Our wonderful French Allies

Shog9 0

Doug Goulden wrote: We never have had to bail out the Mexicans Well, this isn't what you meant, but Clinton loaned them $60 billion back in '95 when their banks were in trouble... ;) ---

My whole life I've practiced the art of self-sabotage -- fearing success perhaps even more than fearing failure. I think I have got this flareup resolved, but I'm constantly waiting to see what new and exciting ways I can spoil my chances for a better life. - koreykruse, Compulsive Skin Picking

Chris Losinger

Doug Goulden wrote: How do you think the French would react if the Arc de Triumph or the Eiffel tower was destroyed? destroyed by who? al-Q or Iraq? big difference there. -c

When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.

Bobber!

KaRl

First objective, the camemberts![^]

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons

KaRl

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons

Mike Gaskey

Doug Goulden wrote: 1. We never have had to bail out the Mexicans Actualy we have, there was an IMF bailout in late 90's and if I'm not mistaken "we" were a significant loan guarantor. Doug Goulden wrote: American graves from 2 world wars there Several graves from the drug wars though, including unsubstantiated (by me) incursions across our border by Mexican police and possibly federal troops to protect drug runners. Doug Goulden wrote: The Mexicans don't claim to be our friends then stab us in the back. But then there is the quiet invasion (tacitly approved by both major political parties) - an effort to reclaim the Southwest and California. If you spend any significant time in Texas you'll see it is pretty obvious. Mike

Shog9 0

<sarcasm> Thank God we finally got rid of all those damn pacifists! </sarcasm> ---

My whole life I've practiced the art of self-sabotage -- fearing success perhaps even more than fearing failure. I think I have got this flareup resolved, but I'm constantly waiting to see what new and exciting ways I can spoil my chances for a better life. - koreykruse, Compulsive Skin Picking

brianwelsch

Good man, Chris. I've been wondering how people feel justified in calling the French backstabbing, ungrateful (blah, blah, blah).. The US stands up and says we're going to attack regardless of who is supporting us, and then people get pissed when another country stands up for whatever it wants to. A bit hypocritical. Although, I see it coming from the media and citizens, more so than our gov't so it doesn't concern me too much. BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security

Chris Austin

Although, I see it coming from the media and citizens, more so than our gov't so it doesn't concern me too much. I just find it dissapointing. It almost seems like a mob mentality to me. I am also annoyed that all these people seem to have forgotten about France's assitance we recived during our war for independance. The people are behaving like a bunch of spoiled children who can't stand that someone disagrees with thim. The word abbreviation is awfully long for what it means.

brianwelsch

Chris Austin wrote: The people are behaving like a bunch of spoiled children who can't stand that someone disagrees with thim. A little embarrassing. BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security

Doug Goulden

I feel that the French (and Germans) are two faced when on the one hand they say that they have simpathy for the US and what happened on 9/11, when on the other hand they will turn around and watch a tyrant develop weapons that the UN has specifically forbidden him to have. As far as the arguement that he hasn't attacked the US.... you and I don't really know the extent of his involvement with Al Quada. If the US had stated prior to 9/11 that they were going to eliminate Al Quada because they presented a very real danger to the US, the international "community" would have been outraged. Who here can honestly say they are going to miss Saddaam? Theidea of waitning for another attack and then trying Saddaam in the court of public opinion is foolish and dangerous. The French don't owe us anything other than giving a country that hasn't done them any wrong the benefit of the doubt. The buildings that are destroyed and people that are killed next could be French. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Doug Goulden

Chris Losinger wrote: big difference there. Is there? You willing to risk your life or anyone elses that two madmen aren't willing to work together to destroy a common enemy? Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Doug Goulden

Hey when the mexicans start knocking down buildings.... get back to me ;P As far as drug runners... unfortuanetly we are slitting our own throats, we are the ones buying the stuff No demand = No drug runners Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Doug Goulden

I'm sticking to American fries ;) Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Brit

Chris Losinger wrote: tell me, have you boycotted tacos too? cause Mexico isn't on GWB's side in this mess, either. And French kissing! (It's called "freedom kissing" now.) :-D ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion

Doug Goulden

All that we (the blah blah blah people) are really looking for is to not have the French and other people stand in the way of the US's right to prevent Iraq from developing and using the weapons they have. The idea that somehow the inspections are working is insane.... Its taken 12 years, 17 resolutions, and 255,000 American troops to get to the point we can even have inspectors in the country. I never ceases to amaze me how quickly people forget why the US might feel they could be attacked by some half baked tyrant..... Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Chris Austin

Thanks for the reply Doug. I feel that the French (and Germans) are two faced when on the one hand they say that they have simpathy for the US and what happened on 9/11, when on the other hand they will turn around and watch a tyrant develop weapons that the UN has specifically forbidden him to have. I don't think it is that they want to allow SH to develop these weapons. I just think that they disagree with war as a means right now. The French don't owe us anything other than giving a country that hasn't done them any wrong the benefit of the doubt. There is only so much benefit that can be given. Were not talking about something simple. It is an invasion of a sovereign country with no *publicly* proven links to the attacks on our country. I think if the administration could put indisputable proof on the table, the rest of the UN SC would have to fall into line regardless of special interests. Also, I think it is healthy to have our whim / will challenged diplomatically and politically. Otherwise we will be looking at a pretty boring world. The word abbreviation is awfully long for what it means.

Chris Losinger

Doug Goulden wrote: You willing to risk your life or anyone elses that two madmen aren't willing to work together to destroy a common enemy? the plan is to drop something like 5000 bombs and 300 cruise missiles into a city of 5 million. GWB is using the certainty of Iraqi civillian and american military deaths to prevent the outside chance of american civillian death. selfishly, i'd be willing to back the war, if there was any real, credible proof that Saddam is a direct and current threat to the US. but there isn't any proof like that. you can't just go around killing people because you're nervous about what they might do. that's the kind of thing that despotic dictators, like Saddam, Stalin and Pinochet use to stay in power. -c

When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.

Bobber!

Doug Goulden

Chris Austin wrote: I don't think it is that they want to allow SH to develop these weapons. I just think that they disagree with war as a means right now. I think that if you look at the information that has been made public to this point, it pretty hard to believe that SH doesn't have weapons of mass distruction. He has had, and probably still does have anthrax (coincidence?) and VX nerve gas and has used it in the past. The French and German government give the impression that they don't particularly care if SH does have weapons as long as they don't interfere with business. The US has made the mistake in the past of making deals with people that in the short term fit our supposed interests... and look where it has gotton us. The Saudi government is an example of the type of people that we have played along with in the past feeling that we could control the situation. And we found out we can't. Tyrants and dictators will turn on us and because of the deals we have made in the past we end up with UBL. Why not call a spade a spade, if someone would harm our country and presents a credible threat, show them the stick. Someone who needs help and is peaceful (and at least not a murderer) show the carrot. The US can be the best friend of a country, or their worst enemy. Chris Austin wrote: Also, I think it is healthy to have our whim / will challenged diplomatically and politically. Otherwise we will be looking at a pretty boring world Boring is good, smoking holes in the ground are bad..... Let the smoking holes be in some other country that would do us harm. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Doug Goulden

Chris Losinger wrote: GWB is using the certainty of Iraqi civillian and american military deaths to prevent the outside chance of american civillian death How far outside? The guy has developed drone aircraft and tested them by dropping simulated chemical and biological weapons... You think he couldn't or wouldn't use them against the US? Less than 2 years ago UBL killed 3000 civilians, the US isn't going to target any civilians. Will innocent people be killed? Probably they will and thats the real tragedy, but the idea we should take a wait and see attitude is nuts. You almost sound like you don't believe SH could or would use the weapons he has. Question for you, why is he making them? He used them on the Kurds. Chris Losinger wrote: you can't just go around killing people because you're nervous about what they might do. that's the kind of thing that despotic dictators, like Saddam, Stalin and Pinochet use to stay in power. Are you trying to compare the US or GWB to these guys? You have to be kidding me. The US has a pretty good reason to be nervous, in the last 2 years we have seen a couple of buildings wiped from the skyline, and had a biological weapon attack. When you honestly look at Saddaam, its not to difficult to see him passing weapons he has on to other people (UBL, Hamas, etc) who would be more than happy to use them on the US. Thats not despotism, thats survival Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

KaRl

:-D

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons