U.S. vs. Everyone

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

Not one french person (except probably a couple of lunatics) ever said Saddam should not be brought down.

False. In an April poll published in The Guardian as well as Le Monde and countless other papers, 78% disapproved of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and 33% wanted Saddam Hussein to win the war. The 53% who "really wished for" or "preferred" an allied victory are sometimes touted as proof of French support. Support? You were given a choice between supporting the leader of the free world and supporting a MASS MURDERER and a TERRORIST. The fact that you even had to think about the choice is appalling. And the fact that a THIRD of your citizens chose to support the terrorist speaks volumes about your moral degeneracy.

 

A will to regain some influence on the world scene

Ever thought of earning it?

 

and a will to protect business agreements that were elaborated long before this war.

Now we get to the meat of it. As demonstrated by the links included in my last post, your business agreements were made with a bloodthirsty power-mad dictator at the expense of his people. You wanted to protect those exploitative agreements after his murderous regime was overthrown - as you knew it would be, by better people than you - and you didn't bat an eye at the fact that for every moment you hemmed, hawed, insulted, obfuscated, and outright obstructed us, another innocent Iraqi starved, was tortured, or shot by Saddam Hussein's evil thugs. We've uncovered tens of thousands of bodies buried in mass graves. Iraqis can speak freely about the torture chambers and the rape rooms and the summary executions for the first time in decades. It will take as many decades or more simply to catalogue Saddam Hussein's atrocities. Even then countless Iraqis will never know just what happened to their siblings, their parents, their children, wives, and husbands. Jesus wept! any reasonable person would be sickened by the sheer amount of death and the magnitude of cruelty the Iraqi people have suffered; any reasonable person would get down on his knees and thank God that there's at least one nation in the world willing and able to put an end to these horrors somewhere in the world. But you? You excuse your inaction. You justify your obstruction. You rationalise your deals with evil.

 

And you don't even have the good grace to be ashamed of yourselves.

The amount of moral relativism you spout off is astounding. Whenever the US does something similar, there is always some sort of excuse handy to attempt to justify it.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Cordially, fuck off. I've never justified the mistakes the United States has made on economic or nationalistic grounds. I have stated that supporting dictators was necessary in the war against communism. Considering that the Cold War saved millions of people from the brutal despotism characterised by Stalin et al, I hardly think that's unreasonable.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

An incredibly astute response. Although about what I'd expect from someone who thinks that supporting grabage like Noriega, Iran, and the Contras was good foreign policy. Funny how the US put up with Noriega's drug running and brutality until their "Big Bad" had shifted from communism to drugs, and then went in and took him out.

[Guest Boubba]

Not one french person (except probably a couple of lunatics) ever said Saddam should not be brought down.

False. In an April poll published in The Guardian as well as Le Monde and countless other papers, 78% disapproved of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and 33% wanted Saddam Hussein to win the war. The 53% who "really wished for" or "preferred" an allied victory are sometimes touted as proof of French support. Support? You were given a choice between supporting the leader of the free world and supporting a MASS MURDERER and a TERRORIST. The fact that you even had to think about the choice is appalling. And the fact that a THIRD of your citizens chose to support the terrorist speaks volumes about your moral degeneracy.

 

A will to regain some influence on the world scene

Ever thought of earning it?

 

and a will to protect business agreements that were elaborated long before this war.

Now we get to the meat of it. As demonstrated by the links included in my last post, your business agreements, your oil contracts, were made with a bloodthirsty power-mad dictator at the expense of his people. You wanted to protect those exploitative contracts after his murderous regime was overthrown - as you knew it would be, by better people than you - and you didn't bat an eye at the fact that for every moment you hemmed, hawed, insulted, obfuscated, and outright obstructed us, another innocent Iraqi starved, was tortured, or shot by Saddam Hussein's evil thugs. We've uncovered tens of thousands of bodies buried in mass graves. Iraqis can speak freely about the torture chambers and the rape rooms and the chemical weapon tests and the summary executions for the first time in decades. It will take as many decades or more simply to catalogue Saddam Hussein's atrocities. Even then countless Iraqis will never know just what happened to their siblings, their parents, their children, wives, and husbands. Jesus wept! - any reasonable person would be sickened by the sheer amount of death and the magnitude of cruelty the Iraqi people have suffered; any reasonable person would get down on his knees and thank God that there's at least one nation in the world willing and able to put an end to these horrors somewhere in the world. But you? You rationalise your inaction. You excuse your obstruction. You JUSTIFY your deals with evil.

