You guys know I usually don't use such language but I am damn tired of these French bastard newspapers cutting America down.
Now I read where their newspapers are calling us religious fanatics ramming Democracy down those poor Arab throats.
France has no program for fighting the increasing terrorism in their country. Their economy is terrible. And they would be speaking German if we had not saved their ass from Hitler in who had already occupied France. I hope some of you chicken-shit French see this post because I ask who are you going to yell for the next time your ass is in trouble?
If it had not been for France and Russia in the UN we would not have the problems we face today. Time will show that Sadam owned politicians in France over food for oil coruption.
You weak-kneed bastards.

The French have lost all credebility in my eyes. It is tough to see who is worse...the French or the UN.

Geez, RAMMING democracy down the throats of the Iraqis. That's a totally new atrocity for the books. I bet there are zillions of people on the planet that wish we would "ram" democracy (and all the economic, religious and human freedoms) down THEIR throats.

My theory on the French is that they spent the entire twentieth century having their asses handed to them by various foreign powers when, at one time, they were THE power of the western world. So I surmise that they would like a bit of that prestige back, and are a bit sulky at having America rise to the level that she is at. Unfortunately, all the French can do nowadays is nip at the heels of America. God, that must sting!

Somehow, between the Napoleonic wars, the two world wars and the fiasco the french faced in Vietnam has killed off all the really tough, moral Frenchies and we are seeing the results of it now.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Somehow, between the Napoleonic wars, the two world wars and the fiasco the french faced in Vietnam has killed off all the really tough, moral Frenchies and we are seeing the results of it now.

I like to think of Napoleon as the last Frenchman with a real set of balls. Everyone since then has been a wuss.

Could be that we should all get in a row-boat and go take over france.
My sling shot still works.

We saved them in WW2, they saved us in the in american revolution. Why all the French bashing?
Look at our media for a second. We have 'freedom' fries and 'freedom' toast. We have people like you screaming bloody murder against the french and you really havnt given a reason.

If your reason is because they didn't support us in Iraq, guess what? They were right. We were wrong and people STILL won't admit it.

huys, you're doing the exact same thing you are accusing the french of doing to us: bashing needlessly. France isn't he only country with a corrupt governemnt: look at ours. do you honestly think we are any better than any of the other liberal democracies?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! This thread belongs in humour... *Falls down and starts to choke from laughing so hard*

I wasn't arguing the government. Their government system is crap. Ours is pretty good

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
I hope some of you chicken-shit French see this post because I ask who are you going to yell for the next time your ass is in trouble?

I thought France-bashing was over in the USA but obviously I was wrong.

If you want valid reasons to criticize France, I can give you a few ones. Just ask me politely.

Originally posted by astrapol2
I thought France-bashing was over in the USA but obviously I was wrong.


I wouldn't take that as the majority view.

Originally posted by WindWip
I wasn't arguing the government. Their government system is crap. Ours is pretty good

Really? Please explain what is so "crap" about the french government system compared with the ever shining american.

France stay out from war in Irak.many countrys dont go in the war hvorfor France get the oil from Russia.

It can't be helped. The cultural values are different between France and USA. Their media is not being dishonest, only that the opinions towards the US are French in nature. Who has in the past saved whom shouldn't really affect these fundamental cultural differences.

Originally posted by astrapol2
I thought France-bashing was over in the USA but obviously I was wrong.

If you want valid reasons to criticize France, I can give you a few ones. Just ask me politely.

hello i nevver see french people anywhere on net or seldom
they all must be drinking wine or having sex ..lol

im trying to learn french

major andre was french .. layfeette or roberspeire i can do without

you forgot, we saved there asses in ww1 also.

Originally posted by WindWip
We saved them in WW2, they saved us in the in american revolution. Why all the French bashing?
Look at our media for a second. We have 'freedom' fries and 'freedom' toast. We have people like you screaming bloody murder against the french and you really havnt given a reason.

If your reason is because they didn't support us in Iraq, guess what? They were right. We were wrong and people STILL won't admit it.
Lets not forget that the war everyone wants to compare Iraq to was because of the French. We went into Vietnam at the request of the French and then they denounced our involvement . I too am sick of hearing that they dont like us. I just wish they would pay their debt to us and shut up.
Dan you are right the French didnt want us in Iraq because they knew that we would find the documents of their involvement in the Oil For Food program as well as the weapons they sold Hussein post Gulf War.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran

Dan you are right the French didnt want us in Iraq because they knew that we would find the documents of their involvement in the Oil For Food program as well as the weapons they sold Hussein post Gulf War.

