel better.

Let me know,

RandFan

[UnrepentantSinner]

Hey RandFan, as long as you're um... "educating me" on logical fallacies, how about you educate yourself. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hyperbole)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Did you have some terrible experience in a Paris Bistro you're not telling us about? You are just not getting this are you?

The French said that they would NEVER vote for a resolution that allowed for the use of force.

Maybe you don't understand the implication of this statement. Without the threat of force the entire effort becomes academic. All of the resolutions, all of the time and effort and the suffering of the Iraqi people would become moot. It was the threat of force that compelled Saddam to allow the inspectors back in.

There is little that Chirac could have said that would have been more of a "screw you America" statement than "we will never allow a resolution that calls for the use of force".

Chirac is no idiot. He knew this. This is not rocket science. While it was not his intention to screw America we simply were not important enough to him to support us.

Chirac had to make a choice between supporting Iraq its newest trading partner and America one of its oldest allies. It chose Iraq.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by RandFan
You are just not getting this are you?

There is little that Chirac could have said that would have been more of a "screw you America" statement than "we will never allow a resolution that calls for the use of force".

Chirac is no idiot. He knew this. This is not rocket science. While it was not his intention to screw America we simply were not important enough to him to support us.

Chirac had to make a choice between supporting Iraq its newest trading partner and America one of its oldest allies. It chose Iraq.

Ahhhh, I see where part of our disagreement is.

I agree Chirac is making a power play.
I agree Chirac and the French Parliament are trying to assert their relevency show that they're not America's lapdog.

That sucks and it does piss me off.

What I don't like is the bashing of France the country in toto, it's history, culture, contributions and people because we don't like the policies of it's government.

Isn't that what we American's ask for ourselves in this world? Aren't there billions of people on Earth who think America's foreign policy sucks and are pissed off about it, but they don't bash America in toto, our history, culture, contributions and people?

Do you get it now?

[RandFan]

Edited to add the following is a mean and patronizing piece to unrepentent. I would delete it but have come to realize this is a bad idea so I ask you to please disregard it.

RandFan.

My apologies to UnrepentantSinner.

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Hey RandFan, as long as you're um... "educating me" on logical fallacies, how about you educate yourself. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hyperbole) That would be all well and good if I had actually engaged in hyperbole.

Maybe you did not bother to read the definition yourself. Let me repost it here.

hy·per·bo·le ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pûrb-l)
n.
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.

A figure of speech in which the expression is an evident exaggeration of the meaning intended to be conveyed, or by which things are represented as much greater or less, better or worse, than they really are; a statement exaggerated fancifully, through excitement, or for effect.

extravagant exaggeration

Could you identify this "exaggeration" of mine? You know, quote that part of the text (my text) where I exaggerate.

I will wait. It is 11:00 PM pacific time. I was hopping to go to bed soon. Will I have to wait long?

A bit of advice unrepentent, you might want to actually read the definition before you link it.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Ahhhh, I see where part of our disagreement is.

I agree Chirac is making a power play.
I agree Chirac and the French Parliament are trying to assert their relevency show that they're not America's lapdog.

That sucks and it does piss me off. Damn, And I just posted a patronizing piece to you.

What I don't like is the bashing of France the country in toto, it's history, culture, contributions and people because we don't like the policies of it's government. No argument.

Isn't that what we American's ask for ourselves in this world? Aren't there billions of people on Earth who think America's foreign policy sucks and are pissed off about it, but they don't bash America in toto, our history, culture, contributions and people? You are right. I agree completely.

Do you get it now? Yes.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by RandFan
Of course our boys died liberating France, not that Chirac or the people of France would remember.

So? French soldiers died in the first Gulf War. Funny how NOONE seems to remember that.


edited for spelling

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by RandFan
That would be all well and good if I had actually engaged in hyperbole.

Maybe you did not bother to read the definition yourself. Let me repost it here.

<snip hubris>

A bit of advice unrepentent, you might want to actually read the definition before you link it.

