and people say the french are obnoxious

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 14, 2003, 8:21 am

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nat ... ar13.story

WASHINGTON -- First it was french fries and french toast. Now the bones of U.S. servicemen are being dragged into the conflict between France and the United States over war in Iraq.

Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Brooksville, plans to introduce a bill today proposing that the families of the thousands of soldiers, sailors and airmen buried in France and Belgium be allowed to dig up their remains and have them shipped home.

"The remains of our brave servicemen should be buried in patriotic soil, not in a country that has turned its back on the United States and on the memory of Americans who fought and died there," Brown-Waite said.

"It's almost as if the French have forgotten what those thousands of white crosses at Normandy represent," she said.

About 75,000 U.S. servicemen and women from both world wars are buried in military cemeteries in France and Belgium, most of the graves marked by simple white crosses.

Mack McConn, 78, of Orlando, who survived the D-Day landings at Normandy, during which more than 10,000 Americans were killed, was outraged at the suggestion of moving the bodies.

"That is ridiculous," the Navy veteran said. "I can tell you right now that I don't approve of it at all. We've had problems with the French before, but it's like a spat; you get over it. It would be ridiculous to open those graves."

Since France began campaigning against a U.N. Security Council resolution that could lead to war with Iraq, there have been calls for boycotting anything French, from wines to perfumes.

On Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representatives jumped on the bandwagon, striking the word"french" from House menus and replacing it with the word "freedom," as in freedom fries and freedom toast.

At the French Embassy, deputy press counselor Agnes Vondermuhll reacted Wednesday to the french-fry flap with amusement andsangfroid.But she drew the line at disinterring bodies, calling Brown-Waite's proposal "astonishing."

Vondermuhll assured Americans that "France has not forgotten the American contribution to our freedom and our democracy. We have a common goal: disarmament of Iraq. We simply have a difference of opinion on the timetable. It's not a war between France and America. We should be rational."

Brown-Waite, a member of the House Veterans Committee whose district includes part of south Lake County, said she got the idea for the bill from Hernando County resident Ken Graham, whose father is buried in France.

"Turkey no doubt will be next," said Norm Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "When will you have a member of Congress wanting to cancel Thanksgiving?"

Aubrey Jewett, a political scientist at the University of Central Florida, said the bill is more symbolic than realistic for the Central Florida congresswoman.

"As a freshman legislator, it's certainly a way to make a splash," he said. "It will probably be a fairly popular move publicly. French-bashing is all the rage right now."

But McConn, who served 23 years in the Navy and has visited the seaside Normandy American Cemetery overlooking Omaha Beach in Colleville-sur-Mer, shuddered at the thought of disturbing the peace of the long-dead servicemen.

"It's a beautiful place," he said, "and I can't think of a better place for those men to be than right there."

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 14, 2003, 9:06 am

Words fail me

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 14, 2003, 9:11 am

Oh geee one man decides to try to pass a bill and you label all americans. Thats it no Canadian Bacon for me.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 14, 2003, 9:54 am

FREEDOM BACON!

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » March 14, 2003, 9:57 am

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » March 14, 2003, 11:03 am

heh, the US keeps telling the French "if it wasnt for us you all would be speaking german"
shit if it wasnt for them,the US would still be brittish, so were pretty even

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 14, 2003, 11:06 am

Xzion wrote:heh, the US keeps telling the French "if it wasnt for us you all would be speaking german"
shit if it wasnt for them,the US would still be brittish, so were pretty even

That statement might not be true, The French involvment in the war was never the determing factor in the War. Unlike WW1 and WW2 when the Allieds had to clean up your country from the Germans.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 14, 2003, 11:12 am

No but being at war with the UK at the time prevented us from bringing our full force to bear on the situation in the American colonies.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 14, 2003, 11:13 am

vn_Tanc wrote:No but being at war with the UK at the time prevented us from bringing our full force to bear on the situation in the American colonies.

Bah you still would of lost, The Tea Time killed ya

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » March 14, 2003, 11:30 am

To Re-Rail this post...

I can't underestand why a representative of the people would even suggest something as absurd as that. Like the Navy Veteran said, it is just a "spat". I think this whole thing is getting a bit too far now...

