The Maginot Line -- A Wonderful French Invention. Unfortunately They forgot about a little country called Belgum... The Chau Chat -- From WWI, the worst machine gun of all time. Vietnam. and so on... ---- Visit Pave-France.com! Even respected British magazine,The Economist bashes the French. In summation, this quote from London's "The Telegraph" best describes the French, IMHO. The French get off by pissing other people off and being diva-like pains-in-the-ass. They enjoy being self-absorbed prigs and they enjoy pissing off their friends. Keep in mind, my last name is Norman. It's not some sort of affront to French genetics that I'm claiming, but rather a complete and total rejection of self-absorbed French culture. Anybody who thinks Chicac is not supporting war in Iraq out of some sort of altruism is sorely mistaken. They are doing it for two reasons: 1. They enjoy flexing their influence when it pisses off their allies and 2. France's economic self-intrest as expressed through their friendlieness with Sadam totaly eliminates any sort of legitimate judgement when it comes to issues that involve anything other than immediate profits. In other words, FRENCH PEOPLE SUCK! France has always gotten off on being arogant. They were notorious for being the most recalcitrant member of NATO despite the tremendous advantages they gained from the alliance, and they have a history of blindly following short term intrests in the EU, even when it isn't in their long-term intrests.
I also think alot of the recient anti-NATO talk in France and Germany is a result of the fact that the current generation in power is the first generation that didn't have any direct involvement in WWII. I also think this is a major factor in the recient rise in anti-Semitism. This generation is playing the role of the 'rebel teenager', saying in effect, "We didn't euthinise the Jews! Therefore, there is no reason why we should feel shame for the fact that we hate them!", in much the way that teenagers rebel against their parents morality without having a reasonable grasp of how their parents evolved that morality. It is, as much as anything else, a show of independance, distancing themselves from the sins of their parents.
i think you are wright that france germany and the other doubters will come aboard the usa battle side. Because thw ar wil come there and they will try to be on the good side of the winners (if there ever is a winner in a war ). but i do not agree with you that the rest of europe is beside the USA. Those eastern euopean countrys only support the usa because they want to be on the good side of the USA, and therefore get a place in the UN. Holland still isn't on the usa side. But i fear they will be very soon. i think eventualy every country will support the war, because they want to be on the winner side. even though they are against the war. The part i'm verry mad about is the way the usa is blackmailing the UN and the way they treat the country's who have a different opinion than they have. Calling them the old europe . i know the france are arrogant. but i think the gouvernment of the usa is arrogant too.they are the strongest country in the world. but they act like they do not need anybody, and everybody who do not agree with them are stupid, and oldfasion. and saying that there will be war with or without the UN is not showing they respect the UN. oh i just want to ad, that this is my humble opinion. and i do not intent to get on peoples nerves.
Originally posted by arno_ed i think you are wright that france germany and the other doubters will come aboard the usa battle side. Because thw ar wil come there and they will try to be on the good side of the winners (if there ever is a winner in a war ). but i do not agree with you that the rest of europe is beside the USA. Those eastern euopean countrys only support the usa because they want to be on the good side of the USA, and therefore get a place in the UN. ...The part i'm verry mad about is the way the usa is blackmailing the UN and the way they treat the country's who have a different opinion than they have. Calling them the old europe .i know the france are arrogant. but i think the gouvernment of the usa is arrogant too. You are correct. Many here see our government as arrogant also. But it appears to me that many people are ignoring the underlying issue because of the perception of American arrogance. (And did you mean 'get a place in NATO'? Or are you referring to keeping the UN from rendering itself obsolete?) Joining a War to get on the winning side cannot tell the whole story. There is an underlying issue here, the issue of Saddam and disarmament/regime change. Why don't Europeans tend to mention the issue itself, instead focus only on what they see is an obscene use of political pressure by this Administration? This Admin may come off as too arrogant. Their approach, IMHO, is as old-world as any old-Europe can be, but I also think their motivations are the defense of our nation and world order. Ironically, their political approach may also be damaging to world order, but in a less material way than a wacko with WMDs, personal ambitions and vandettas. they are the strongest country in the world. but they act like they do not need anybody, and everybody who do not agree with them are stupid, and oldfasion. and saying that there will be war with or without the UN is not showing they respect the UN. We were just discussing that in our household last night. We think that was a serious error Bush made. He should have pressured the UN early-on to resolve the issue before threatening to take the issue outside the UN. I think many Americans agree with heavy UN involvement (based on the polls). I am less disturbed by the German reaction than the French one. If the Germans want to be pacifists, that's ok. But the French position is just to take a stance against the US. That is not acceptable from an 'ally', in fact it's more like the definition of an antagonist. oh i just want to ad, that this is my humble opinion. and i do not intent to get on peoples nerves. No offense taken here. Thanks for the opinion from ancient old Europe (j/k )
Reminds me of a cartoon I read last night. It had all the countries in a UN resolution with France raising both hands. One of the councilmen call out, "... and will France please stop surrendering to everything".
oops my bad i meant Nato i think the reason most european talk more about the way the USA pressures the UN, than about the issue, is because that Bush gives the imprssion that he thinks the UN is not importend. A big fear of alot of european people is that Bush doesn't care for the world only for the USA. When he cancelled his part of the coyote protocol, that was confirmed. And with some other actions he seems to have no intrest in the opinion of the world.Alot of people fear Bush.and think he is verry dangerous for the world.Because he thinks he doesn''t need anybody. so the reason alot of people talk more about the way bush acts instead of the issue is because they fear him for what he can do, and what he is doing.I liked clinton alot more as president, and i really wanted gore to be elected. Also a reason is that we get the impression that bush just tries to finish what his father has started.so we are not sure this war is necesary.and alot of people are scared that the islamic countrys get the impression Bush really hates them. and become even more anti american. let me get 1 thing straight, i hope sadam will not be leader in iraq for long. But i'm not sure if anything will change if there wil come a new leader. you can not force a country into a democratic government. look at vietnam. i hope everything wil be solved in peace.the thing i fear the most is that the USA wil attack without support of the UN. because that wil change alot. and i do hope that the UN doesn't agree because they fair the same thing as i fear. Th evidence powel gave wasn't enough for me.i want to hear the inspectors first. in holland the gouvernment is divided. The Social side wants to wait for the inspectors and the iberal side doesn't. the french are the most importend here, because they have a veto in the UN. what holland thinks isn't verry importend if the war is necasary i will agree with it, i wil want to hear the inspectors first. thanks for your reply Cohen. oh and sorry for my bad spelling, like my sig says it sucks. I speak english alot better than i write it.
You point out a failure, yet ignore numerous successes. How about South Korea? A poor, agrarian, former colony ravaged by war has turned into a beacon of democratic capitalism, and they don't have 1/50th of the natural resources that the Iraqi people will have at their disposal to fund reconstruction. Or Taiwan? Or numerous Latin American countries? It will not be an easy transition, but I firmly believe that people favor democracy. Even in the Middle East; all have seen the disaster of the Iranian revolution & the resulting theocracy.
arno_ed: I just don't get it. Everyone who 1) has a brain, 2) uses it, and 3) is not in total and complete denial knows that the Iraqis are hiding WMD from the inspectors. Why - WHY - would we want to give the inspections more time? They have already told us that the Iraqis are not cooperationg fully, and the only possible reason for that is that they are hiding something. Why, oh why, would we - should we - give them more time if everyone knows that it is a farce? Saddam will never - *never* - disarm peacefully. Even if the inspectors stumbled upon every cache and lab he has tomorrow, what do you think he's going to do? Say "Ah, ya got me guys. Here, take this stuff and get rid of it, you win."? Or do you think he'd just expel (or murder) the inspectors and keep his WMD? If history and past behavior are any indicator, the latter would occur. The time for playing games with Saddam and letting him dictate events and their pace is past. It is time - long past time - to solve this problem (and numerous others simultaneously) once and for all.
so true...I wish we would reorganize NATO since NATO does not work because of wayward nations such as the two mentioned.