If you were less busy masturbating yourself mentally, you would have realized that I was referring to my use of hyperbole.

I exaggerated your statements: "Trust me, the French don't give a damn that you want to defend them." and "Of course our boys died liberating France, not that Chirac or the people of France would remember." into the French hatred of us and our graveyards in Normandy.

Ready to get over yourself yet?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by RandFan
Damn, And I just posted a patronizing piece to you.



And I just noticed this one.

We'll leave 'em both up, we can use 'em for material in Flame War if need be. :)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by armageddonman
So? French soldiers did in the first Gulf War. Funny how NOONE seems to remember that. My response was a rhetorical quip to evildave. I'm not sure what you are saying but it is late and I am all out of steam for argument.

Of course finding out that I was arguing apples while UnrepententSinner was arguing oranges did allot to deflate my ego.

Well, I vented. Hopefully I have not made any enimies.

Thanks for the responses Sinner, do you go by Sinner or unrepentent?

In regards to my patronizing attitude and quips I will close with the words of Miss Emily Laticia (sp?) "never mind".

[RandFan]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


If you were less busy masturbating yourself mentally, you would have realized that I was referring to my use of hyperbole.

I exaggerated your statements: "Trust me, the French don't give a damn that you want to defend them." and "Of course our boys died liberating France, not that Chirac or the people of France would remember." into the French hatred of us and our graveyards in Normandy.

Ready to get over yourself yet? Yeah, I am.

I may be slow but eventualy I get there.

:)

[Kthulhu]

Hate the french? Naw... To make a gross over-generalization they come across as haughty, a bit spikey, and well... sorta french (thanks to Eddie Izzard for that line). But I have no real animosity towards them as a people.

As for their government? That's another issue. We seem to bump heads with them in international affairs quite a bit. From the denial of overflight rights in the attack on Libya, to whom in the world they sell weapons to (China, Iraq, and I'm sure some other objectionables), to selling nuclear reactors to Iraq that were rather large for an altenative energy source "research" site (alternative energy research in the country with the world's second largest oil reserves?). They ostensably pull out of NATO in '66 and then have the nuts to sabotage a strictly NATO defense deal with Turkey just recently.

Less of a concern for the US directly but they also seem to play the bully in the internal politics of the EU (hearsay alert!). Which may explain why the US seems to get alot of support from the smaller eastern european countries in this instance.

But all of these were fairly minor (well maybe not the nuclear reactor) compared to how they approached the recent attempts of going through the UN to disarm Saddam. They employed some suicide diplomacy by making the firm statement that they would use their veto for ANY resolution that authorized force ever.

While some may see that as "sticking to your guns" it's actually called bad faith negotiating. The reason you don't here of Germany, Russia, or China getting as much flak from people is because they at least made overtures that at some point force would be needed if compliance was not met.

In short I think the US made the mistake of pushing too hard. Bush et al. should of taken a softer tack in the UN. However the French forced our hand when they refused even to consider military action which, in the less then perfect world we live in, is the only thing that can make international law enforcable.

I would also like to mention that this whole "freedom" fries and "freedom" toast thing is really. really embarassing. I'm not even touching the "dig up our war dead in France and ship them home" thing proposed by some dingle-nugget congressman (woman?). Why don't we just put the icing on the immature, pouty politics cake and pass an ammendment that declares all the french doodoo-heads, that we can no longer play ball with them anymore, and they're not allowed to come over for sleep-overs?

That's just my 2 francs

~The Thing That Should Not Be

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by RandFan
My response was a rhetorical quip to evildave. I'm not sure what you are saying but it is late and I am all out of steam for argument.

Of course finding out that I was arguing apples while UnrepententSinner was arguing oranges did allot to deflate my ego.

Well, I vented. Hopefully I have not made any enimies.

Thanks for the responses Sinner, do you go by Sinner or unrepentent?

In regards to my patronizing attitude and quips I will close with the words of Miss Emily Laticia (sp?) "never mind".