I will say this though...if this "bill", if I can even call it that, gets even a chance in front of the voting house commision, I'll be one of the first Americans on the steps screaming for this one to be shown the toilet.

Kind of shows why the world makes fun of the US...

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » March 14, 2003, 11:33 am

"February 6, 1778 - American and French representatives sign two treaties in Paris: a Treaty of Amity and Commerce and a Treaty of Alliance. France now officially recognizes the United States and will soon become the major supplier of military supplies to Washington's army. Both countries pledge to fight until American independence is won, with neither country concluding any truce with Britain without the other's consent, and guarantee each other's possessions in America against all other powers.

The American struggle for independence is thus enlarged and will soon become a world war. After British vessels fire on French ships, the two nations declare war. Spain will enter in 1779 as an ally of France. The following year, Britain will declare war on the Dutch who have been engaging in profitable trade with the French and Americans. In addition to the war in America, the British will have to fight in the Mediterranean, Africa, India, the West Indies, and on the high seas. All the while facing possible invasion of England itself by the French."

The Source, in case you wanted to check.

We kinda needed the dipshits on this one. And just to note: I'm 1/2 English and 1/2 Scotch, and I've dispised the French for years. Count me out of the whole New Wave French Haters Club.

Kguku · Post by **Kguku** » March 14, 2003, 11:35 am

Pahreyia;

I think Tanc was talking about the war of 1812, where at the same time the British were having a war with France, and as such could not bring more troops over to North America, hence why it ended in a stalemate.

If Britian had more to offer during that war, the results would have been a lot different.

But yeah your point is also bang on needing France to recognize America in that signing.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 14, 2003, 11:36 am

this is just some fat slob politician trying to get some cheap PR and get people to do what we are doing here.

there is NO way this would ever happen. the idea is totally absurd.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » March 14, 2003, 11:37 am

I think it is safe to say that this "spat" and all those previous between the US and France have been between the governments and not truly the people. Any problem I have with France has to do with their government's policies as I suspect the same from the French people concerning our government's policies.

The French bashing is like a fad or a phase that people do just to be on the bandwagon, imo. I am guilty of it as well at times. I mean come on, a country that can give us Lebeau from Hogan's heroes can't be all bad.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » March 14, 2003, 11:43 am

"November 30, 1782 - A preliminary peace treaty is signed in Paris. Terms include recognition of American independence and the boundaries of the United States, along with British withdrawal from America.

December 15, 1782 - In France, strong objections are expressed by the French over the signing of the peace treaty in Paris without America first consulting them. Ben Franklin then soothes their anger with a diplomatic response and prevents a falling out between France and America."

Same site, a little further down... I saved Kyo and Voro the trouble.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » March 14, 2003, 11:59 am

Kguku wrote:Pahreyia;

I think Tanc was talking about the war of 1812, where at the same time the British were having a war with France, and as such could not bring more troops over to North America, hence why it ended in a stalemate.

If Britian had more to offer during that war, the results would have been a lot different.

Sorry for the many unimportant facts listed, I just did it to validate the source material.

"1814

British undertake a three-part invasion of the United States at Chesapeake Bay, Lake Champlain and the mouth of the Mississippi River. British troops are repulsed at Baltimore harbor after capturing Washington and burning the Capitol buildings.

January 22 - Battle of Emuckfau.
January 24 - Battle of Enotachopco Creek.

March - British-French war ends with British victory. Britain can now concentrate on the war with the United States.
March 27-28 - The Creek Indians are defeated by Andrew Jackson at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend

April 11 - Napoleon abdicates the throne of France.
April 14 - Embargo and Non Importation Law repealed by United States.
April 25 - British blockade extended to New England.

July-September - Eastern Maine occupied by British forces.
July 3 - Americans capture Fort Erie.
July 5 - Battle of Chippewa.
July 25 - Battle of Lundy's Lane.

August - American public credit collapses. Banks suspend specie payments.
August 8 - Peace negotiations begin in Ghent with the British outlining initial peace terms.
August 9 - The United States and Creek Indians sign the Treaty of Fort Jackson.
August 14 - British forces occupy Pensacola.
August 15 - Battle of Fort Erie. (American Victory)
August 24 - Battle of Bladensburg.
August 24-25 - Washington, DC burned by British forces.
August 28 - Nantucket declares neutrality.

