View Full Version : French Bastards?
mopeder2004
05-01-2004, 09:23 AM
I gather that some of you don't like the French, that's okay with me. There's a lot of French bashing going on out there. I would rather not voice an opinion on that subject. We American's tend to talk down to other countries that don't kiss our ass and do what we want them to do. I'm an American, but our country has become so stupid and arrogant. It's no wonder to me that the rest of the world hates the U.S.A. We attacked Iraq without justification, now we have to deal with the consequences. That's just too bad, i blame George W Bush, not the French. :woohoo:
Travh20
05-01-2004, 09:46 AM
without justification? where have you been? I gues you missed the 12 years leading up to the war, the UN resolutions, the deadlines, the constant attacks on our plane sin the no fly zones. why do the leftists insist on viewing this as if all of this happend in a vaccum? in their mind Iraq was there and we jsut up and attacked for no good reason. and if your a guy and saying your not gay but saying the french guys have nice butts, you have issues
WhammyBar
05-01-2004, 10:40 AM
Trav, it's called being comfortable with one's sexuality. I can acknoweldge that another girl is pretty, and that people whi are attarcted to girls would find her hot, while still being straight. people who can't are just insecure with their sexuality.
Liberal 4 Life
05-01-2004, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by Travh20
without justification? where have you been? I gues you missed the 12 years leading up to the war, the UN resolutions, the deadlines, the constant attacks on our plane sin the no fly zones. why do the leftists insist on viewing this as if all of this happend in a vaccum? in their mind Iraq was there and we jsut up and attacked for no good reason. and if your a guy and saying your not gay but saying the french guys have nice butts, you have issues
Oh you mean the 12 years, of us giving Saddam weapons? Or the 12 years of asking him to disarm (which he did)? Or the 12 years, where Bush senior could have attacked Saddam but didn’t. Or when the UN inspectors found no WMD’s? Or the 12 years of Iran, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, North Korea all acting horrible to their civilians? Or the AIDs in Africa? Or the 12 years of Israel breaking UN resolutions and going into the West Bank and us doing nothing about that, but then focusing on Iraq? Now I see what you mean...
Oh, and then 9/11 happens. But how does Iraq fit under that? There is no "terrorism" in Iraq, so this "War On Terrorism" isn't really that, for Iraq has NO connection to 9/11. But a war to avenge what Saddam as done to his daddy.
Darth Be'lal
05-01-2004, 08:01 PM
You're right, mopeder;
Instead of going into Iraq and fighting Saddam, we should have done what the French did and just buy oil from that bastard and who cares what Saddam does to his own people, right? After all, the first Gulf War was supposed to have been for oil, was it not?
It's amazing, you see back when Clinton was in charge and Clinton was saying the almost exact same things about Saddam that Bush has been saying (he has weapons of mass destruction, he should be dealt with before he becomes a threat, etc) the French the Germans, the rest of the world for that matter, didn't find America too arrogant and all the rest of the bilge you wrote. But now that a REPUBLICAN is in office WELLLLLLLLLL.....now all of a sudden America is suddenly some kind of Imperialist power that is bent on dominating the world's oil supply and killing babies. Care to explain that?
Liberal4life,
You do need an education in the way the world works. The U.S. has interests and sometimes has to pick its allies on the basis of the lesser of two evils. You see for the 12 years we supported Saddam it was because he was an instrument against radical islam that was sweeping the middle east. So it was a real son of a bitch in the name of Saddam against Radical Islam. Radical Islam was thought to be the bigger threat, so America's policy was to support Saddam. In Afghanistan, it was Radical Islam versus expanding communism in the form of the Soviet Union threatening to swallow yet another country. America backed the Mujahideen (sp?). Neither choice was pretty, but the U.S. has to fight threats against its interests with sometimes very bad allies.
BTW mopeder, it's very bad foreign policy to ally oneself with another on the basis of how good their BEHIND looks, geez!
Travh20
05-01-2004, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by WhammyBar
Trav, it's called being comfortable with one's . I can acknoweldge that another girl is pretty, and that people whi are attarcted to girls would find her hot, while still being straight. people who can't are just insecure with their .
is that what you call it? lol. I can admit when another man is handsome, but singleing out a mans ass as nice is gay no matter how you slice it.
WhammyBar
05-01-2004, 11:02 PM
Trav, I told a freind of mine she had a nice butt. does that make me gay? I don't think it does. I'n comfortable enough with myself to acknowledge things like that. you obviosuly aren't, and there's nothing wrong with that. it's just a personal thing.
The Republican
05-02-2004, 12:56 AM
What bothers me about the French is they took the "morral high ground" in regards to the war in Iraq. Now we find out that they only did that to protect their own asses in the Oil for Food scandal and their secret dealings in Iraqi oil. The reason the French were so upset is that Bush was not a pushover like Clinton was by doing hardly anything about the situation.