 

 

 

And you don't even have the good grace to be ashamed of yourselves.

Well, Marney you may forgot some facts in there. First you must realize the huge Muslim community present in France ( let's say about a good third, maybe even a bit more ) and how many of them felt this was not an attack directed at Irak ro Hussein himself but as an attack towards Islam itself. THAT is the explanation of that ONE poll you mentioned. Yes one poll says a lot about its whole population doesn't it.

 

I won't go about the obvious very self centered reference you made about "leader of the free world", that could make an entire thread.

 

Once again, you blind yourself. Where in the world did we support Saddam ? We disagreed with the means, not the intentions. If you cannot grasp that simple idea, you are a lost cause. Oh and my "moral degeneracy" juste mentioned me to remind you to get lost. That's something I could spit back at you if i was uninformed about your country. Fortunately, I try to learn a bit before making such ignorant statements.

 

About earning influence ... that's what we were trying to do, no ? Unless you see this as a game where you earn "influence and welfare points" ?

 

Come on, don't get started on business deals with Iraq ? Are you THAT stuck in your own bunker that you ignore your own countries dealings with the BIG EVIL. Oh I guess you are better because you only recently took money from the UN oil for food program ... Didn't just about EVERYONE knew that Saddam just got the money for himself, yet you still drove your car around, no ?

This must go both ways, pal.

 

Did I say I wasn't sickened by what happened in Irak ? Not that I think. But what I see if you are crying your eyes out when I discuss government and countries policy. Sorry but I don't believe that a country is led by emotions. Do you really think Bush cried his eyes out on 9-11 and slumped to the floor. Surely the guy felt like he might but he remained calm composed, the way a leader and its whole government should be for the sake of its nation.

 

So yes I do rationalize and I do excuse our obstruction because relationships between countries and frickin war is no place for emotions or "evil" bullshit.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Well, Marney you may forgot some facts in there. First you must realize the huge Muslim community present in France ( let's say about a good third, maybe even a bit more ) and how many of them felt this was not an attack directed at Irak ro Hussein himself but as an attack towards Islam itself. THAT is the explanation of that ONE poll you mentioned.

I'm sorry the Muslims feel it was an attack on their religion. 1) Iraq was a secular nation until Saddam got desperate. 2) I didn't know a reasonable individual could equate Islam with a murderous dictator who rapes, tortures, and kills people as a means of control.

 

And the response of peace-loving Muslims is to support said dictator against the US? This is logical?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

An incredibly astute response. Although about what I'd expect from someone who thinks that supporting grabage like Noriega, Iran, and the Contras was good foreign policy. Funny how the US put up with Noriega's drug running and brutality until their "Big Bad" had shifted from communism to drugs, and then went in and took him out.

"Funny?" How so? When the threat of communism decreased there was no longer a reason to put up with petty evils in order to foil the greater evil. Your view of our interventions is ridiculously naive in historical terms, though understandable philosophically.

[Guest EricMM]

I don't understand why France and others wanted us to go through international means: when we tried that the U.N. still wasn't swayed and we gave six months for Saddam to prepare and hide his shit.

 

If we were supposed to go through political means, I would hope we could expect France in particular to be as reasonable as us; I didn't expect France to just sit at their table with their fingers in their ears shouting, "NO! NO! NO! NO!"

 

Tell me that's not what happened...