September 11 - Battle of Lake Champlain. American victory over a larger British force at the Battle of Plattsburgh secures the U.S. northern border.
September 12 - Battle of Mobile Bay. Battle of North Point. (American Victory - British begin a retreat to New Orleans)
September 13-14 - Battle of Baltimore. The Star Spangled Banner is written by Francis Scott Key. (American Victory)
September 17 - American forces sortie from Fort Erie.
September 26 - General Armstrong captured by British.

October 21 - Peace on basis of uti possidetis."

Source

Looks to me that even in that war we were winning. Peace was declared 8 months after the end of the war with France.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » March 14, 2003, 12:07 pm

Ginny had "neo-nazi" written all over her. Her campaign was almost 100% mud-slinging and alarmist retoric. It scares me that the old farts in Brooksville elected her...

Kguku · Post by **Kguku** » March 14, 2003, 12:47 pm

Pahreyia wrote:Looks to me that even in that war we were winning. Peace was declared 8 months after the end of the war with France.

It's good to know you can quote material, but don't know anything about the war.

Peace wasn't until December, and if you bothered to follow your time line you gave, you'll note that the peace in October was dropped roughly 1 month later. The Treaty of Ghent was signed on December 24th, which was the declaration to the end of the war, and ratified by the US government in February of 1815. Plus throwing out an 8 month time frame of a war that lasted over 2 years doesn't properly depict it.

Also note that the British had just finished a 22 year war with France, and then travelled what troops they could muster after the war, to North America. Remember that these troops needed to travel quite some time, over seas, battle weary already, and Britain still needs to maintain a force in Europe, even after a treaty is signed with France, to ensure their control at that time.

Probably some good proof of battle weary troops would be the British getting their asses handed to then in Jan of 1815, even after the treaty was signed at the following event:

January 8 - Andrew Jackson defeats the British at the Battle of New Orleans. Seven hundred British are killed and fourteen hundred wounded as opposed to eight Americans killed and thirteen wounded, all after the war was officially over.

Now again, if Britain was not in that war with France, they would have sent rested troops to North America at the beginning of the war. Would this have had a different outcome? My guess is yes, though you never can tell.

Drakoslay123 · Post by **Drakoslay123** » March 14, 2003, 1:23 pm

Put that Mother Freakin GINNY back in the bottle please. Fuckn Disgrace to the Americans.

Drakoslay

Drakoslay123 · Post by **Drakoslay123** » March 14, 2003, 1:26 pm

Grads to Sadam successfully divided a Bond. And Hooyah to some dipsticks in D.C so freaking Dumb to fall for that shit. Some people just want more Chaos. Some people should die.

I just want my stock value back. I want my green.

Drakoslay

Trek · Post by **Trek** » March 14, 2003, 1:55 pm

It's a stupid 'look at me stunt' it would never happen.

But if it did....the French could sell boogyman juice! That could offset their economic loss with Iraq

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » March 14, 2003, 2:02 pm

Grads to Sadam successfully divided a Bond.

More like grats the French for creating the rift. The French rejected the latest proposal before Iraq even did. France is determined to try to be seen as some kind of superpower by standing up to the US- don't full yourselves, this isn't the French having some strong moral objections to Iraq... it's the French wanting to curb the power of the US and protect their oil interests. Their spot on the security council was a gift...something they didn't really earn. It's their only position of worldwide power, and after this latest fiasco, it won't even be a position of power at all. This will be the last veto France ever casts- we're not going to make the same mistake twice.

France's divisive actions and appeasement talks benefit one person- Saddam Hussein, and just undermines the actions we're taking. If a peaceful solution to this was at all possible, it could only have been achieved by worldwide pressure put onto Saddam Hussein to comply- not seemingly worldwide pressure put onto the US and Bush to appease. Add to that France actively trying to bribe nations to vote against us, and I'm left pissed at the French for putting us into this position.

While I think us wanting to remove the bodies of our soldiers from France is a bit extreme, I don't think boycotting French goods would be if they persist with their current inflammatory actions and rhetoric. Disagreement with the US is one thing...this is just way overboard and not constructive in anyway.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 14, 2003, 2:10 pm

The French agree with the world's opinion on Hussein they just disagree with the approach and timetable.

if they persist with their current inflammatory actions and rhetoric

This is fucking hilarious. Have you listened to the _grossly offensive_ shit your politicians and media have been spouting about ANYONE who disagrees with them on this?
If they'd had a little more decorum you would probably be facing less opposition.
Don't forget Russia also said they would veto - was their Security Council seat a gift as well?
When you try and strong-arm the UN with ultimata and brow-beating you shouldn't be surprised if other countries play hardball too.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 14, 2003, 2:11 pm

france's actions benefit more than Saddam Hussein.

it benefits French government and corporations who have invested in Iraq, both in the forms of the petrochemical industry as well as the industry of alledgedly selling Iraq military equipment.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 14, 2003, 3:10 pm

More like grats the French for creating the rift. The French rejected the latest proposal before Iraq even did. France is determined to try to be seen as some kind of superpower by standing up to the US

heh you seem to forget a bit of what happened..

France was skeptical at first to the initial US demands. Bush went out and called them "Old Europe" and "irrelevant", his team spouted off comments that were used about Soviet Union during the Cold War ("France must be contained" etc), and you wonder why they took a harder stand against Bush?

Bush shot himself in the foot when it came to getting international support. If he had been more experienced (and quite frankly.. better at it) he would have had all the support he needed and more.

Allies and friends are not supposed to follow eachother blindly. France (and quite a few others) disagreed with the initial plans and were straight out attacked by Bush. When you get attack you get defensive.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » March 14, 2003, 3:58 pm

Bush 1-"a kinder, gentler nation."

Bush 2- "Axis of evil"..."we will never forgive France, nor forget."

Seems quite the contrast when you think about it. Something else that caught my ear this morning was the statement that this would be the first war the United States has ever started. That's a powerful statement there buddy.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 14, 2003, 4:13 pm

You know Clinton and the gang didn't get the UN's blessing before bombing Serbia.

Why? They knew France would veto it.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 14, 2003, 4:31 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:Bush 1-"a kinder, gentler nation."

Bush 2- "Axis of evil"..."we will never forgive France, nor forget."

Seems quite the contrast when you think about it. Something else that caught my ear this morning was the statement that this would be the first war the United States has ever started. That's a powerful statement there buddy.

it will be our 3rd regime change in Iraq though. the first set the stage for Saddam, the 2nd put him in power.

In 1963 the CIA attempted to assassinate the countries leader, when that failed, they backed a coupe that ended in his execution. In collaboration with Saddam Hussein, the CIA then turned over power to the Bathe party.

then of course there was the execution of hundreds of people sympathetic to the previous administration, the communist party, other non-american interests. no trials of course, all based on lists supplied by the CIA.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/14/opinion/14MORR.html

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 14, 2003, 4:56 pm

bath party!!

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 14, 2003, 5:06 pm

kyoukan type-R wrote:bath party!!

Kyoukan would you drop the soap please? ^^

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 14, 2003, 5:08 pm

Voronwë wrote:
kyoukan type-R wrote:bath party!!
Kyoukan would you drop the soap please? ^^

That would be a shower party Voro, bath party is more foot action!!!

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 14, 2003, 5:09 pm

ah yes, thx for the correction

who wants to play submarine?

UP PERISCOPE!!!

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 14, 2003, 5:09 pm

Voronwë wrote:ah yes, thx for the correction

who wants to play submarine?

UP PERISCOPE!!!

My god did you leave yourself open

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 14, 2003, 5:12 pm

oh my goodness!!1

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 14, 2003, 5:19 pm

The joys of hot tubbin with women...the memories~

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » March 14, 2003, 5:35 pm

I haven't been the same since Tubgirl.

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » March 14, 2003, 6:22 pm

who wants to play submarine?

UP PERISCOPE!!!

...still laughing...

Drakoslay123 · Post by **Drakoslay123** » March 14, 2003, 6:35 pm

First of all you work with Allies within, u dont try to divided among selves. Work on a common goal and modify the approach to an issue, instead of being hard headed. Instead of creating more enemies, I preffer keep and prong relationship with my firends. If my friend disagree with me, do I really need to isolate him or work out our differences? It is a freaking "Spat", Brotha. No need to enlarge to an even bigger problem. I hope our leader take the time to read some Sun Tze's Art of War. Learn the true meaning of it rather recite what in it. Friendship is hard to build or repair.