Blibblob
05-02-2004, 06:42 AM
I love how people clump people and governments into one group. Especially when they have attempted to exterminate each other countless times throught history.
WhammyBar
05-02-2004, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by The Republican
What bothers me about the French is they took the "morral high ground" in regards to the war in Iraq. Now we find out that they only did that to protect their own asses in the Oil for Food scandal and their secret dealings in Iraqi oil. The reason the French were so upset is that Bush was not a pushover like Clinton was by doing hardly anything about the situation.
found out? I think we knew immediately why the governemnt was doing it. it's a well known fact that they had trade going with Iraq, and if you were at all well informed you would have known that before the war broke out. that said, its the government's corruption, not the people's. most people make decisions about politics based on moral and logic.
Darth Be'lal
05-02-2004, 07:36 PM
Whammy,
The U.S. govt. probably "knew" what the French and Germans were up to when the opposed the USA from going into Iraq, it's too bad that the U.S. press more than dragged its own feet when it came to informing the public what was going on. Last I recollect, I've yet to see the press question any French official as to why it was accepting payoffs from Saddam.
Your right about the French citizen's "moral and logic" though. Apparently it was both moral and logical to accept cheap gas from Saddam and not worry about any suffering of Iraqi people. Not that that sounds very moral and logical to me, but there you go.
CantLickMyBush
05-02-2004, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by WhammyBar
Trav, I told a freind of mine she had a nice butt. does that make me gay? I don't think it does. I'n comfortable enough with myself to acknowledge things like that. you obviosuly aren't, and there's nothing wrong with that. it's just a personal thing.
Women have been more comfortable with their sexuality for a long time. It is extreamly gay and threatening if another guy says "you have a nice butt." I would understand if more men did it but they don't. There are different standards for men and women and you should understand that. To men, when someone says "nice ass" it is directed as a come on, and no guy (exept gays) ever wants to hear another guy hitting on them. Trev is totaly right and he can feel however he wants. You shouldnt be pressing your homosexual beliefs on him WhammyBar.
Liberal 4 Life
05-02-2004, 10:39 PM
lol, what Republicans fight over.
:rolleyes:
Sometimes evil must be pitted against evil to bring about a weakness in both factions. So sometimes an evil faction is temporarily supported.
The trouble comes when you must back-peddle and remove your self from the evil faction you have supported to justify your end result.
mopeder2004
05-03-2004, 08:53 AM
without justification? where have you been? I gues you missed the 12 years leading up to the war, the UN resolutions, the deadlines, the constant attacks on our plane sin the no fly zones. why do the leftists insist on viewing this as if all of this happend in a vaccum? in their mind Iraq was there and we jsut up and attacked for no good reason. and if your a guy and saying your not gay but saying the french guys have nice butts, you have issues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like French girls:thumbs: :D :woohoo:
The Republican
05-03-2004, 09:01 AM
We could find Osama Bil Laden in Iraq sitting on a pile of Saddam's WMD and the libruls would still claim there was no justification for this war.
WhammyBar
05-03-2004, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by CantLickMyBush
You shouldnt be pressing your homosexual beliefs on him WhammyBar.
homosexual beliefs? um...what does that mean?
WhammyBar
05-03-2004, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Whammy,
The U.S. govt. probably "knew" what the French and Germans were up to when the opposed the USA from going into Iraq, it's too bad that the U.S. press more than dragged its own feet when it came to informing the public what was going on. Last I recollect, I've yet to see the press question any French official as to why it was accepting payoffs from Saddam.
Your right about the French citizen's "moral and logic" though. Apparently it was both moral and logical to accept cheap gas from Saddam and not worry about any suffering of Iraqi people. Not that that sounds very moral and logical to me, but there you go.
ok, the press sucks. we know that.
please get it straight: PEOPLE ARE SEPERATE FROM GOVERNMENT. goddamit, how many times must it be repeated.
astrapol2
05-16-2004, 03:03 PM
The "oil for food" scandal is far from being the main explanation to french opposition to war. It benefited a few people, not the govt (which is far from being clean on many other aspects, but that is another issue) and the "cheap iraqi oil" is a pure fiction.
The main reasons for opposing the war were political and geostrategic, not economical. Trade between France and Iraq existed, but was ridiculous compared to trade between France and the USA - we had much more to lose by opposing the USA.
harmony row
05-21-2004, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by mopeder2004
I gather that some of you don't like the French, that's okay with me. There's a lot of French bashing going on out there. I would rather not voice an opinion on that subject. We American's tend to talk down to other countries that don't kiss our ass and do what we want them to do. I'm an American, but our country has become so stupid and arrogant. It's no wonder to me that the rest of the world hates the U.S.A. We attacked Iraq without justification, now we have to deal with the consequences. That's just too bad, i blame George W Bush, not the French. :woohoo:
saddam was killing the kurds and his own people and giving money to suicide bombers familys not that i agree with the war at least in the form it came in