More anti-French idiocy - Page 5

Arrian · March 14, 2003, 09:38

@ Olaf. I don't think I've seen that one before.

I reiterate my initial response to this thread: people are idjits.

Some of them even get elected.

-Arrian

mindseye · March 14, 2003, 11:51

The moronicism of the anti-French business is profoundly embarrassing to those of us abroad. It makes our country, the supreme world power, look like a bunch of trailer-trash yahoos and nationalistic bozos.

Lafayette, we still owe you.

GePap · March 14, 2003, 18:37

Just an add-on. Anyone here who complains about how France didn't bring up "Algeria" to the Un doesn't have much clue about what went on in Algeria..for gods sake, the area north of the Atlas mountains was made up of three departments of France..yes, northern Algeria was considered part of metropolitan France. If Hawaii wanted out, that would hardly be an issue of international peace and security. Same reason chechnia doesn't make it into the UN, or Northern Ireland.

The correct operation to point out is Suez and the three way invasion of Egypt in '56. Did the US stand up with its allies while their boys were in danger on the battlefield then? No, we demanded they leave...some allies, no?

Chemical Ollie · March 14, 2003, 20:24

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Just an add-on. Anyone here who complains about how France didn't bring up "Algeria" to the Un doesn't have much clue about what went on in Algeria..for gods sake, the area north of the Atlas mountains was made up of three departments of France..yes, northern Algeria was considered part of metropolitan France. If Hawaii wanted out, that would hardly be an issue of international peace and security. Same reason chechnia doesn't make it into the UN, or Northern Ireland.

The correct operation to point out is Suez and the three way invasion of Egypt in '56. Did the US stand up with its allies while their boys were in danger on the battlefield then? No, we demanded they leave...some allies, no?

You are so right

Straybow · March 14, 2003, 20:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
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.

No, the problem is that Chirac has his hand down Saddam's pants and expects a return favor from Dubya in the great UN circle-jerk. He'd rather have his oil and nuclear contracts with the rabid beast than put him down.

The Euroweenies and Canadopes act as though Saddam isn't a future threat. As long as it's dirty arabs getting invaded or otherwise screwed over he will never be considered an aggressor.

Chirac knows full well that the minimal cooperation seen to date has come only due to credible threat of ouster via US arms. Then he threatens to veto any actual use of force—completely assinine.

General Ludd · March 14, 2003, 20:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Straybow

The Euroweenies and Canadopes act as though Saddam isn't a future threat. As long as it's dirty arabs getting invaded or otherwise screwed over he will never be considered an aggressor.

If that is the case, why do we consier the USA to be an aggressor?

Chemical Ollie · March 14, 2003, 21:22

Everybody agree that Saddam is a lunatic, but he is not, and has never been, a threat to United States. Why is this war so important to the Americans?

ThePantaloonDog · March 14, 2003, 21:43

This French just continues to increase in immaturity. The people who do this do realize that we're going to need France to combat terroism?

I honestly wish some of the effort of French bashing went into explaining why exactly we need this war and what is going to happen afterward.

Chemical Ollie · March 14, 2003, 21:51

Quote:

Originally posted by ThePantaloonDog
This French just continues to increase in immaturity. The people who do this do realize that we're going to need France to combat terroism?

I honestly wish some of the effort of French bashing went into explaining why exactly we need this war and what is going to happen afterward.

Where do terrorism come into the picture when starting this war? And if it does, France is at least as involved as US, and long before 9/11. I remember taking the subway through Paris 1998 or something, just 24 hours before some Algerian lunatic blew exactly the same train up. It could had been me!

GePap · March 14, 2003, 21:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Straybow
No, the problem is that Chirac has his hand down Saddam's pants and expects a return favor from Dubya in the great UN circle-jerk. He'd rather have his oil and nuclear contracts with the rabid beast than put him down.

The Euroweenies and Canadopes act as though Saddam isn't a future threat. As long as it's dirty arabs getting invaded or otherwise screwed over he will never be considered an aggressor.

Chirac knows full well that the minimal cooperation seen to date has come only due to credible threat of ouster via US arms. Then he threatens to veto any actual use of force—completely assinine.

Many people in this board do not see Saddam as a present or futute threat. Some very intelligent and comprehensive articles about why he isn't a threat to the US written by people I think and trust to be far better trained and educated on this issue than you are have already been posted.

KrazyHorse · March 14, 2003, 21:54

Take a pill and work on your reading comprehension.

He's saying that the French-bashing is pointless and that he doesn't understand the necessity of the war.

Chemical Ollie · March 14, 2003, 22:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
Take a pill and work on your reading comprehension.

He's saying that the French-bashing is pointless and that he doesn't understand the necessity of the war.

I'm sorry for not expressing myself clearly enough. My last post was not opposing TPD, but rather an extension of what he wrote.

Straybow · March 19, 2003, 03:46

The Euroweenies and Canadopes act as though Saddam isn't a future threat. As long as it's dirty arabs getting invaded or otherwise screwed over he will never be considered an aggressor.

Quote:

Originally posted by Osweld
If that is the case, why do we consier the USA to be an aggressor?

Because Saddam's an arab you think it's OK for him to oppress arabs (and others indescriminately lumped together with them).
Because you automatically assume that Western involvement in a third-world nation is self-serving.
Because you can turn your back and pretend not to see what's going on in a distant country full of backward peoples you really don't care about, but you have trouble doing that when Western military forces get in the way.
Because you are hypocrites.

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Many people in this board do not see Saddam as a present or futute threat. Some very intelligent and comprehensive articles about why he isn't a threat to the US written by people I think and trust to be far better trained and educated on this issue than you are have already been posted. [emphasis added —S]

QED.