Jump to content
TSM Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Guest OnlyMe

Bradshaw in non-sensical Anti-French rant

Recommended Posts

Guest Danny Dubya v 2.0
So? They're not a war-like people anymore

 

Which could imply cowardice.

Or possibly being above waging wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest saturnmark4life
So? They're not a war-like people anymore

 

Which could imply cowardice.

Or possibly being above waging wars.

Just maybe, or at least not having them as a knee-jerk reaction. Is being in all the major wars something to be proud of? Anyway, move or close this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest nikowwf

France is actively fighting in a couple of African countries right now. So....

 

does this make them WARLIKE?

brave?

above the US?

below the US?

 

or does it just mean everyone is just throwing shit against the wall and arguing about France, The US, racism in a dumb, half assed way in a WRESTLING forum?

 

can we go back to talking about HHH please?

 

niko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault
So? They're not a war-like people anymore

 

Which could imply cowardice.

Or possibly being above waging wars.

Just maybe, or at least not having them as a knee-jerk reaction. Is being in all the major wars something to be proud of? .

Being in all of them and winning would be.

 

France is actively fighting in a couple of African countries right now. So....

 

Are they winning? :P

 

Yeah, this thread is out of place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JMA

I don't see why the French get bitched at for WWII, but never get praised for WWI. It seems like some people have the stereotypical view that the French are all arrogant (although, I'm sure MANY countries think the same thing about America). Anyway, Bradshaw sucks and his opinions suck. He's becoming more annoying than Toby Keith...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault
I don't see why the French get bitched at for WWII, but never get praised for WWI

 

Easy.

 

WWII happened after WWI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest croweater

Bringing it back to WWE

France is like lil' Spike Dudley. Sometimes they don't make the show. But when they do they fight their ass off, get slaughtered and eventually Bradshaw (representing America) Runs in and makes the save.

 

May I refer you to WWII where "COWARDLY" Americans were all "peace yah peace! Go peace! No war. War is bad!" Basically up until the middle of the damn thing where you had a convinient change of heart when things actually started to effect you.

 

France was not effected by Iraq and hence felt no need to intervene. It sounds logical doesn't it?

 

I'm not an America Hater but I am against your political system and collective political opinions and the generalisations and needless forces applied by these faculties.

 

- The eater of Crows (a coward as he attended multiple anti-war rallies and is against all war in general.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JMA
Easy.

 

WWII happened after WWI.

So? WWII was SIXTY years ago. The people who were adults then are dead or very old. WWII is not a legitimate reason to be prejudice against the French, IMO. There is no good reason to hate the French, IMO. This whole thing makes me wish the world wasn't divided into countries...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault
France was not effected by Iraq and hence felt no need to intervene. It sounds logical doesn't it?

 

That's logical. Playing road block for no reason isn't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JMA
Bringing it back to WWE

France is like lil' Spike Dudley. Sometimes they don't make the show. But when they do they fight their ass off, get slaughtered and eventually Bradshaw (representing America) Runs in and makes the save.

 

May I refer you to WWII where "COWARDLY" Americans were all "peace yah peace! Go peace! No war. War is bad!" Basically up until the middle of the damn thing where you had a convinient change of heart when things actually started to effect you.

 

France was not effected by Iraq and hence felt no need to intervene. It sounds logical doesn't it?

 

I'm not an America Hater but I am against your political system and collective political opinions and the generalisations and needless forces applied by these faculties.

 

- The eater of Crows (a coward as he attended multiple anti-war rallies and is against all war in general.)

I pretty much agree with what you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JMA
That's logical. Playing road block for no reason isn't

America CHOSE to seek UN approval. It's our own fault. We joined, no one forced us to. It was in France's power to do what they did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault
Easy.

 

WWII happened after WWI.

So? WWII was SIXTY years ago. The people who were adults then are dead or very old.

You aked why they focus on WWII and not WWI. I gave a reason.

 

There is no good reason to hate the French, IMO

 

Hate is a strong word for this situation. I don't think anyone here who makes French jokes legitimately hate the country of France.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest croweater
France was not effected by Iraq and hence felt no need to intervene. It sounds logical doesn't it?

 

That's logical. Playing road block for no reason isn't

France stopped it from going through the UN because they believed that it was the wrong course of action to take. It's a DEMOCRATIC system in the UN..... you know.... the democracy you are always so proud of except when it works against you. Then you throw all of these "values" away for what you want to do. It's hypocracy. One moment democratic, next: well our opinion is the most important.

 

~end rant~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JMA

Back to Bradshaw. The only reason he whores himself to Bush is because they are both rednecks from Texas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest croweater

I'm surprised he doesn't want the death penalty for those who won't job to the APA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JMA

Does "APA" still stand for "Acolyte Protection Agency"? Or is it "Always Pounding Ass" now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault

I don't think it's supposed to stand for anything anymore.

 

- The eater of Crows (a coward as he attended multiple anti-war rallies and is against all war in general.)

 

Just a note.

 

Even you have to admit that there are some situations where war is the only option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JMA
Even you have to admit that there are some situations where war is the only option.

Sure. I personally wanted the US to go into Saudi Arabia, rather than Iraq. We could have taken them down and scared Saddam into exiling himself. Two birds with one stone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault
and scared Saddam into exiling himself

 

We DID give him a chance to leave.

 

Although yes, the Saudis suck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest croweater
I don't think it's supposed to stand for anything anymore.

 

- The eater of Crows (a coward as he attended multiple anti-war rallies and is against all war in general.)

 

Just a note.

 

Even you have to admit that there are some situations where war is the only option.

I'm sure there are some situations............ but none come to mind, past or present

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault
I don't think it's supposed to stand for anything anymore.

 

- The eater of Crows (a coward as he attended multiple anti-war rallies and is against all war in general.)

 

Just a note.

 

Even you have to admit that there are some situations where war is the only option.

I'm sure there are some situations............ but none come to mind, past or present

Pearl Harbor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest croweater

Actually WWII was needed because otherwise Germany would have taken the world..... then again a Hitler assasination would have done the trick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JMA
We DID give him a chance to leave.

 

Although yes, the Saudis suck

You're not getting what I'm saying. Here is what I think the United States SHOULD have done.

 

1: We liberate Saudi Arabia.

 

2: We put pressure on Saddam to leave or he's next.

 

3: Saddam, seeing how easily we liberated Saudi Arabia, leaves the country to seek asylum.

 

Thus, we have two big supporters of terrorism gone. There are less lives lost in the process, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest croweater
I don't think it's supposed to stand for anything anymore.

 

- The eater of Crows (a coward as he attended multiple anti-war rallies and is against all war in general.)

 

Just a note.

 

Even you have to admit that there are some situations where war is the only option.

I'm sure there are some situations............ but none come to mind, past or present

Pearl Harbor

Pearl Harbor wouldn't have happened if America didn't stop oil trades with Japan. As Japan had no oil it was necessary. Hence it could have been easily averted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest croweater

I'm not sure on the facts about Saudi Arabia but it definately shows a double standard depending on trade agreements with America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault
We DID give him a chance to leave.

 

Although yes, the Saudis suck

You're not getting what I'm saying. Here is what I think the United States SHOULD have done.

 

1: We liberate Saudi Arabia.

 

2: We put pressure on Saddam to leave or he's next.

 

3: Saddam, seeing how easily we liberated Saudi Arabia, leaves the country to seek asylum.

 

Thus, we have two big supporters of terrorism gone. There are less lives lost in the process, too.

Couple points

 

You don't think Saddam already knew what we were capable of?

 

Are you saying that liberating SA would cause less casualties

than Iraq, or that you think we're gonna have to do SA now on top of Iraq?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest croweater

SA won't be liberated until GW Bush's popularity drops agian. In my view it's all political. America is acting like it is the Alpha and the Omega and that they need to take all things into their own hands. It's a collective HHH which uses it's power to its advantage to do what it wants with the undercard countried and depending on which countries are supportive (fearfull) of his reign or whether countries are against him depends on who his going to bury. SA has better trade arangements with America and therefore has not been jobed to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JMA
Couple points

 

You don't think Saddam already knew what we were capable of?

 

Are you saying that liberating SA would cause less casualties

than Iraq, or that you think we're gonna have to do SA now on top of Iraq?

I think Saddam was too overconfident. Taking down Saudi Arabia would have brought him back to reality. I think if we took down the Saudi goverment we wouldn't have had to go into Iraq. I think Saddam would have left after we threatened him. Should we go into Saudi Arabia now? I don't really know.

 

We just got out of one war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×