That's pretty insulting. People in France, like everywhere else in the world, who opposed this war, did it for moral reasons. Not because they hate american, just because they thoughjt this was was useless and would bring more trouble than solve problem.
The french government had varuous reasons to oppose war, but they had nothing to do with the two reasons you mention here. Trade with Iraq was wery low since gulf war and the economical rationality would have been to support the USA.

Originally posted by astrapol2
That's pretty insulting. People in France, like everywhere else in the world, who opposed this war, did it for moral reasons. Not because they hate american, just because they thoughjt this was was useless and would bring more trouble than solve problem.
The french government had varuous reasons to oppose war, but they had nothing to do with the two reasons you mention here. Trade with Iraq was wery low since gulf war and the economical rationality would have been to support the USA.

So what is moral about letting a sadistic madman stay in power who has murdered 300,000 of his own people, used torture and rape as standards to quell opposition, and was sitting on his own stash of WMD?

So what is moral about letting a sadistic madman stay in power who has murdered 300,000 of his own people, used torture and rape as standards to quell opposition, and was sitting on his own stash of WMD?
What's moral about invading a completely harmless country under reasons that were either over-exagerated or flat out lies, and then changing the reasons midway, then having hundreds of our own troops killed and thousands of civilians of the other side, and staying in a country that doesn't want us in there for far longer than we should have, and as it is going so far we wont be out when it was promised to, and now in recent times with news of the US's own version of terrorism and torture? What is moral about going to war? You can never just give somebody freedom. They have to take it for themselves.

Well I find it pretty odd that all of the countries who loudly oppossed the war have already been linked to the oil for food program and some implicated in fraud. There are very few coincidences, most things that appear connected are. I dont know how saying that France oppossed the war because they didnt want to get caught is any more insulting than saying America is immoral. The French have led us down many merry paths and then when it got dark hit us over the head and ran. I am not a fan of the French Government or German for that matter. I have nothing against the people as a whole just your ruling party of self righteous idiots.

Look into Halliburton and the UN oil for food program. It wasn't just foreign companies who profited from the UN program.

never said it was. I only said that was their true objection to the war. I dont understand how a country that has been involved in more wars than most can suddenly say a war against terrorist and mass murdering dictators can suddenly say it immoral.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
I dont understand how a country that has been involved in more wars than most can suddenly say a war against terrorist and mass murdering dictators can suddenly say it immoral.

You have a good point here. French govt, from left or right, have had a terrible foreign policy since the 60's. They have supported dictatures in Africa, manipulated puppet govt in third world countries and contributed to the corruption, exploitation and misery in many of these countries. The biggest scnadal of all is the support to the genocidary regime in Rwanda in 1994, which is still denied by french officials.
As you can see, I am far from being a blind supporter of what my country does just because I am french.

This said, I don't believe that the french position on Iraq (or Russia's, or Germany's) was due to petty reasons such as weapons sals or food for oil scandal. Not because In think they would not be able to do so, just because that does not make sense.
So, was it a moral position ? Coming from Chirac and Villepin, I doubt it.
The stakes were much higher : it was a geopolitical approach of conflict solvings in the third world.
- Europe is a military (and political) dwarf. Its main assets are its weight in international institution such as UN. France and Russia tried to use this power to prevent the US from acting unilaterally, because they knew that by doing so the USA would break the international balance.

Another important point is that France is particularly linked to muslim countries. It did not need a war that would increase the gap between western and muslim countries. And by being the main opponent to war, it kept good relations with arab countries which are major partners.

Were these good reasons to oppose the war ? You may disagree. But you have to admit one thing : the reasons Bush gave to make the war now appear totally empty. Iraq did not threaten US security. It now does, and the terrorism is a bigger threat that ever, thanks to the damage made to western image by the situation in Iraq.

