Bordering???


bd123's flights of invective aside, there's one turn in this thread that I'm not quite following: Are some of you arguing that we should or should not hate the French on the basis of their military technology and/or performance during WWII? I don't see the connection. Am I just being dense?

Don't get me wrong here, mrs. pigpen, I don't think the French are stupid or anything of that sort. Heck, I take French and am going to France this summer. I'm the one who started the "Hating France" thread saying it was wrong to hate them . The point I'm trying to make is that their weapons weren't that good. The Dewoitine and Hawk were the best french planes. That doesn't mean they were better than the others of the time. There are certain planes that are recognized as the best in their respective areas at the time. Here's what generally comes to mind for the best in each category:

Manueverable: a6m2 or hurricane mk 1
Fast: p51d
Climbing: p38 or p47-d-30
Effective Bomber: Ju87d or JU88
Guns: (Almost any brit plane, most had two huge Hispano canon on them)
All around: Spitfire Mk. 9

None of these are French planes.

I understand the point you're making, I just don't understand what it has to do with the debate you initated:

Can't follow the cogent and compelling track in conversation, Wertz? I think it was originally John Locke who brought us to this lowly state, with his 'love to surrender' comment.

Bean, hope you have fun in France. You're the age I was the first time I went. Hope your experience is better than mine. You should stop by Italy, too, while you're there...It's much better

Afraid I won't have time to stop by Italy, although I'll try to at some other time.

Wertz, the WW2 stuff and France's military discussion is because I, and many others, thought we shouldn't be hating France because of their military history. I believe it was Locke saying they hadn't done anything good militarily in about 100 years. I was pointing out that the French loss in WW2 wasn't so much because of a bad military so much as military technology.

Wertz,
The thread started getting derailed (to mix a metaphor) when I responded to a post that said the French are cowards. I suggested that it wasn't cowardice that had them retreating (running was the word the other poster used) from German tanks in Paris. I asked the person if he had ever had to face invading tanks in his own homeland. He didn't answer that.

Hatred is as harmful to the one doing the hating as it is to the one who is hated, at least on a psychic level. Therefore I deem it immoral to hate the French.

The only legitimate complaint about France was that they actively worked to undermine the very clear and very righteous path being taken by our elected representatives. Please don't try to make it into anything else.

You have a point but sometimes you can't help having animosity. Even so I think the American attitude towards the French (especially for such an idiotic reason such as the one some people put forth about Iraq) is at the very least embarrassingly childish.

Bean, you don't mind if I call you Bean, do you?

Please, please, get some real sense of history. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you don't have any sense of WHEN things happened. Apparently, you don't have any sense of the enormous technical advances that took place during the war either, advances that make comparing weaponry of 1944 to weaponry of 1940 silly.

Thus far, you have credited the French with being smart enough in 1940 to not throw their lives away against Tiger tanks. Unfortunately, the Tiger wasn't in service until 1942. If the French were that smart, then its even more mindboggling how they managed to lose even though they could see two years into the future. Then there's the Bf-109G (aka Me-109G), which also wasn't in service until long after France fell. Now you're doing it again in bracketing the P-51, P-47 and Spitfire Mk9 with the Dewoitine and Hawk, which makes me wonder, exactly what "period" are you talking about?

Your inability to correctly represent the facts matters because it goes to your core argument: the Germans beat the French because they had superior military technology, not because the French had a crappy military. Well, sorry, but the real facts don't support your argument.

The French military was superbly situated to re-fight World War One. The fortifications of the Maginot Line are perhaps the finest defensive fortifications ever built. Unfortunately for the French, the Germans, having lost World War One, decided NOT to refight that one. The German troops were overall better trained, and more experienced. They had a far better tactical command structure, and better doctrine. All of these advantages came about because of deliberate choices made by the Germans, and because of deliberate choices made by the French. Historically, the French got beat because they screwed up, big time. Oh, and don't forget, the equipment that the French used, good and bad? The vast majority of it was built by, yes, the French pursuant to their military's specs, which puts the responsibility right back into the lap of the French military leadership.