i'm al in for democracy, but i'm not sure that wil happen in Iraq, even if we get rid of sadam. Of course there are exampels where the democracy is forced and it works, but those people wanted it. I get the feeling The USA isn't verry liked in Iraq neither is the Western democracy. So i think if saddam is gone there wil be another dictator. those oil familys are to powerful. why should we get rid of the Nato, because some countrys have a opinion that is different from the USA. I'm getting tired from the european countrys who just do things so the USA wil like them, Like Holland has done for some time. i'm not sure the iraq have weapons that are a real thread for the USA. The reason i want the inspectors to tel me they have them or the UN to say a war is necesary is because if we attack them without that no country is save. If the USA says that they have weapons or they have connection with terorism no one wil argue because there wil be war. The UN has nothing to say about it, neither does inspectors. It is not that i do not trust the USA. but i do not like it that 1 country with the power of the usa can start a war when they pleases, (especially not if Bush is president) without organisations who can tel them that that isn't the best way.
iraq is contolled by saddam if he dies a family member wil be leader. most oil is controlled by verry rich familys. as for your other question: when i see things of iraq on the tv ( i know the journalist aren't verry reliable) i see people who are suffering because of a comming war. and they al remember the last war. if in the world alot of people quetion the motives of Bush for this war. i think the people who live in the country who will be destroyed question the motives even more. if you live in a country who is attacked that much, you are gonna dislike the people who are responsible for the attacks, and i Iraq Saddam will tel the people it is al Ths fault of the USA. those people get one sided information. only from saddam. so ofcourse they wil dislike the USA, atleast they wil dislike Bush.
They all have military forces; of course, none are on the scale of the U.S. armed forces though. France is currently sending one of its (maybe only, I'm not sure) aircraft carrier battle groups to the eastern Med to conduct battle exercises with an American carrier. I find it odd that so many on the Left and the Right want to denigrate these countries as insignificant; they are our allies: democratically, economically, and militarily. It is important to work with the international community; it just needs to be made clear (as it has been in regards to Iraq) that the U.S. will not sacrifice it's safety or vital interests in the name of "global community".
The male members of Saddam's family (especially his sons) and the higher-ups in the Baath party will be killed by fellow Iraqis (ala Mussolini), killed by the U.S. military in battle, arrested and tried for crimes against humanity, or commit suicide. They will not be part of the post-war government. As to your other point, I see little or no reason why the U.S. will be hated by the general populace in a post-Saddam Iraq. If anything, much of the Iraqi people's current distaste for America (how much of this really exists is difficult to determine in a totalitarian state where people cannot speak freely on fear of death) stems from a resentment that we did not remove Saddam from power in '91. I posted an article a couple of months ago (if search function worked I'd find it for you) by a journalist who interviewed a couple of dozen Iraqi civilians without government supervision. Almost unanimously, they wanted the U.S. to remove Saddam.
i do not think Saddams family will control iraq after The war. But i fear some other family\dictator. about your other point, i hope you are wright. we all know there will be this war. With or without the UN.if i disagree that make no difference. but i do not want war, especially not a war witout the support of the UN. because s war without the UN means the end of the UN. no country will ever listen to them again. I stil hope this can be settled in a peacefull way. but we al know the date for war is already set. Bush knew there would be a war. it didn't matter what the inspectors would find or not. i hope iraqi civillians want to get rid of saddam, but i'm not sure that there wil be a stable government after the war. i fear even more death. only time wil tell, because this war is gonna happen soon
No one in a healthy state of mind wants war, but sometimes it is necessary. I wish Saddam had "learned his lesson" in '91 and lived up to his responsibilities as a member of the civilized world. He did not, and the impetus for this war lies with him, no one else. A poster, I think it was B-Bob or Batman Jones, described war as "the worst state of humanity", and that is irrefutable. All we can hope for is a quick war with limited casualties to all involved; and we also must hope that the U.S. and the international community live up to their pledge to take however much time is necessary to reconstruct a free, prosperous, democratic Iraq. I also hope that one of the repercussions of this war is another, long awaited, revolution in Iran, so that the Iranian people can live free as well.
Jay Leno: France announced today that they won't help the US remove Saddam from Iraq...well duh...they wouldn't even help us remove the Germans from France. We're at code Orange ...the French have code Yellow.