Bush want UN in Irak but this are difficile for him.France,germany, Russia dont want the war.many membres EU dont want the war.

what a coincidence, france, germany, and russia jsut happen to be the countries who stood to lose the most if saddam fell. with huge debts owed to each by saddam, oil contracts and all th oil for food money being made, its quite clear it was all about the moral high ground :rolleyes: claiming its "immoral" to take out a monster like saddam is stupifying. if anything we should have gone in and taken saddam and his two sons out just to take him out, that would have been the moral thing to do, this not attacking saddam hussein based on morals is laughable.

Did you read what Astro wrote? The war was taken on male testosterone, and revenge, without any regards to the current political arena of the world. You may think that they United States can take on the entire planet if need be, and with the current administration, I think I can agree with you. I highly doubt their egos would care if the entire planet became crispy in the process.

so estrogen and sensitivity is the prefered way to deal with islamic extremests and iron fisted dictators?

Do you think that if we killed every single one of them, that the next day there wouldn't be more?

I am sure if we killed everyone of them people like you would pick up where they left off

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
I am damn tired of these French bastard newspapers cutting America down....
I hope some of you chicken-shit French see this post because I ask who are you going to yell for the next time your ass is in trouble?...
If it had not been for France and Russia in the UN we would not have the problems we face today....

I don't think you should go that far. Saying "who's going to save your ass next time it happens" like America is the only country who can do that is just showing how full of ourselves America has become.

We need to wake up and realize why[/] the french hate us. We seem like a tyrant. We look like we are just throwing our weight around in the world because we think we're so high and mighty. I'm not doubting that we [i]are the most powerful country in the world, but I'm just saying that we shouldn't blow up our heads so big that we can't fit them through our front doors in the morning. because that's the direction we're heading, in the international view.
So that's my point. Exactly why do you think the French "bastards" see us in a negative light?

I have never heard a liberal say we need to decide why everyone hates us :rolleyes: sory, but we cant base all of oour decisions on if other countries will like us for it

Originally posted by bruffee
We need to wake up and realize [i]why[/] the french hate us.(…)
So that's my point. Exactly why do you think the French "bastards" see us in a negative light?

I would like to add that most french people absolutely don't hate american people. It's true that the french opinion crticises american policy, but the word hatred is absolutely inapropriate.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Lets not forget that the war everyone wants to compare Iraq to was because of the French. We went into Vietnam at the request of the French and then they denounced our involvement .

We went into vietnam in 1947 because of the French, but we were afraid of the spread of Communism. Don't try and blame that on the French. In 1950 we entered the war ourselves. That was not due to the French. After that we supported the leader Ngo Dinh Diem with BILLIONS of dollars when the war was over.

Stop making hasty accusations, thats how mistakes are made.

Originally posted by The Republican
So what is moral about letting a sadistic madman stay in power who has murdered 300,000 of his own people, used torture and rape as standards to quell opposition, and was sitting on his own stash of WMD?

How many times do you have to hear it that he did not have WMD. Your idol already admitted that there are none, so why are you still persisting?

I'd argue over the others, but you havn't listened to me in the past.

Are we a global police? If we are then we should make it be known and take control of the world, govern it as we see fit. By what we think are right and wrong.

If we're not then we shouldn't be acting as one.

I already said it before--get rid of the habit of using how France owes us something as your argument here.

They do not generally like the way US government does things because of cultural differences between the two countries from people's political views right down to everyday, personal preferences. Astro lives in France and he is right now saying the French do not hate Americans. So, see that even when no "War debt" is involved and no hatred is somehow ingrained, the French opinion on US government will still be low as long as they do not generally like the way US government does things due to cultural differences!

Now, consider even the fictitious scenario of France owing US something. Then, I think it is much easier for the French in this scenario to pay debt back in cash than to fabricate favorable opinions about US as payment. So here, just stop using who owes whom as your argument, please. It makes no sense that the French are obligated in any way to like us.

I'd have to say that Astropol is the only one on this board to judge accurately what the opinion of the French people is, regarding Americans, and to be honest Dan, I dont know from where your opinion derives.

Some on this board have expressed disdain for France's military since Napoleon, and suggested that France owes the United States for our past military assistance. The United States owes much to France for our very existence, since it was the presence of the French fleet at Yorktown that prevented the British army from escaping and won us our independence from England. They gave us the Statue of Liberty to commemorate our friendship.

