More anti-French idiocy - Page 4

SlowwHand · March 13, 2003, 21:10

The fact remains, the people of South Korea, and the people of South VietNam didn't want commie bastards overrunning their land.

So what's the beef?

MichaeltheGreat · March 13, 2003, 21:47

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The fact remains, the people of South Korea, and the people of South VietNam didn't want commie bastards overrunning their land.

So what's the beef?

With the South Koreans, that's the case. In South Viet Nam, the people had the choice of corrupt murdering generals, a puppet emperor, or the commies, and it was decided not to bother with elections, because the commies would have embarassed the hell out of western policy by winning.

Elections were only held after the participation of political parties was limited by the non-elected government.

MichaeltheGreat · March 13, 2003, 21:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer
Richelieu, having some French wine?

Best in the world, and if the price drops because of softening demand, I'll stock up.

SlowwHand · March 13, 2003, 21:50

I know it's not your intent, but you strengthen my case, MtG.

Tuberski · March 13, 2003, 22:05

You do realize, that if this stupidity keeps up, They are going to have to recall every video, film, and DVD of Grease and change Frenchies name to Freedom.

ACK!

MichaeltheGreat · March 13, 2003, 22:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer
My position is that the US is the only one that doesn't "wipe their ass with international law". Now it seems that the special interests of the French is more important than backing resolutions upon which the French agreed!

The French don't apparently agree that "serious consequences" means "invasion by the United States at a time determined by the United States."

And the US has wiped it's ass with international law so many times it's not even funny. When I worked at Lockheed Missiles & Space Company (now Lockheed-Martin), in one of the departments I supported, there was an old ex-USAF bomber jockey who flew B-36's in the '50's. On his office wall, there was an aerial photo of Red Square in Moscow, viewed from the open bomb bay doors of a B-36, with the silhouette of a nuke visible in the racks, just to let them know we could. That ongoing threat process was why the Russkies accelerated their development of the Mig-15, to the -17, -19 and finally the -21. The SA-2 Gammon SAM system and MiG-25 were developed in response to our overflights of their airspace by U-2's and later SR-71s. You think Gary Francis Powers was shot down over NATO territory,

?

We've committed technical acts of war, piracy, espionage and sabotage during peacetime against dozens of countries. I don't have a real problem with most of that, but it's a bit laughable to say the US is the only country who doesn't wipe our ass with international law. The truth is more that we're the only one who tries to spin international law to claim there's some legitimacy to our actions.

Quote:

So, unless the French interests are to determine international law, then the US and our allies will act without it. "International law", in the form of the UN, is, imo, corrupted.

Yes, as when the US has used it's veto power in the UNSC to protect Israel?

The French were given veto power to use as they see fit.

What's "corrupted?" - the notion that everyone can vote as they see fit and as they believe is consistent with their policy goals, instead of just rubber stamping the US? Why didn't the US call for disarming Hussein when "he gassed his own people?" (despite the DIA conclusion that it was mostly the Iranian gas that did the killing)

Why not? Because that was in 1988, and Saddam was our boy back then.

MichaeltheGreat · March 13, 2003, 22:11

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I know it's not your intent, but you strengthen my case, MtG.

Hey, you've got a case? If it's Jack Daniel's or really good beer, share some.

Lancer · March 13, 2003, 22:25

B-36 overflying Moscow w/ a nuke in the '50s.

I'm having a tough time swallowing the nuke, though I'll go fo the B-36.

What if the plane had mechanical trouble? The nuke would fall into the hands of the Russians. The photo must have been futzed with.

SlowwHand · March 13, 2003, 22:32

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Hey, you've got a case? If it's Jack Daniel's or really good beer, share some.

I gave up the Black Jack.
Beer still flows, if you can grimace Budweiser down, or bring along some Dos Equis.

KrazyHorse · March 13, 2003, 22:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Sprayber

Kind of like calling all the people from a country Bastards in front of recording devices and then telling them it really wasnt what it sounded like.

That was stupid, but not as stupid.

KrazyHorse · March 13, 2003, 22:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Ozz

Not bastards, morons I believe.

Nope. Bastards. The other woman just called Bush a moron. Which just demonstrates her perceptiveness, as far as I'm concerned...

KrazyHorse · March 13, 2003, 22:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer
What if the plane had mechanical trouble? The nuke would fall into the hands of the Russians. The photo must have been futzed with.

The Russians built a bomb in 1949, and a thermonuke in 1953 (?). There were no nuclear secrets between the US and USSR at that point...

Nubclear · March 13, 2003, 23:58

Quote:

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

well , then the US would destroy itself , ......

have a nice day

Yay! You get a cookie

Worthingtons · March 14, 2003, 00:58

Slowwhand, can you tell me where you got that picture from, and where i can find other simular material??

Ted Striker · March 14, 2003, 01:26

Digging up graves is pretty stupid and absurd.

But slow's picture was pretty cool.

KrazyHorse · March 14, 2003, 01:36

This just in: the 50 000 or so uniformed Canadians who died in France last century will be staying right where they are.

And we're not going to engage in trading the memory of brave men from 2 or 3 generations ago for cheap political points.

Ted Striker · March 14, 2003, 01:59

That's great Frogger.

Do you want a first place award or something?

KrazyHorse · March 14, 2003, 02:09

No, I want some of you to get off your high horse. A lot of countries sacrificed a lot more than you did in the two world wars.

KrazyHorse · March 14, 2003, 02:11

I also want to know what this says about WWII vets who don't support the war (of which there are a whole heap)...

Sikander · March 14, 2003, 03:19

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Most absurd proposition yet.. no, EVER.

Hope she gets bad press for such a stupid thing. Also, it is interesting that the Germans were the first to oppose war, and in terms of their position, the most staunch..n calls yet to boycott Becks, chnage the names of things like German Chocolate Cake, or a boycott on sauernbraten and Oktoberfest.... well, not that interesting..French bashing is an old thing in the US.

I think a large part of the reason that people in the U.S. are hating France more than Germany is that the Germans have been pretty damned consistent in their position, and haven't vowed to veto any resolution that brings American troops out of the desert within their current term of enlistment. France is seen as having changed their position significantly, and as having ambushed the U.S. To a large extent these views are fairly accurate. Germany may well wish the U.S. as ill as France does, but they are perceived as doing so much more from a position of principal rather than opportunism.

The French foreign minister (Vile..something) was interviewed here last week. He agreed that if the U.S. hadn't built up its troop strength and seriously threatened Baghdad that there would have been no disarmament at all. He also stated that French policy supported the disarmament of Iraq, and that France would veto any resolution that mentioned force. So the U.N. is hopping around on one leg trying to get Iraq to disarm, and France is insistent on kicking that last leg out while trumpeting its commitment to the U.N. remaining upright. At least he was willing to state (if not admit) that France's policy was a bunch of contradictory sound bites. The worst thing he said was the reason that France was trying to stop the war was that they didn't want any American boys to get killed (to a U.S. audience of course). What an insult! France is purposefully delaying the war, which for many reasons is going to increase the war's cost in lives on both sides. U.S. forces lose readiness, suffer heat casualties, training casualties etc. while Iraq digs in and France drags her feet while mouthing platitudes about its love for Americans.

Sikander · March 14, 2003, 03:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
No, I want some of you to get off your high horse. A lot of countries sacrificed a lot more than you did in the two world wars.

Who's on their high horse besides you (and Paiktis)? Did anyone here support the disinterment (and don't mention anyone stupid, they don't count)?

KrazyHorse · March 14, 2003, 03:45

If you think the disinterment per se is the cruxx of the matter then you've got to rethink it.

The problem is this attitude that the French owe you political favours because of WWII.

And that attitude has been demonstrated multiple times in this thread and others.

Q Classic · March 14, 2003, 03:56

Quote:

French didn't need it eh?
The Soviets didn't seek UN approval for Hungary, Czechoslovakia, or Aghanistan.
The Chinese didn't seek UN support for Korea.
In fact, until Desert Storm, NOBODY ever sought UN approval for war.

wrong, lancer.
the korean war was the first time a war was fought under the UN banner.
after the nkoreans invaded skorea, the united states brought the matter to the UNSC; the USSR, in a fit of pique, did not show up to the SC that day.
the resolution enabling the US to organize a UN-backed resistance army was mainly due to that conspicuous absence.

red china, which invaded korea when it became evident that combined UN might was beating back communist aggression, was not a member of the UN at the time. China's seat on the UNSC belonged not to Mao's China, but to the Republic of China under Chiang Kai-shek.

Q Classic · March 14, 2003, 04:14

pardon my freedom, but i think this entire trend in our country to bash freedom is fvcking stupid.

we all know that the freedom are a bunch of nutjob loons, but we're only encouraging their irritating snootiness by being complete retards ourselves.

Dis · March 14, 2003, 04:29

what a great way to respect the dead.

Actually I don't think they should have been buried over there in the first place. But it's too late for that now

Sikander · March 14, 2003, 04:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
If you think the disinterment per se is the cruxx of the matter then you've got to rethink it.

The problem is this attitude that the French owe you political favours because of WWII.

And that attitude has been demonstrated multiple times in this thread and others.

Ahh, so you're talking about the photos of the graveyards etc. I personally don't feel that the French owe us anything, and further feel that they have every right to run their foreign policy as they see fit. I merely object to their policies and the stated "reasoning" behind them. But you obviously weren't aiming those comments at me. D'accord.

KrazyHorse · March 14, 2003, 04:33

NP

Wernazuma III · March 14, 2003, 06:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
I wonder if the "Statue of Liberty" was once called the Statue of France.

If the Statue of Liberty has been renamed, then it must have been a confusion by someone who thought the Statue was German. For while French translates to Freedom, German translates to Liberty. During WWI, Sauerkraut was Liberty Cabbage and Hamburger were Liberty Steaks...

Chemical Ollie · March 14, 2003, 07:41

This pic is kinda old, but it has gotten a new meaning, hasn't it?

Richelieu · March 14, 2003, 07:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer
Richelieu, having some French wine?

That's freedom wine for you !