Now, aside from hoping that you'll make the effort to get a better grasp of World War Two history, the "WHY" of the French collapse in World War Two does have some bearing on the topic.

What, if anything, have the French learned from their failure before and during World War Two? This question is asked both on a cultural level, and also in the sense of the policies that the French gov't is pursuing now. This ties back into the topic with this question: If the French haven't learned anything, what reason is there for the US to respect the advice and admonitions that the French have so graciously shared with us?

BTW, I am once again in awe of the French cluelessness. Choosing Woody Allen as their pitchman to woo Americans back? They'd have done better with Jerry Lewis fer cryin' out loud. (Actually, the biggest "strike" against Jerry is that the French like him! Its not like he's inanely neurotic, wimpy, and an incestuous almost pedophilic adulterer. Nope, Jerry's out there raising money for MDA.)

Bikerdad, your use of the French failure against the German blitzkreig in WWII as evidence of their cluelessness in relations to the Iraq war might be more convincing were the very successful Germans not saying more or less the same things as them.

Presumably that's because the German government has changed (and presumably you're also grateful that it has?).

But then, modern French policy was shaped by the Gaullists and the Free French, not Vichy France, so their major motivations in government are not the same now as they were in 1939-45 either.

If your analogy holds water, then presumably America's loss of the War of 1812 against the UK demonstrates that we're smart and you're stupid? I don't for a moment believe that to be the case - it is merely an illustration of how redundant your line of argument appears to me.

Nor do past military errors or current governmental differences of opinion offer any arguments as to why the French are worth hating. You may disapprove of their willingness to turn a blind eye to Saddam Hussein's brutality and trade with him in both civilian and military technology. Doubtless there are those in the world who wonder the same thing about the US governments cordial (but not bosom-buddy - just like the French rlationship with Iraq) relationship with Suharto's Indonesia or Pnochet's Chile. Are these really reasons to hate America?

These planes aren't necessarily for the time period when France was invaded. These are examples of famous planes from WW2. The French still could've developed better planes, but they didn't. I'm not calling them stupid, I'm just naming that their weapons tech wasn't as good as that of teh germans.

As you may recall, the Germans were "very successful" against the French, but in the grand scheme of the final outcome, it is a different story, ne pas?

Yes, I am grateful that it has. Nice "psst, maybe he's a Nazi" insinuation there. Too bad postwar Germany wasn't buying nearly as much steel, iron, coal, and munitions from Sweden as the Nazis, eh?

What's relevant is that the socio-cultural outlook of Germans changed. So we have to ask, are the lessons that the Germans learned (and taught) relevant to the current subject matter? Some are.

- The French motivations and policy in question are those of 1918 to 1940. What, exactly, is different about modern French policy vs. interwar French policy? Is France's culture significantly different? What lessons did France learn from WW2?


Whoa, we lost that one? You mean we've been mistakenly flying the ol Stars and Stripes for 190 years now, when we should've been flying the Union Jack? Thanks for the correction.

I'm not exactly sure what's being illustrated here, but it isn't the "redundancy" of my argument.

If you examine my posts closely, you'll see that, while past military errors don't support "hatred" of the French, they do support a healthy skepticism. Current governmental differences do support a dislike for the French, if one considers that the differences have put American lives at risk purely due to French desire to "contain" America combined with a French lust for Iraqi petro-euros.

Yes, we disapprove of that, but what really irks us is their willingness to do it while mouthing platitudes of "protecting the innocent" and profiteering off of Saddam's brutality. There is a difference between turning a blind eye and actually protecting Saddam.

Aside from the obvious fact that there are plenty of people who think they ARE reasons to hate America (or they simply hate America and then find convenient excuses to do so, its so hard to sort them out anymore), I find your attempt at moral equivalency to be lacking for three reasons. First, Suharto and Pinochet are both gone. Second, our relationships with numerous unsavory regimes prior to 1992 were all structured around one thing: the Cold War. Third, we weren't profiting from those regimes. France has been profiting from Saddam's brutality.