US or USA is fine (I'm UnrepentanSinnerAtheist in PalTalk). And the abbreviations give me a chance to be patriotic every time I get a reply.

USA!!

And though I got a bit heated early on (work nights, hadn't had enough coffee yet) I did enjoy the mental stimulation. It an and my Googling for my links provided a diversion that has made my night go by much faster. Four more hours and it's Miller Time!

[fsol]

All this talk of vetos.

It was the US/Britain that stated that if the second resolution is unjustly vetoed by a permanent member then we reserve the right to continue with war anyway.

Thus if the French veto had been allowed to take place against a majority in favour of the war it would not have mattered anyway. The problem was that the US/Britain could not be sure they were going to get a majaority in favour and so decided to go it alone. In this way they could claim to be acting legally and not in complete opposition to the UN. Blaming the loss of the second resolution on the French is ludicrous.

Additionally, to say that the French were putting pressure on other member states to tow their line and ignore the fact that the US/Britain were doing exactly the same is a little dishonest.

Don't condemn all the French for a fews action. Not every French person feels the same way as the leaders do.

[Smalso]

It does kind of grate on me that the French are so obstinate but, what the hey? The French government has its priorities and they don't meld with ours. Hell, we can't run all over the globe dictating policy to other soverign nations. Or, can we? Anyhow, France has a lot of good people just like the U.S. has a lot of buttheads. They make some damn fine wines and brandies over there and I think pouring them out into the gutter to make a point is just a childish pout.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Smalso
They make some damn fine wines and brandies over there and I think pouring them out into the gutter to make a point is just a childish pout. I agree, as is crushing Dixie Chicks CDs.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Smalso
It does kind of grate on me that the French are so obstinate but, what the hey? The French government has its priorities and they don't meld with ours. Hell, we can't run all over the globe dictating policy to other soverign nations. Or, can we? Anyhow, France has a lot of good people just like the U.S. has a lot of buttheads. They make some damn fine wines and brandies over there and I think pouring them out into the gutter to make a point is just a childish pout.
Agreed.

In fact, if we Americans destroyed or threw away every thing made in a country that opposes the war, we wouldn't have much left.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Smalso
They make some damn fine wines and brandies over there and I think pouring them out into the gutter to make a point is just a childish pout. If I ever get back to South Carolina we are going to have to sit down to a port.

[zakur]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Let's see . . . Ladybird, Ladybug, Ladyfinger . . . OK, here it is: Lafayette. Actually, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, his full name was -- I am not making this up -- Marie Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert Motier, Marquis de Lafayette. As a result, he had a hellish childhood. His mother would lean out the kitchen window and shout: ''Marie Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert Motier, Marquis de Lafayette! You get back in here and finish your snails THIS INSTANT!'' Hearing this, the other French children would tease Lafayette, calling him ''Marie'' and threatening to brush his teeth. So as soon as he could, he left France and came to America, where he joined the army and told everybody his name was Mark. Jumping into this thread late, and don't have anything to add to the French/American xenophobia discussion, but I did want to make sure the above quote gets proper attribution: Dave Barry, A different kind of French kiss (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/dave_barry/5398886.htm), 3/16/03

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by RandFan
The French said that they would NEVER vote for a resolution that allowed for the use of force.

Bless them for coming out and saying it before a vote, to save everyone from the political difficulties of a veto.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DrBenway
Bless them for coming out and saying it before a vote, to save everyone from the political difficulties of a veto. And bless land mines that blow the feet off of children. Now they don't have to worry about purchasing shoes.

It's nice to know that there are silver linnings to anything.

Is a glass with a drop of water "almost empty" or 1/100,000th full.

I guess it is all in how you look at it.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by RandFan
********...and a straw man. The United States has tried to work with the UN. A body that agreed that Saddam needed to disarm. A body that could not in 12 years effect change in Iraq.

It has nothing to do with need, the UN has proved that they are impotent and now irrelevant.

Cool, they won't be able to stab us in the back.