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

That's exactly the point. The US changes its enemies like a person changes their socks. When all they were concerned about was "commies", in addition to allowing the government to harass US citizens, they propped up every fascist and military regime they could because the "containment policy" took precedence over anything else. Hence, to keep the Soviets from occupying a nothing country like Afghanistan, we paid the price of Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban. When the US preoccupation switched to Iran and the Islamic Revolution, Sadaam Hussein was allowed to brutally take power solely because he would oppose Iran with his secular dictatorship. I still have never heard a reason why the US government sold weapons to Iran in the late 80s in the Iran/Contra dealings, unless that also had to do with the Soviets? And as said, once the "War on Drugs" became a big deal, all the drug runners the CIA put into power switched to enemies overnight. Wasn't China a big preoccupation of the Bush administration in 2000-2001? They sure went to the backburner after Sept. 11.

 

Which brings us back to Hussein. I hate Sadaam Hussein, and supported the US attacking Iraq to get rid of him. But the fact remains there are certainly reasons people might not agree, many of them reasonable. The US didn't go after Sadaam because he runs a tyrannical, murderous regime, because if that was their reason they would have taken the bastard out in 1991 as they should have. I personally don't think it was for oil, as most anti-war types think, or WMDs, as most war supporters believe. It had everything to do with what happened on Sept. 11 2001. Personally I think that's a pretty compelling reason, some probably disagree. Whatever the reasoning, there is no morality involved with it.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

many [Moslems] felt this was not an attack directed at Irak ro Hussein himself but as an attack towards Islam itself

I wish it had been.

 

Where in the world did we support Saddam ?

You constantly and consistently obstructed our efforts to get the spineless UN to condemn Hussein's regime and impose aggressive and intrusive inspections with teeth.

 

We disagreed with the means, not the intentions

I'm sorry, but we were tired of your means. They hadn't worked for over twelve years and they sure as hell weren't about to suddenly start working. As for your intentions, they were clear enough: to oppose the United States out of petty spite caused by your irrelevance and impotence and to enrich yourself at the expense of suffering Iraqis.

 

About earning influence ... that's what we were trying to do, no ? Unless you see this as a game where you earn "influence and welfare points" ?

No, you aren't trying to earn influence. Influence is earned by merit. You're trying to gain it by backstabbing the people who've saved your ass a thousand times.

 

I guess you are better because you only recently took money from the UN oil for food program

Just what on earth are you trying to say here? I'm sorry, but I'm not fluent in Idiotspeak. Are you claiming that the United States took money from a UN oil for food program? WTF? When was this? I wasn't aware that we were under some kind of international embargo and our economy was reduced to the production of oil in order to feed starving babies in Kansas.

 

Saddam just got the money for himself, yet you still drove your car around, no ?

This must go both ways, pal.

American companies did not cut deals with Hussein's regime for access to Iraq's oil. French companies did. Russian companies did. Chinese companies did. It's a matter of record. "Pal."

 

what I see if you are crying your eyes out when I discuss government and countries policy

Then you're myopic or delusional. We can continue this when your LSD wears off.

 

So yes I do rationalize and I do excuse our obstruction because relationships between countries and frickin war is no place for emotions or "evil" bullshit

On the contrary. It is the most important place to recognise and confront evil. The fact that you're even attempting to argue that evil is irrelevant in dealings between countries, in war, shows that you have learned nothing, absolutely nothing, from Munich. Or Vichy. You may think une Europe allemande is still inevitable but we remember Auschwitz quite clearly. We remember what evil looks like. And we remember your disgusting ilk, and what your lack of conviction led to the last time. We're not surprised at what it's led you to this time, either. Some people in the States think that Europe's lost it's moral compass.

 

I disagree. Moral compass? What moral compass? You've never had one in your miserable lives.

 

Stay in your pretty chateaux and cower under the storm, little Petains. We'll do what must be done. Someone has to. And afterwards, you can crawl out and claim you supported us the whole time, before beginning your inevitable snippy backbiting and cawing all over again.

 

As you always do.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Wasn't China a big preoccupation of the Bush administration in 2000-2001? They sure went to the backburner after Sept. 11.

Actually... they didn't.

 

Trust me.

 

It had everything to do with what happened on Sept. 11 2001. Personally I think that's a pretty compelling reason, some probably disagree. Whatever the reasoning, there is no morality involved with it.

There's no morality involved in preventing another 9/11? That's a new one on me.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

I don't understand why France and others wanted us to go through international means: when we tried that the U.N. still wasn't swayed and we gave six months for Saddam to prepare and hide his shit.

 

If we were supposed to go through political means, I would hope we could expect France in particular to be as reasonable as us; I didn't expect France to just sit at their table with their fingers in their ears shouting, "NO! NO! NO! NO!"

 

Tell me that's not what happened...

It is what happened. However:

 

1. The US probably expected it. If they didn't they probably should have. Had they gone to war immediately, would world opinion of it be any different than it is today? I doubt it.

 

2. If Hussein did destroy all his weapons beforehand, then great, because that was the desired end result. If he hid them I think they will eventually be found. I agree that people are jumping the gun declaring that there are no WMDs. More time is required to look for them. If none are found after a year then I think we have problems.

 

3. People make it sound as if stuff like this has never happened at the security council. I would recommend studying the history of the permanent member vetoes. The Russians unsurprisingly have used their veto the most, while the US is a distant second I believe.

 

Well, we've digressed quickly from the topic, to which I will add the following: how did this become about France when in that poll they were usually towards the middle of the pack (from what I noticed) and actually agreed most closely with the US on at least one question (who is more dangerous: US or Al Quida?). I really hope people arn't getting offended because the poll showed French people dislike US culture, because that's perfectly understandable.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Hell, I dislike lots of things about American culture. No one's offended by that. But a question like "Who's more dangerous, the US or al Qaeda?" That's prima facie absurd.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

t we remember Auschwitz quite clearly

 

Well, since you brought it up, it was the US who refused to bomb the gas chambers at Auschwitz while they were blowing up the rubber factories not more than a few miles away. I can't remember exactly what the policy was at the time that led them to that decision, suffice to say it was a poor one.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

Hell, I dislike lots of things about American culture. No one's offended by that. But a question like "Who's more dangerous, the US or al Qaeda?" That's prima facie absurd.

Of course it is, the point I was making is that more than any other countries on that list the French people agreed with the US on that question, and some others as well.

 

What I found funny is that on several questions, Israel and Korea had more favorable pro-US answers than the Americans did.

[Guest EricMM]

It's not surprising that we differ from Jordan more than France. But then again, we wouldn't allow Jordan to keep out of Iraq for such a long time.

 

I didn't know Brazil had such beef with us though.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

It's not surprising that we differ from Jordan more than France. But then again, we wouldn't allow Jordan to keep out of Iraq for such a long time.

 

I didn't know Brazil had such beef with us though.

Yeah I found that weird too. I've always thought of Brazil as a US ally, although that may just be from playing too many WW2 sims.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

it was the US who refused to bomb the gas chambers at Auschwitz while they were blowing up the rubber factories not more than a few miles away. I can't remember exactly what the policy was at the time that led them to that decision, suffice to say it was a poor one.

Well, bombing Auschwitz itself would have been idiotic. You don't save people by killing them. We could have bombed the railways leading to the death camps, but someone (I don't know who) took a decision to limit our bombing to sites of military and strategic importance - the prevailing view was that the best way to save the Jews was to win the war. Given the fact that we weren't exactly in a position of overwhelming superiority at the time, and that the full extent of the butchery there was not understood (hell, some people being sent to the death camps and even actually in them didn't know they were going to be slaughtered like animals), I'll say it was understandable. Not right, not defensible, just understandable. We may have made some decisions that were arguably poor during the war, but we did end it, and we did learn from it. The French, and most of Europe, did neither.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

it was the US who refused to bomb the gas chambers at Auschwitz while they were blowing up the rubber factories not more than a few miles away. I can't remember exactly what the policy was at the time that led them to that decision, suffice to say it was a poor one.

Well, bombing Auschwitz itself would have been idiotic. You don't save people by killing them. We could have bombed the railways leading to the death camps, but someone (I don't know who) took a decision to limit our bombing to sites of military and strategic importance - the prevailing view was that the best way to save the Jews was to win the war. Given the fact that we weren't exactly in a position of overwhelming superiority at the time, and that the full extent of the butchery there was not understood (hell, some people being sent to the death camps and even actually in them didn't know they were going to be slaughtered like animals), I'll say it was understandable. Not right, not defensible, just understandable. We may have made some decisions that were arguably poor during the war, but we did end it, and we did learn from it. The French, and most of Europe, did neither.

I'll agree with that, I think the point I was trying to make was to not throw around Holocaust references while arguing politics, particularly since we arn't even discussing Germany right now. I'm a student of the Holocaust, so to speak, and so I take it pretty seriously. I certainly didn't mean to single the US out, in fact they should be recognised for being quick to liberate camps as they tore across Germany. I don't think a discussion of French geopolitics needs to involve the Holocaust though, because by the time The Final Solution was underway, France was pretty much completely occupied by Germany. If anything, to this day European countries are overly sensitive about the Holocaust (things like these lawsuits to keep Yahoo auctions from selling Nazi historical items, for instance).

 

One thing I'm still perplexed about is why all these debates end up focusing on France and no one cares about Germany, despite:

 

1. Germany also being very anti-war.

2. The German government being more anti-US than the French government.

 

I mean, no one's tried to rename a German shepherd a Freedom shepherd, have they?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I just referenced it because of Europe's general anti-Semitism and because of the fact of French collaboration with evil mass-murdering dictators in the past, as well as the present. As for the Germans, I feel just as contemptuous of them as I do of the French, and a number of my posts in the past have criticised their shameful behaviour.

 

Comparing our President to Hitler was obscene, given the fact that we saved the Germans and others from him, and Schroder saying that he wouldn't "click [his] heels" and support the US was just comical. American soldiers don't click their heels, Chancellor. You were, appropriately, thinking of the Nazis.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

Comparing our President to Hitler was obscene

 

I agree. I've always respected Schroder for his efforts at Holocaust reconcilliation, but he lost a lot of my respect when he didn't take a hard line with that minister who made that ridiculous comparison. He should have publicly denounced her comments and then fired her. The heel clicking comment was stupid too.

[Guest Boubba]

many [Moslems] felt this was not an attack directed at Irak ro Hussein himself but as an attack towards Islam itself

I wish it had been.

 

Where in the world did we support Saddam ?

You constantly and consistently obstructed our efforts to get the spineless UN to condemn Hussein's regime and impose aggressive and intrusive inspections with teeth.

 

We disagreed with the means, not the intentions

I'm sorry, but we were tired of your means. They hadn't worked for over twelve years and they sure as hell weren't about to suddenly start working. As for your intentions, they were clear enough: to oppose the United States out of petty spite caused by your irrelevance and impotence and to enrich yourself at the expense of suffering Iraqis.

 

About earning influence ... that's what we were trying to do, no ? Unless you see this as a game where you earn "influence and welfare points" ?

No, you aren't trying to earn influence. Influence is earned by merit. You're trying to gain it by backstabbing the people who've saved your ass a thousand times.

 

I guess you are better because you only recently took money from the UN oil for food program

Just what on earth are you trying to say here? I'm sorry, but I'm not fluent in Idiotspeak. Are you claiming that the United States took money from a UN oil for food program? WTF? When was this? I wasn't aware that we were under some kind of international embargo and our economy was reduced to the production of oil in order to feed starving babies in Kansas.

 

Saddam just got the money for himself, yet you still drove your car around, no ?

This must go both ways, pal.

American companies did not cut deals with Hussein's regime for access to Iraq's oil. French companies did. Russian companies did. Chinese companies did. It's a matter of record. "Pal."

 

what I see if you are crying your eyes out when I discuss government and countries policy

Then you're myopic or delusional. We can continue this when your LSD wears off.