Second if we really go on a trade war with French, I can tell ya, a major global hostility going to arise. Our economy is in the shit hole. Do we really need this blind pride shit going around. So now what? Russian Chinese and others are not supporting this war without true proper evidences. And the U.S. is going to boycott their products and blockade the market? Foolish. Eventually, you and I are the victim of this politcal game. Bush and those so call Elitesare still enjoying their champaign while we chew on freaking rotten beef jerkies, if any leftover

Calm Down and look at other ways to deal with problems.

Drakoslay

Acies · Post by **Acies** » March 14, 2003, 6:53 pm

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 14, 2003, 6:54 pm

.....

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » March 14, 2003, 6:57 pm

Yea, a little hard to read. We apprciate the sentiment though.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » March 14, 2003, 11:30 pm

Aranuil wrote:Any of you cocksuckers that are too lazy to type out the word 'you' or the word 'are' can fuck off. That's not a language issue, that's an 'I'm a stupid motherfucker' issue.

Truer words haven't been spoken.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » March 15, 2003, 7:27 am

France's divisive actions and appeasement talks benefit one person- Saddam Hussein,

So then they don't benefit the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis that will be massacred? Oh, I get it now. You are so enlightened.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » March 15, 2003, 9:28 am

Xyun wrote:
France's divisive actions and appeasement talks benefit one person- Saddam Hussein,
So then they don't benefit the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis that will be massacred? Oh, I get it now. You are so enlightened.

waitwaitwaitwait... Not one "tax paying" American is "innocent" in their eyes.. So we're all concidered hostiles to them, and thus, targets for any person who serves the jihad. And we're talking about the deaths of some Iraqi civilians in a declared war, and you're getting your panties in a bunch.

Hey, "innocents" are "innocents." I'd prefer to see any war fought only between uniformed military personnel. But cut the high and mighty "I'm here to save the millions who would die" bullshit, like you know the death count beforehand. Maybe we just get lucky and someone offs Saddam 3 days into the thing and the government infrastructure collapses, allowing for a rebuilding of their government into a non oppressive, world friendly, contributing nation.

Either scenario is as likely as the other. Get off the horse.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » March 15, 2003, 10:49 am

First of all, I was merely pointing out the flaw in Brotha's statement. He stated that the only person benefitting France's stance is Saddam Hussein. This is a very ignorant statement. It assumes that France is actually trying to help our enemy. It is a part of that wonderful Bushism, if you are not with us, you are against us, and dumb fucks gobble this shit up like country-fried steak.

The question is why has France taken this stance? Simple-minded people always violate Occam's razor. Speculate ub3r l33t sekrit subplots all you want, but the answer will still be that France, in addition to the majority of the world, believes that war should only be used as a last resort and is not the correct course of action at this time.

And as for you, I'm sure it is easy for you to spout whatever jargon that formulates in your head about the situation since you will be neither the one being killed, nor the one doing the killing. Since you have the freedom to sit and yap your trap all day long, at least give us the courtesy of using some form of logical thought.

You basically said, since terrorists kill innocent people then it is ok for us to do the same. Somehow, in your mind, killing innocent people with a declaration of war (which btw will not happen) is justified, regardless of whether the war itself is justified or not. Thanks for pointing out that supporting this war is the same as supporting terrorism.

Terrorism is, and I quote, "the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

Apply that to the situation you retarded fuck and tell me that it is not EXACTLY what the U.S. is doing.

Don't feel lonely, I too support terrorism. I smoke weed every day.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » March 15, 2003, 5:24 pm

It doesn't take a UN approved measure to declare war. All it takes is a declaration of War from the president/congress. I'll say this, I don't agree with the timeline that Bush has pushing for, because, you're right, I may not be the one on the front line, but that doesn't mean that the dozen friends and relatives of mine that got called up, and the 7 that are in Kuwait right now won't be.

I suggested that you were being as ignorant and blinded as Brotha was in stating that "hundreds of thousands of civilians would die." You wouldn't have that happen for anything short of a nuke being dropped on Baghdad.

I personally wouldn't have any problem with a war if 1 thing were to happen first. Someone were to show that Saddam was stockpiling WOMDs or continuing to manufacture weapons in violation of the UN sanctions. If someone were to provide proof of that, I'd agree that we've given Saddam too much time/leniency and it's time for a change in regime.