If you want to get a good indictment of America as an "imperialist" power, you can. Just don't waste your time looking at Iraq for it, or Afghanistan, or Chile, or Vietnam, or...

Look at the Phillipines. Before World War One. Look at the US role in the Boxer Rebellion. Then critically examine whether or not the US is behaving in the same fashion, for the same (generally speaking) reasons.

I've explained in my earlier posts why so many Americans have reacted the way they have to the French. Are we justified in "hating" the French? No. Are we justified in concluding that the French have demonstrated little reason for us to give heed to their counsel based on their competence in international relations? Yes. Are we justified in finding the French (and German) motives to be, at best, questionable? Yes. Is there any reason to believe that modern French foreign and defense policy is superior to their interwar policy? Suez 1956, VietNam, Algeria, none are convincing.

Are we justified, based on the French opposition recently (as well as their Gaullist policies), incessant and continuous attacks from the French intellectual community, that France is our friend? No.

The reason why so many Americans feel so negatively about France now?

Because we thought, naively, that France was our friend. The American goodwill that France has squandered is incalculable. Restoring it is going to take deliberate effort on France's part. While I don't doubt that the government of France is capable of making the effort, and most of the citizenry is, I seriously doubt that the acadamie can, and unfortunately for France, we do hear them over here.

Are Americans being "rational" about this? No. If we were, then we would have realized long ago that France isn't our friend, so this wouldn't have been considered such a betrayal. France would have been considered a "work buddy." Fun to hang out with usually, someone you socialize with a bit, work together, but not a friend. Sadly, both France's deliberate actions and the American gut response have placed France perilously close to being an adversary. Not an opponent, not an enemy, but France is hovering close to being part of "them" instead of "us."

Will Franco-American relations recover? Perhaps. But I can tell you, Woody Allen ain't the man to help it happen!

What's your point supposed to be? That because the Germans lost the war, everything they say about the war is wrong?




Yes, we did lose. The British burned Washington. We failed to accomplish our goal, which was to drive the British out of America and conquer Canada. We didn't have the massive French patronage ($2 billion for the Revolutionary War, which was a huge sum in the 18th century) and Britain simply had a better military. Granted, they didn't re-conquer America, but most people count the war as a defeat for America.




What exactly is your point? Simply because the French relied too heavily on the Maginot Line in WWII and did not focus on the development of superior tanks and warplanes does not mean that they're somehow disqualified from every having a valid opinion on anything ever again. I mean, America had terrible military strategy in Vietnam, and our state-of-the-war military got whipped by a bunch of guys in torn clothes carrying AKs and Rockets. The French were defeated by a force that outnumbered, out-gunned and most importantly, out-tanked them. If the French are so terrible for losing to the most powerful military force in the world, what does that mean for us, seeing as we were defeated by a third world country?




Sure, that does upset me. That's one of the reasons I'm rather upset with Chirac's center-right government. However, is that really any worse than uphold sanctions that killed about 1.5 million Iraqis while we sit around and talk about how terrible Saddam is?

WW II? This isn't WW II. This is Desert Storm II. I hold nothing against the French about WW II. I have everything against them for their actions recently. The same thing that our gov't is being accused the French are doing to, bribing, intimidating, ect. So if France is doing the same thing, why aren't they being given equal grief?

CP

It's more than just accusations, Pat.




http://asia.news.yahoo.com/030302/ap/d7pgtf0g0.html



This is just the most prominent example. I'll see if I can come up with sources for where they've done it elsewhere, because I believe they were both offering gifts to countries on the Security Council to support them and threating those who would not with economic isolation. They did it with Turkey, why wouldn't they do it elsewhere?



If the French were doing the same thing, all the more reason to oust the current center-right administration. I support their stand on Iraq, but they're far from ideal in my eyes.

And the French threatening Belgium that they would have a harder time getting into the EU given their stance regarding the war isn't just as bad? Oh wait, that's not bribery, that's blackmail.

CP

And George Bush rapes Iraqi mothers.

You see, neither of these statements mean anything unless you have evidence to back them up. Also, I suggest you read my posts before you respond. You might take intrest in the last line of my pervious post.


[EDIT: Also, John Locke is not the father of conservatism. If anything, he's the father of liberalism, seeing as how the liberal Revolutions in France and America were driven by his and other Enlightenment thinkers' ideas. From then forward, the liberals have dragged the conservatives, kicking and screaming, from monarchy and absolutism to democracy and plurality, and we're still in the process of doing it.]

This statement was all over the news. I'll try to find a link. [John Locke's main priority was small gov't, kind of libertarianism, which, for the most part, is conservatism. Liberalism's meaning has changed. Let's start a new thread about this so this thread doesn't get closed I just started a new thread ] Here's a link Chirac's blunder My mistake, he threatened Bulgaria, "They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet." Sounds like mob talk. He said their positions are "dangerous". Hmmm.

CP

Hey Bikerdad - thanks for the considered reply. Rattlesnake has already posted some things I'd have put on had I got here sooner (dang that time difference!)

[quote]As you may recall, the Germans were "very successful" against the French, but in the grand scheme of the final outcome, it is a different story, ne pas?[/quote]
Rattlesnake's response prety much say sit all for me. If losing a war negates any modern national opinion, none of us can say anything, and the Swiss would run the world. (oops - they already do, don't they?)

[quote]Nice "psst, maybe he's a Nazi" insinuation there. [/quote]
LOL! - Busted!.

[quote]Too bad postwar Germany wasn't buying nearly as much steel, iron, coal, and munitions from Sweden as the Nazis, eh?[/quote]
Don't see what you're driving at there.

[quote]The French motivations and policy in question are those of 1918 to 1940. What, exactly, is different about modern French policy vs. interwar French policy? Is France's culture significantly different? What lessons did France learn from WW2?[/quote]
Well, it may be too obvious to have mentioned it, but they've made good use of German post-war guilt to pretty effectively tie France and Germany together in what has become the EU. It is utterly inconceivable that there would ever be a war between France and Germany in this arrangement, so yes, I'd say the French have been admirably canny - if you can't beat 'em at their game, trick them into playing yours. Sun Tzu would be proud.

[quote]If your analogy holds water, then presumably America's loss of the War of 1812 against the UK demonstrates that we're smart and you're stupid?  Whoa, we lost that one?  You mean we've been mistakenly flying the ol Stars and Stripes for 190 years now, when we should've been flying the Union Jack? Thanks for the correction.  [/quote]
Rattlesnake got there for me. Yes, we won. You lost. Sorry

[quote]If you examine my posts closely, you'll see that, while past military errors don't support "hatred" of the French, they do support a healthy skepticism. [/quote]
If your scepticism was of the French's military capability - the only worthwhile conclusion from their past military errors - why on earth would you WANT them to be your military ally?

[quote]Current governmental differences do support a dislike for the French, if one considers that the differences have put American lives at risk purely due to French desire to "contain" America combined with a French lust for Iraqi petro-euros.[/quote]
How, exactly, has France put American lives at risk? It was America's decision to go to war in Iraq - putting American lives at risk. France was trying to persuade you to delay - not putting American lives at risk. They weren't trying to get American troops to leave the area, indeed, there is some evidence that the UN inspectors got far more cooperation after US servicemen started appearing in numbers than beforehand, and France were arguing for more time for inspections. (Ironically, this is exactly the same line now being taken by the coalition - "sorry, we haven't found the WMD yet - it's a big country and we need more time". Hmm...)

[quote]Yes, we disapprove of that, but what really irks us is their willingness to do it while mouthing platitudes of "protecting the innocent" and profiteering off of Saddam's brutality. There is a difference between turning a blind eye and actually protecting Saddam.[/quote]
Oh please - if they had been "actually protecting Saddam, you'd have been fighting the French army as well as the Iraqi one. They were just prepared to attempt diplomatic disarmament indefinitely, for whatever reasons.