 

So yes I do rationalize and I do excuse our obstruction because relationships between countries and frickin war is no place for emotions or "evil" bullshit

On the contrary. It is the most important place to recognise and confront evil. The fact that you're even attempting to argue that evil is irrelevant in dealings between countries, in war, shows that you have learned nothing, absolutely nothing, from Munich. Or Vichy. You may think une Europe allemande is still inevitable but we remember Auschwitz quite clearly. We remember what evil looks like. And we remember your disgusting ilk, and what your lack of conviction led to the last time. We're not surprised at what it's led you to this time, either. Some people in the States think that Europe's lost it's moral compass.

 

I disagree. Moral compass? What moral compass? You've never had one in your miserable lives.

 

Stay in your pretty chateaux and cower under the storm, little Petains. We'll do what must be done. Someone has to. And afterwards, you can crawl out and claim you supported us the whole time, before beginning your inevitable snippy backbiting and cawing all over again.

 

As you always do.

See Carney, I would take a long moment, trying to search through all your petty and ignorant insults some valid points but since you ain't as clean as you proclaim to be, it is just not worth the time

No deals with Iraq after embargo ? riiiight.

So don't go the teary way with the suffering iraqis, it doesn't suit you.

 

Accept the facts, wake up from the roid rage and drop the white cloak.

To crown yourself champion of the "good side", you gotta earn it and live up to it. Your country as any other has not so far. Or at least be honest and switch "good" to "US", putting an end to your masquerade.

 

And you are still stuck with that "evil" stuff ? Still enforcing YOUR vision of what evil is upon each and everyone, wether they like it or not ? This is so scary ... and it saddens me so much that a country I love so much is plagued by furious people like you.

 

One last thing. Nice interesting bit about putting together Germany from WW2 and the current Germany. I'm sure those were'nt born at the time or the millions of turkish people here appreciate it. That's like me blaming on you, today, the slaugther of indians ... really Carney, a good hard look in your mirror might do better to enlighten you on who is alos on the evil bandwagon.

[Guest JMA]

No, that's idiotic. They gave it to us as a gift. They didn't sell it to us. They don't export the Statue of Liberty every year and make money off it. Boycotting it would be incredibly stupid. And, no offense, but you are stupid for suggesting it.

That clearly was in offense. I'm not "stupid" simply because I want people to stop being self-righteous. The real reason people don't boycott the Statue is because it's a piece of Americana. And I didn't say I "wanted" people to boycott it. On the contrary. I would be more than happy if people stopped boycotting French products. I myself think people want an excuse, any excuse, to hate France.

 

It doesn't matter what it is, or how long ago it happened. If you want to see "idiotic" you should just take a look at "Freedom Fries."

[Guest JMA]

A hello from France to all the members of the SmartMarks forum.

I just had to throw myself into the argument, to ask a couple of questions.

 

I saw someone using the word retaliation. For what ? Standing our ground ? Defending our own interests.

 

Someone brought up that we supported our government actions. We diid indeed follow our leaders, but the people did it for a whole different reason than they did.

 

French government has probably undertaken those actiosn for the very reasons that you mentioned : A will to regain some influence on the world scene and a will to protect business agreements that were elaborated long before this war.

We (and bear in my mind that when I say we, I'm trying to give you the feelings and opinions of the vast majority of the french people at the time )thought that we did not want the USA to go in Irak ALL BY THEMSELVES. Not one french person (except probably a couple of lunatics) ever said Saddam should not be brought down. We just did not want you to invad a country just because you decided to ( therefore mirroring what happened in the first Gulf War when Irak invaded a sovereign country with no valid reasons whatsoever and UN had to put them back in line). That is the way people felt about this war.

 

Now why boycott ? Do we have to hold a grudge each and every time our paths and interests crossed ? I don't think so . Damn, if you thought we screwed over, I can name a whole lot of reasons why we should express those same feelings towards you. Do we ? No. Should we ? No.

 

I'm not denying that we have quite a bunch of obnoxious xenophobiac people that would spoil the visit you might ( or have ) blessed our country with. But I can find quite the same amount of morons in every country. The thing is that we parked and display them in one place, Paris, that's why many of you stumbled upon them.

 

Voilà, I just wanted to give you the other side of the story.