In that much, I'm probably sharing an opinion closer to your own on the matter, but I'm not buying into this Neil Young "there's no reason for war" bullshit. There's a time to talk, and there's a time to get shit done because talking doesn't work.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » March 15, 2003, 8:06 pm

The United States of America will not "declare war" on Iraq.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 15, 2003, 8:26 pm

Not one "tax paying" American is "innocent" in their eyes.. So we're all concidered hostiles to them, and thus, targets for any person who serves the jihad.

That's a pretty fucked up and ignorant assumption.

The number of militant muslims in Iraq is pretty low compared to most middle eastern countires. There's a higher percentage of terrorists in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Kuwait and Jordan.

You can be sure the number of potential muslim martyrs in Iraq will increase exponentially when Bush starts bombing.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » March 15, 2003, 10:27 pm

First of all, I was merely pointing out the flaw in Brotha's statement. He stated that the only person benefitting France's stance is Saddam Hussein. This is a very ignorant statement. It assumes that France is actually trying to help our enemy. It is a part of that wonderful Bushism, if you are not with us, you are against us, and dumb fucks gobble this shit up like country-fried steak.

What is the flaw in that statement? It obviously is also protecting French economic interests (oil contracts, and sales to Iraq), which I mentioned earlier. Although on the flip side, us going for Saddam is obviously NOT helping our economy.

And I'm sick of several people on this board seeing someone disagree with them, then suddenly going off on how someone is blindly agreeing with the party line and taken in by the "liberal media." I know this is hard to accept...but some people know all of the information that you do and STILL disagree with you (yes, I do read more than the Washington Times, do listen to more than Rush Limbaugh, and do watch more than the Fox News Channel).

In 92 France was opposed to us proclaiming Iraq in material breach. In 98 they were opposed to Clinton bombing Iraq. Throughout the 90's France made decisions and stands such as these. Everytime the Iraq issue comes up France argues appeasement and is on Iraq's side, while arguing vehemently against the US. There is something very wrong with this. To me it's clear that France's goals in regards to Iraq are not the same as ours (complete disarmament). They are trying to protect their oil interests and curb American power. Also, did anyone see the interview with Saddam awhile back where he threatened France, more specifically Chirac, saying that if France wasn't on the side of Iraq in the next conflict, that he'd come out and reveal all the backroom dealings France and Chirac have had with Saddam over the years?

Now, I'm not really going to blame France for making these decisions- they were made in the interests of their nation, but that doesn't mean that we should just accept it. If France would rather protect their financial interests and play petty power games rather than help us in disarming Saddam Hussen, a threat to us and anyone else in the world who are not willing to appease him and watch as he slaughters thousands of people, then we SHOULD boycott French goods and possibly make it be in France's interest economically wise, since they obviously are not going to make a decision based on morality and in support of their allies security (although their security is tied in as well, but foresight is something the French are historically devoid of).

Besides shutting Rumsfeld up(Rumsfeld is an honest man who says what he believes and believes what he says, which is not something good for a politician), I don't see what else we could have done diplomatically that we have not yet tried. The French are COMPLETELY against ANY sort of time table whatsoever for Iraq, or any sort of new resolution (and god forbid you add in the plain words "Force will be used if Iraq does not comply"...I can't even imagine what France would do then). Are WE being the unreasonable ones with that in mind? Are WE the one's alienating allies by our refusal to even discuess compromises? Bush has bent over backwards...many in his administration argued that he shouldn't even go back to the UN to begin with, which was followed by us making compromise after compromise and putting up with blatant Iraqi defiance of the resolution in the hope that MAYBE either Iraq would decide to fully comply or MAYBE after enough defiance of the resolution was so glaringly obvious, that the countries with vested interest in Iraq would be forced to see reason- neither has been the case.

EDIT: changed it from post to times

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » March 15, 2003, 10:41 pm

France argues appeasement and is on Iraq's side

By this logic, Russia, China, Germany, and Syria are all on Iraq's side. Maybe they'll all send troops to defend Iraq against America. No, the more likely case is that you are so dumb that you cannot understand a simple statement:

CONDEMNING THE U.S. DOES NOT EQUAL SUPPORTING IRAQ.