[quote]Aide from the obvious fact that there are plenty of people who think they ARE reasons to hate America (or they simply hate America and then find convenient excuses to do so, its so hard to sort them out anymore), I find your attempt at moral equivalency to be lacking for three reasons. First, Suharto and Pinochet are both gone.[/quote]
Yes, and world war II is also been and gone, yet you can quote historical actions of previous governments to support your case that the French are not trustworthy. Why cannot I try the same thing to demonstrate equivalent moral ambiguity in US foreign policy?

[quote]Second, our relationships with numerous unsavory regimes prior to 1992 were all structured around one thing: the Cold War.[/quote]
So? The UN charter, Geneva Convention and human rights declarations - the substance behind arguments that the coalition should not have gone to war in Iraq (if not the motivation behind them, which IS, in some cases, simple anti-Americanism) - all pre-date or are contemporary with the Cold War. Indeed the US was, if not happy to, perfectly willing to abide by the conventions of the UN in pursuing the Cold War.
But besides that, why was having relationships with SOME unsavoury regimes that mass-murdered their own citizens (i.e the ones that weren't coimmunist) acceptable then but not now? It sounds to me as if moral equivalency is perfectly acceptable to the American right when it works in their favour, but when it doesn't it suddenly starts to boil down to Manichean good vs evil stuff.

[quote]Third, we weren't profiting from those regimes. France has been profiting from Saddam's brutality.[/quote]
They were profiting from his brutality? How, exactly? They were profiting from his regime being their at all, by having big arms and weapons contracts, but then Britain and the US has big weapons contracts with Saudi Arabia, and they chop women's heads off for being accused (not proven to a legal standard we would accept) of adultery. Are we profiting from their brutality?

[quote]If you want to get a good indictment of America as an "imperialist" power, you can. Just don't waste your time looking at Iraq for it, or Afghanistan, or Chile, or Vietnam, or...
Look at the Phillipines. Before World War One. Look at the US role in the Boxer Rebellion. Then critically examine whether or not the US is behaving in the same fashion, for the same (generally speaking) reasons.[/quote]
Thanks - I'll see what I can find.


Of the rest "The American goodwill that France has squandered is incalculable." Oh! That's priceless!

And "Are Americans being "rational" about this? No."
We agree entirely, but I suspect for almost opposite reasons.

Here's another link: Nice one Mr. Chirac


Translation, if you don't speak low-life: "You guys must not have really wanted to get into the EU, France has to look important somehow, now's our chance".

CP

TO ALL:
have you guys seen the new Carl's Jr. (Hardees for those of you back east) commercial. In it they go through three seperate incidents where the French surrendered like cowards. Then they show a picture of this big chicken sandwich and caution that you shouldn't be a "big chicken", but that you should "eat a big chicken". I LOVE IT.

Je n'en ai plus besoin. Meaning, I don't need this [topic] any longer. This will be my last post here.

Time will show the continued interdependence of the world's nations. And all our pettiness and superficial feelings of superiority will not make our nationality and culture superior to France's, just different. We will undoubtedly find another nationality to ridicule and despise. We always have.

This is truly a nation of immigrants. Perhaps some of the posters here have ethnic origins that have been ridiculed in like manner. If you do and you're still dissing the French, how does it feel to join the ranks of the namecallers?

It takes courage not to side with the bully on the playground. The French do not always have the same priorities that we do, but they are not cowards.

The French currently have troops in Congo attempting to stop the genocide going on there and, incidentally, saving American as well as European lives. Why didn't the United States intervene there? Because the survival of the African nations is not a priority to us when compared to other areas of the world.

Maybe we should question our own motives the way we have been questioning the motives of the French.

Il y a beaucoup des autres choses a faire. Read you in another thread!

As I said, you should read my posts, Pat:




But in any case, do you honestly think that if France should admit those countries if it thinks they're going to support American intrests and American policies over European ones? If Puero Rico was making a big deal about supporting Europe over America, specifically on the war issue, would you want to give them two vote in the Senate? As I said, I don't like the French government, but I dont' exactly see what they're doing wrong here.

What about my links? The French are being the same bully we are accused of being. My point is that the US is taking all the heat for bullying and the French are doing the same thing.

CP

All the world over other countries back their own interest. Other countries list themselves on the superior side laughing at other nations. Their people consider their culture better than any other. The french are just as guilty of being racist and counter productive to peace on earth as the US. But they don't seem to take a lot of heat for it. I'll teel you this: if it was the US army in the Congo, that war would be over.

Johnlocke



Do you mean like in Somalia?

Moif,
NO, I mean like Iraq. You see we now have a President dedicated to WINNING wars rather than making us look foolish in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Hating France?

Why not?

It's the last acceptable prejudice (well, in addition to Gay Bashing, here in the south).

Anywho, most now a days think it's really crap that they would threaten to use their Veto against a UN resolution to kick Saddam out.

And for those Bush/oil conspiracy theorists, do you know why France made that threat? Could it have something to do with France's usage of Iraqi oil? Maybe?

-Robert

Oh my God, the French, being selfish, no...Only the USA could be selfish and immoral. yes, it is entirely possible that the French are bribing as well. So, I ask again, pro-France people, why aren't the French being vilified?

CP

Ah... that would be too easy.

We can't bash the french for Bush style oil-grabbing. We have to creative with the French

Ok. How about we bust the French for strong armed tactics against free speech and assembly of the people?

Oh, you didn't know?

The french will steal 7,500 euros and imprison you for 6 months if you so much as say "Booo" to the Marseillaise.

Oh, and I hope you don't dress too nicely when you vacation over there, hoping to have some fun with a cute french guy. Because you WILL be arrested for "passive soliciting" - found attracting clients through their "dress or their attitude" for two months, and be fined 3,750 Euros.

Oh... and I hope you're not a youth. If you are caught with another youth standing infront of your apartment building, or in its lobby, you face two months in prison.

Oh.. let's not forget the ever-present source:

BBC

-Robert

So, we're going to bash the french about their laws, huh? Saying "boo," could be equated in our society, to slander. Whereas this may seem extreme to us, it's just because we're more lax in our judgement of what's right and what's wrong. I don't think it's right to bash the french because their culture differs from ours, but apparently you do. The passive soliciting laws simply means that they don't like people being slutty prostitutes to get money (pardon my language on that one). And the standing in front of a building is simply a little thing that we americans like to call, "loitering."

Okay, so again I'll ask you Bean. Why aren't you villifying the French for doing the same things that the US is supposed to be doing?

CP

Do I hate america for the things it's supposed to be doing? No. Everyone does bad things, there's no reason to go ballistic on them. So, why hate France for doing the same things as america's doing when I don't hate america? You answer that.

Because, so far, the USA is innocent until proven guilty, it hasn't been proven guilty, France has been, we know they are doing dirty business with Iraq.

CP

slan·der
n.
1. Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.

v. slan·dered, slan·der·ing, slan·ders
v. tr.
To utter a slander about.

v. intr.
To utter or spread slander.

slander·er n.
slander·ous adj.
slander·ous·ly adv.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
---
\Slan"der\, n.
1. A false tale or report maliciously uttered, tending to injure the reputation of another; the malicious utterance of defamatory reports; the dissemination of malicious tales or suggestions to the injury of another.

Whether we speak evil of a man to his face or behind his back; the former way, indeed, seems to be the most generous, but yet is a great fault, and that which we call ``reviling;'' the latter is more mean and base, and that which we properly call ``slander'', or ``Backbiting.'' --Tillotson.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998
---
slander

n 1: words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another 2: the act of defaming v : charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone.
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
---

So... which of those covers political speech? Hmm... I must have missed the alternate meaning of "anything that makes the president mad."

In addition, almost everyone knows that loitering laws were made to get the homeless off the streets (at least the ones the middle/upper class cares about). Everytime they actually make it to the Supreme Court, they are declared unconstitutional, not to mention, anyone in the US can stand in front of their own building.

In addition, I think you miss the inherent danger and possibilities of abuse in a "passive solicitation" law, especially the way this french law is written.

They're just as bad as we are, and even worse in many situations, yet, other than the frog or surrender jokes, we don't hear anything bad about them (in the serious sense).

-Robert

Johnlocke



The war in Iraq, it seems is not over. Over fifty people have been killed since President Bush declared an end to hostilities, and the Pentagon is today being quoting as saying the US is now engaged in a guerilla war.

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?p...p=1012571727162



Are you?
What sort of a leader requires a war to maintain peace?




LBJ was also of that mind. He perpetutaed the Vietnam war for years rather than be seen as weak. He admitted as much in his diary, and so did his wife in hers.

It seems to me that this, unwillingness to appear weak is far more pornounced in American leaders than the willingness to be honest and prudent!

And I hate to be the one to break this to you John. But most of the rest of the world is not looking at America with favourable eyes...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2994924.stm


Editted to add;

Oopps.. I got a bit off topic there... sorry Jaime...

Only if you don't mind killing the innocent along with the guilty....the only way we win now days is if we're dropping payload from the sky.

You may like to think that's brave and noble or makes the US better than everyone else...you're entitled to your opinion.

The topic is Hating France, not America.

Moif,
There are several flaws in your argument. Skirmishes perpetrated by small groups (4-5 people) are not wars. The people themselves are pests and will be dealt with. You know recently a South Korean ship lobbed several missles at a North Korean government fishing vessel for heading into it's waters and ignoring orders to leave. Are North and South Korea at war? The answer is No.

Every leader that has maintained peace has required war to do so. To think that mankind will ever achieve world peace is naive.

Again....another bad analogy what with LBJ. This war in Irak is in no way what so ever in any way shape or form, at all like Vietnam. Period. There is simply nothing you could say to make any reasonably minded person think so.

I already know people in other countries don't like America....maybe that's because I spend about 9 months of the year in travel for bussiness. But I don't care what the rest of the world thinks...especially europe. europeans have a very BIG problem of their own. Their governments and their people are as hypocritical as the day is long. Most of them are racist pigs and anti-semites. On top of that they act like they are better than everyone else...especially Americans. They are just as committed to furthering their own causes as America is. We're just good at getting our goals accomplished.

In conclusion I would like to close by posting another 2 articles that gives more proof about the growing anti-semitism in europe....mostly in france. I have posted many on other threads and a couple on this one. I think it is imperative to not ignore this situation as it was europe's own anti semitism that allowed what happened during the holocaust and gave the Nazis a large group of scape goats.

the Middle East: http://www.adl.org/presrele/islme_62/4040_62.asp

europe / france: http://www.ajcongress.org/pages/RELS2002/J...02/jul02_04.htm

I hope that anyone with half a brain will read these that I keep posting everywhere and come to the conclusion that europe needs to have outside political pressure on it to reform the way they are currently abusing Jews and skirting Int'l law over their.

Johnlocke



Well John, if the Pentagon calls it a guerilla war, then who am I to argue with them on military matters?




Scandinavia has existed at peace within its own borders for two hundred years. In all that time, there have been three attacks, all from larger nations outside of Scandinavia. Not one Scandinavian nation has made any attempt to attack any other.

Peacfull co existence is not only possible, its already happening.




Who is talking about the war??

The analogy was not comparing Iraq with Vietnam, it was to compare your claim of Bush not standing down, as was the case was with LBJ and Vietnam. LBJ did not wish to look weak before the rest of the world, so he perpetuated Vietnam for no other reason than that.

As history demonstrated, he failed. America lost the war anyway. If as you claim, Bush is dedictaed to winning wars rather than let the US look foolish (your words) then he is only following in the footsteps of LBJ and he risks the same outcome.




Perhaps at this point I should retaliate in kind and claim that all Americans are members of the klan?

But, no. Such a sweeping generalisation would be unfair and untrue....




Well I read your articles and guess what?

Since you do not care about the opinions of Europeans, then why should I care about what you, or any American Jews think of Europe?