(Oh and don't take this for a whiny request to not boycott french products. Aside from one or two small companies, the boycott has been insignificant. I just wanted to get the recors straight and that no bad blood would remain between my country and the only country in the world I'd love to live in, aside from mine).

Yo. Greetings from America. Glad to see the whole boycott thing is failing.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

No deals with Iraq after embargo ? riiiight.

From the article you linked:

Diplomats said Washington has been a greater obstacle for American businesses than Baghdad. The United States has placed "holds" on more than 1,000 contracts valued at $1.5 billion under the oil-for-food program, including some held by American companies. A review of 22 Fisher-Rosemount contracts, for example, showed that the United States had held up eight and approved seven; the remainder were pending or had been canceled.

(emphases added)

I'm curious, do you even read your own sources?

 

drop the white cloak

"If you lose your banners, rally 'round my white plume: for you will find it always on the path of honour and glory."

- Henry IV, 1590

 

In a word: no.

 

Still enforcing YOUR vision of what evil is upon each and everyone, wether they like it or not ?

Yes.

 

Nice interesting bit about putting together Germany from WW2 and the current Germany. I'm sure those were'nt born at the time or the millions of turkish people here appreciate it. That's like me blaming on you, today, the slaugther of indians

Hardly. When present-day Germans stop supporting the slaughter of Jews in Israel, and the French stop supporting insane tyrants for their own enrichment, I'll stop comparing them to the Nazis and the Vichy collaborators. Until then, you and your false indignation can both go to hell.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

It doesn't matter what it is, or how long ago it happened.

It certainly does. Our quarrel is with the present-day French government and the people who keep them in power, not their ancestors.

 

The real reason people don't boycott the Statue is because it's a piece of Americana.

Partially true. It's also true that if the French were making a profit from it a lot of Americans would do everything in their power to change it or boycott it. Since they're not, your proposal is silly and your point is irrelevant.

 

I myself think people want an excuse, any excuse, to hate France.

Like we need an excuse. They're French, for Christ's sake.

[Guest JMA]

Like we need an excuse. They're French, for Christ's sake.

No offense (even though I know it will be taken as such) but that sounds kind of predjudiced. I'm not trying to be mean or anything, I'm just saying how it sounds. That would be like saying it's okay to hate someone just for being American or Canadian. I mean, what if someone said the opposite?

 

"Like we need an excuse. They're American for Christ's sake."

 

"Like we need an excuse. They're Canadian for Christ's sake."

 

"Like we need an excuse. They're German for Christ's sake."

 

"Like we need an excuse. They're Russian for Christ's sake."

 

It just leads to stereotypes and generalizing. And what if someone said this about America...

 

"And how would I improve the American government? Well, I think a few gallons - oh sorry, litres of napalm would work wonders. It'd be a good start, anyway."

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Well, that wouldn't make any sense at all, since we don't use "litres."

 

Seriously, the last line was a joke (much like the French). Get a sense of humour.

[Guest JMA]

Seriously, the last line was a joke (much like the French). Get a sense of humour.

I knew it was a joke. But if someone did say that about America, it wouldn't be taken as such. This is why I pointed it out.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

That's because the French are just plain funny. And also because...

 

 

 

 

(drumroll)

 

 

 

 

IT IS WRONG TO BE FRENCH

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

False. In an April poll published in The Guardian as well as Le Monde and countless other papers, 78% disapproved of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and 33% wanted Saddam Hussein to win the war.

Suddnetly, the Guardian becomes an unbiased source for Marney? Call the neighbors!

 

And the fact that a THIRD of your citizens chose to support the terrorist speaks volumes about your moral degeneracy.

 

And according to FNC polls, we all love GW, we're totally willing to give up liberties for security, and life is good again. And according to NPR polls, we all want to burn GW at the stake and nobody trusts their government.

 

As demonstrated by the links included in my last post, your business agreements, your oil contracts, were made with a bloodthirsty power-mad dictator...

 

I gotta agree with this stuff. No arguement.

 

Considering that the Cold War saved millions of people from the brutal despotism characterised by Stalin et al, I hardly think that's unreasonable.

 

What's it matter who's doing the torturing? People are still being tortured.