Guest Danny Dubya v 2.0 Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 So? They're not a war-like people anymore Which could imply cowardice. Or possibly being above waging wars.
Guest saturnmark4life Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 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.
Guest nikowwf Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 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
Guest Anglesault Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 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? Yeah, this thread is out of place.
Guest JMA Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 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...
Guest Anglesault Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 I don't see why the French get bitched at for WWII, but never get praised for WWI Easy. WWII happened after WWI.
Guest croweater Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 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.)
Guest JMA Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 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...
Guest Anglesault Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 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
Guest JMA Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 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.
Guest JMA Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 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.
Guest Anglesault Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 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.
Guest croweater Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 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~
Guest JMA Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 Back to Bradshaw. The only reason he whores himself to Bush is because they are both rednecks from Texas.
Guest croweater Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 I'm surprised he doesn't want the death penalty for those who won't job to the APA
Guest JMA Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 Does "APA" still stand for "Acolyte Protection Agency"? Or is it "Always Pounding Ass" now?
Guest Anglesault Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 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.
Guest JMA Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 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.
Guest Anglesault Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 and scared Saddam into exiling himself We DID give him a chance to leave. Although yes, the Saudis suck
Guest croweater Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 I think the latter...... or Arrogant Patriotic Assholes.
Guest croweater Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 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
Guest Anglesault Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 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
Guest croweater Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 Actually WWII was needed because otherwise Germany would have taken the world..... then again a Hitler assasination would have done the trick.
Guest JMA Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 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.
Guest croweater Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 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.
Guest croweater Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 I'm not sure on the facts about Saudi Arabia but it definately shows a double standard depending on trade agreements with America.
Guest Anglesault Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 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?
Guest croweater Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 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.
Guest JMA Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 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.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now