As a European Jew, I have no problems living in Europe and in my entire life I think I have only seen two instances of anti semitism.

I don't doubt that France has a problem, but it is not the return of the nazi holocaust that your American sites would have people believe.

The 400 million or so people in Europe are not defined by the actions of 6 million Muslims in France!

Moif,
First, I am not a Jew. I would be proud if I was though. And I may or may not hold you to giving all creedence to the pentagon that claimed Irak had WMD, but that's a whole other point.

The first point is that scandanavia has been involved in three seperate wars after outside aggression. Proving that war is necessary if you want to remain free. Tell me this, how did these Scandinavians fend off their attackers...how were they set free? The answer... War.

Bush doesn't need to stand down and that was my point....Irak is in no way like Vietnam...hence the need to step down is void.

Back to the thread topic....I have many (thousands of articles lots posted on this thread and more on other threads) siting the anti-semetism in europe and the ignorance of european officials including many that are involved in cohersion.

It just digusts me that anyone would hate a group of people because they didn't want to war.

We've clearly showed reasons as to why we do not like the French gov't. It is not the fact that they don't want to go to war that is wrong, it is their reasoning, and that of course would be $$$$

CP

One thing i need to make clear before I start is that I am not for the War, and the whole topic of Pre-emptive strike stuff. But there is NO reason for the renaming of French Products and foods. No reason for rallying against the french. For one they are country and They have thier right to an opinion just as much as we do, Its not like they threatened us if we were to attack Iraq, They just showed thier disaproval of the war and discouraged it, LIKE ANY RATIONAL HUMAN BEING lets try to AVIOD war, does this make sence.
I had heard of US citizens rallying in front of the French capital showing they're disaproval of the french not wanting war. THis is the stupidest thing i have ever heard of. Sure we did bail them out of War World 2 but does that take away their opinion when it contridicts ours? I hope not! This hatred is just going to breed more hatred, which might even conclude into an not needed conflict with France

Hold on now. It is ridiculous for Americans to protest the French gov't, but it is completely fine for anti-war demonstrators to protest the war and the US gov't. I'm confused. You said in your post that it is the right of the French to protest. Yeah, it is, and it's the right of Americans to disagree.


Do rational human beings threaten other countries? No, well, the French did [see my articles]. Again, it is not the principle of not being for the war that fuels my dislike for the French government, it is their reasons for it, and what they do to "discourage others" from participating.

CP

I'm sorry but since when did American's start rallying to go to war? Since when did we decide to shun and attack people or nations who have the audacity to not want an un-provoked war? THIS is what we have to ask ourselves because it isn't rational. It's seems ANTI American to rally for a war like this when we've spent our entire existence trying to avoid such a thing.

And do you really think this is all spontaneous and no one is inciting or driving pro war rallies and hate speech against the French? It's all coming from or at least encouraged by the White House. It's their un-named staffers that are always telling the press lies about France hiding Iraqi's and sending them intelligence.

Trekkie,
This thread is not about the war and I think you will find that most people on this thread that dislike the french have been disliking them for a lot longer than the Irak conflict. And I have plenty of reason to boycott french goods and change the name of french fries and french toast... because I dislike the french. Sometimes I wish the french would threaten to attack us. I would like to see Old Glory flying high over the Eiffle Tower. But until they man-up we'll just be waiting.

Ut oh. Sounds like they better watch out. If the empire wants the Eiffle Tower they have all kinds of silly reasons in this thread alone to justify an invasion and occupation.

Okay, so without evidence it should be known that the gov't is to blame for any and all ant-French sentiment. Also, what about what I posted? It's ridiculous when there is a pro-war rally, but God bless the souls of the anti-war protestors, doesn't make sense.

CP

Johnlocke



Er... actually my point dealt with the relationships between the nations inside of Scandinavia...

I could judt as easily have said that Western Europe or North America also live in peace now, proving even further that war is not a fact of life.

Or I could state it in another way.

I am not an animal. I have the gift of choice.