I think it's somewhat silly to judge a country by how effective their military is, but France's is probably one of the best around. They have a first rate air force, a modern navy, with aircraft carriers and nuclear powered submarines, and an army equipped with modern tanks and other weapons. They are one of the strongest members of NATO and regularly train with other member nations.

Originally posted by harmony row
hello i nevver see french people anywhere on net or seldom
they all must be drinking wine or having sex ..lol


WOW!

Count me in!

Vive la France!!:p

Originally posted by harmony row
hello i nevver see french people anywhere on net or seldom


Have you tried visiting French websites?

Originally posted by WindWip
How many times do you have to hear it that he did not have WMD. Your idol already admitted that there are none, so why are you still persisting?

I'd argue over the others, but you havn't listened to me in the past.

You seem content that the inability to find Saddam's WMD means that they were all destroyed. If you choose to believe Saddam than by all means do so. I, on the other hand, would like to know where the WMD went. If they were infact destroyed where is the proof? Until there is evidence that they were all destroyed or we are in possesion of them I will not be satisfied. My fear is that these weapons are in Syria or another country and in the hands of the very people we tried to prevent them from falling into and someday they may wind up in NY, Boston, Chicago, LA, etc. For the sake of innocent lives everywhere I hope you are right...but without proof I will continue to be concerned.

I'm getting sick of the "French owe us" argument too. Wouldn't they stop owing us at some point, or are we going to hold WWII over their heads for the next 1000 years?

Originally posted by Vilepagan


Some on this board have expressed disdain for France's military since Napoleon, and suggested that France owes the United States for our past military assistance. The United States owes much to France for our very existence, since it was the presence of the French fleet at Yorktown that prevented the British army from escaping and won us our independence from England. They gave us the Statue of Liberty to commemorate our friendship.


AMEN!!

Originally posted by The Republican
You seem content that the inability to find Saddam's WMD means that they were all destroyed.
The vast majority of the weapons that we knew about were biological weapons, with a shelf life of a few weeks to a few months.
Tell me what weapons he could still have had that could have be used directly before the war.
I believe that you are worrying over nothing.

Our objective would not be to kill every single one of them but to destroy their ability to conduct operations and to show that an attack on us will bring retribution. Thats all, fighting terror with organized force. Simple and logical. TO sit and allow attack after attack would show incompetence and would be a criminal act in my opinion. The President as with every member of Congress and the Cabinet and the military have sworn to defend the US against all enemies foreign and domestic. To allow any threat to exist would be a violation of that oath and grounds for removal.

Yes we can defeat the enemies…but while doing so, we need to not create more. The fact of the matter is, we are going after enemies, while making more.

Al Quidea Members has risen, and it will only grow. Going after terrorists, is fine, but Iraq has no connection to terrorism. You can say it’s probable all you want, but it is not factual.

The Iraq War, and the mismanagement (Iraq Abuse, Chaos) had lead to us being at more risk of an attack.

So going into Iraq isn’t making us safer, but indeed less safe. Ashcroft said we are going to be getting an attack, and we know Al Quidea is recruiting more because of the Iraq War…so really what is this war doing for us?

Making our name ruined in the eyes of the world, and recruiting more terrorists that want to attack and kill Americans.

Originally posted by Overdose
Yes we can defeat the enemies…but while doing so, we need to not create more. The fact of the matter is, we are going after enemies, while making more.

Al Quidea Members has risen, and it will only grow. Going after terrorists, is fine, but Iraq has no connection to terrorism. You can say it’s probable all you want, but it is not factual.

The Iraq War, and the mismanagement (Iraq Abuse, Chaos) had lead to us being at more risk of an attack.

So going into Iraq isn’t making us safer, but indeed less safe. Ashcroft said we are going to be getting an attack, and we know Al Quidea is recruiting more because of the Iraq War…so really what is this war doing for us?

Making our name ruined in the eyes of the world, and recruiting more terrorists that want to attack and kill Americans.

Show me where it is written that there is NO connection between Hussein and Terrorism. I would like to see that piece of fact. Because even most of the wrold media doesnt believe that. Would you believe King Abdullah? Or the Saudi Royal Family?

I guess they “may” have a connection. None that was presented to the American People when Bush was trying to persuade the American people on going to war. Besides, he has no link to 9/11, the attack we are supposed to be avenging.

We have given Osama Bin Laden the weapons and training to attack Russia, so don’t tell me we haven’t made mistakes in supporting the “bad” people we are not trying to kill

Who said that we were waging a war on just the 9/11 terrorist? It was a war on terror whereever we find it.

And what terror did Saddam pose? All we have is this gas, Bush hasn’t even called attention to. Let alone, this “gas” isn’t a large enough reason to go to war, and attack him for having tons of “WMD’s”. So really, give me a break. Saddam is a mass murderer. Yet other countries have evil rulers all the time. This is the only “terror” he posed. Yet, we are supposed to be making America safer, not stopping a mass murderer.

Bush’s first reason was because he was a threat to our security, not because he “cared to save the people”…which just justifies why that argument is out.

Well I think that a man who has sworn to defeat us wherever we are migh be a threat to our security. Dont you? If you had a bully at school and he moved away you might be secure, but now his friends say he asked them to beat you up, who is the primary cause of the threat? The ones with you or the one who asked them to do it?

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Our objective would not be to kill every single one of them but to destroy their ability to conduct operations and to show that an attack on us will bring retribution.

Every other nation in the world possess the capibility to conduct operations. What operations are you referring to?

Iraq did not attack us.

TO sit and allow attack after attack would show incompetence and would be a criminal act in my opinion.
Yes it would. Complete incompetence. What attacks are you referring to?

Show me where it is written that there is NO connection between Hussein and Terrorism.

There are connections between Saddam and terrorists, but there are more connections between the US and terrorists. The one's that we are involved in gain no notice though.

The operations I am refering to are combat, better known as command and control. Even terrorist posses some form of command and control.
What attacks? I am refering to attacks since 1983 in Beirut till the beheading of Nick Berg in Iraq.
Part of command and control is training and since Salman Pak was linked to Al Qaeda and Iraq's own scientist say that Hussein was producing VX for bin Laden, then I would say tha Iraq was a viable target. As is Syria, Iran, Lybia, Algeria, Palestine, Lebanon, France, Northern Ireland, Indonesia, Phillipines and so forth. Now not all attacks have to be military strikes most can be diplomatic or financial. But all should be on the list. To destroy command and control you must remove the structure in which it exist.
And before you ask about the VX I am talking about, it was the chemical facility that Clinton attacked in 98.

Clinton, is the justification for all the Right-Wing wrong doings.

thats all you got from that post? The evidence I posted to back up my opinions? Once again if you read other threads you will see that I am not right wing. I am very militant about protecting this country and may sound right wing to you. Again check it out.

The attacks you are referring to are from terrorists. The attacks since 1983 in Beirut and the beheading of Nick Berg in Iraq. The nation of Iraq did not attack us, individuals who happen to be Iraqi attacked us.

If the reasoning for attacking Iraq was because they aided Al Queda, then you must also realize that we aided Al Queda as well, probably more substantially than Iraq has.

I will get back to you on the chemical factory, I need to do my homework on that one.

Originally posted by WindWip
The attacks you are referring to are from terrorists. The attacks since 1983 in Beirut and the beheading of Nick Berg in Iraq. The nation of Iraq did not attack us, individuals who happen to be Iraqi attacked us.

If the reasoning for attacking Iraq was because they aided Al Queda, then you must also realize that we aided Al Queda as well, probably more substantially than Iraq has.

I will get back to you on the chemical factory, I need to do my homework on that one.
The only aid we are giving al qaeda is to accept that they have a reason to exist by not condeming their actions on all fronts, even Hamas has said that al qaeda is treading on thin ice.

Even Bush admitted that there was no link between Iraq and 9-11. No link between Al Quaeda and Saddam's regime were ever found - in fact many sources show they were at least antagonists.
On the other hand, the links between the USA and Ben Laden exist : they once fought a common enemy (USSR) and the USa provided training and logistics to the fundamentalist fighters in Afghanistan. The USA later stayed at least neutral in the fight between the taliban regime and its opponents like Massud. Only after 9-11 this policy clearly stopped - a bit too late.

Bush dropped the ball on this point, the CIA has said since 98 that Iraq and Al Qaeda were linked, then when the instructors from Salman Pak also said that they trained the hijackers to use small knives to hijack a plane. 9/11 was the first time that tactic was used. Coincidence? Not this time.