Another straw man. No one said we had all the answers. (2 in one post not bad) Telling Saddam to disarm but refusing to use force is a joke. If you like to live in a fantasy world where a world body fails after 12 years to complete a job and refuses to use force then please help them relocate to this world of yours.

Are you out of your mind? TWELVE YEARS! How is 12 years swift and efficient? You must have a different dictionary than I do. I would not consider 12 years swift or efficient.

On the other hand the French wanted NO deadlines. I guess when you compare 12 years to eternity it is swift and efficient.

You got that one wrong didn't you. WE were attacked on 911. WE believe that Iraq is a threat to America. Guess what, we are not going to wait around for the UN to protect us. So, the accurate statement would read, in the best interests and for the safety of the United States... For any countries who would seriously like to be on of our allies I would suggest that you don't stab us in the back the way the French did.

Funny, everything you wrote assumes Bush is right and anyone opposed to his position is a weenie. But guess what? Maybe the rest of the world doesn't feel threatened by Saddam. And maybe the rest of the world doesn't feel that the penalty for breeching U.N. resolutions should be regime change. If what I say is right, then the U.S. is wrong to act unilaterally. Oh, sorry, not unilaterally... we also have Estonia and Latvia with us.

12 months ago - before Bush got a bee in his bonnet - no one was even thinking about Saddam and the "threat" he represents. Bush et al were still looking for Osama. When we lost track of him, Bush needed a new target. Voila (that's French)! Let's bring back Saddam for an encore.

[Smalso]

Originally posted by RandFan
If I ever get back to South Carolina we are going to have to sit down to a port.

Hell, man; you got a deal. 'Course I live in North Carolina, but if you ever get this far east, I'll make the drive to meet you where ever. Hell, I'll even buy.

edited to add: ...the first round.

[Doctor X]

Latest in from CNN concerning the war:

The French have surrendered.

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA! . . . ha! . . . ha. . . . heh . . . heh?

Picks up ball and walks away in huff.

--J. "Will Not Quit Day-Job" D.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DrChinese
Funny, everything you wrote assumes Bush is right and anyone opposed to his position is a weenie. It assumes no such thing. Why would you make that statement?

It assumes that when we needed help the French turned their backs on us.

But guess what? Maybe the rest of the world doesn't feel threatened by Saddam. Maybe Saddam is an alien and this is all just a dream.

Come on, we have been trying to get Saddam to disarm for 12 years. The inspectors who are comprised of experts from around the world have said that there is a very real reason to fear Saddam. Whey the caught him in a lie and discovered large stockpiles of anthrax 5 or 6 years ago it confirmed their fears. Many of the nations who voted for 1441 (it was unanimous by the way) have said that they fear Saddam. We currently have 32 countries on our side as of last count. The Turks have said they fear Saddam. The Kuwaitis have said that they fear Saddam.

Your argument is rhetorical and demonstrably false, I guess the "maybe" is some kind of out for you.

And maybe the rest of the world doesn't feel that the penalty for breeching U.N. resolutions should be regime change. That is good because neither does the US. After 12 years of Saddam lies and all of the evidence we are convinced that Saddam is a very serious threat. We have labored to work with the UN. We realize that they disagree with us but we cannot allow our Safety and security to be dependant on a body that does not have our best interest at heart.

If what I say is right, then the U.S. is wrong to act unilaterally. Oh, sorry, not unilaterally... we also have Estonia and Latvia with us. And Spain and Portugal and 28 other countries. But why let intellectual honesty stop you from making a rhetorical argument.

12 months ago - before Bush got a bee in his bonnet - no one was even thinking about Saddam and the "threat" Well that is wrong. Clinton thought Saddam was enough of a threat to brief the new administration about the ongoing intelligence and investigation. Clinton has said that he wanted to do more but the international community was leaning to dropping sanctions. Clinton has said recently that HE (Clinton) still thinks Saddam is a threat though he disagrees with the war.

Saddam never stopped being a threat.

Voila (that's French)! Oh really? Thanks for sharing. Well, I have to go, my wife just made a new batch of popcorn and the war is on.