What I can't stand or understand for that matter, is why everyone seems to hate France. They don't support the war. Big deal. That gives nobody the right to make such hateful comments about them. So, here's the topic for debate:
Do you think hating France is morally right or wrong?

well, if france had been attacked i am sure that they would look for the world to support them just like we kinda of did, and our getting in coutries that are actually tied to terror, afghanistan. the u.n is with france aiding us there, even though they were not attacked.

but france is its own country, and we could not make our case at the u.n for war in iraq, so it did not, and did'nt support our action thier, but it did say if iraq used wmds it would send troops, which to me makes not sense other then france believed saddam, one did not have any, or would not use them.

I'm not sure what morals has to do with contempt of France. They were the butt of many jokes before the war and continue to be so today. Some people absolutely loathe them for their position on the war. I don't think it's so much a moral issue as it is a juvenile one.

If people are going to dislike countries for opposing our stance on the war, they should at least take the time and spread their distaste around evenly. Germany, China and Russia also opposed our stance vocally. Other countries sure didn't support it or else we might even have tried a vote in the UNSC. Yet somehow France got singled out. Are we to accept the jokes of how weak and insignificant France is and simultaneously believe that President Chirac, all by his lonesome, forced the hand of the international community?

The conflicting positions on France's power are ridiculous and isolating them from the field of opposition is nothing short of juvenile.

Quick answer: I think it's morally wrong to hate. Period.

Keeping in mind that not only France, but the entire rest of the world (with the exception of the British, God Bless Tony Blair for his indulgence and patience) was opposed to the US invasion of Iraq, I believe that the administration's rhetoric in singling out France as a scapegoat for its refusal to blindly support us without any logical justification was not only 'morally wrong,' but politically foolish as well.

This week, the President has quite a demanding task before him in trying to justify those actions to the Europeans, and in my view, the French have rightly earned the justification for a stance of righteous indignance, which i suspect is what we'll see.

It is clear that France had economic ties with Iraq, quite probably in violation of UN sanctions. I have also seen many sources that claim French intelligence also believed Iraq had WMD's. One source is here. Other, less reliable, sources have claimed France provided information to Iraq immediately prior to the invasion. I have seen many times on this board people state it is OK to hate America, but not the American people. The same should apply to France. I think hate is a bit of a strong word for what many feel about France. France is more like an aggravating phone solicitor, not anything really powerful enough to inspire hate.

I have never seen anybody say it is OK to hate America. What I have seen are people who understand why other countries and their people hate America. To understand the position of different people is not the same as lending them support in their views.

And while I am one of those who can understand why people hate America, I have yet to see anything from France that deserves such contempt from Americans.

The claims you make against France and their ties to Iraq, in regards to illegal dealings, are yet unsubstantiated. They go hand in hand with WMDs as far as I'm concerned. And the sad thing is that probably a good majority of those Americans railing against the French couldn't even offer that much hearsay to support their hatred.

I think some uninformed are just jumping on the bandwagon because they feel it's funny to bad mouth the french. You know, they stink, wear beret's, women don't shave, etc..

But for those who try and stay informed, I think the ill will stems from De Gaulle's snub of NATO and their action during Operation El Dorado Canyon: Link
It would almost seem that the French go out of their way to not retaliate against terrorism.
They would also appear hypocritical. Unless someone knows differently, hasn't France over the last few decades intervened militarily in a number of countries, many of which their former colonies, WITHOUT UNSC approval?

I think our treatment and attitude towards France says more about us than it does them.

Of course France would look to the world to support them. It's true that they didn't aid us militarily. But, is this wrong? They didn't want to get caught up in our affairs, and probably didn't want to make a militaristic move against terrorism, because that would be inviting attacks on them similar to the 9/11 attack. Nobody wants to be attacked by terrorists. And anyway, why single out France? Pretty much, besided Britain, how many countries can you name that we've aided in the past and have aided us now? The answer is: Barely anyone! So why should we single out France in this situation? Answer: WE SHOULDN'T!

Abs,
These links should provide substantial evidence for everyone. But for those that dislike the Bush administration so much I doubt that these links will have any affect on their opinions....
http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen031003.asp
http://debka.com/article.php?aid=484

I also know that the problems I have with the french go back way further than the most recent diplomatic skirmishes. My brother was good enough to raise me with hatred for the french for their cowardice that they have blatantly shown over the years and I am good enough to carry it on and keep passing it on to my children.
But it should not be over looked that many other countries including france hate the US. They perpetrate the hate and pass it on as we do. Once again another double standard; that Americans can't hate others, but others can hate Americans.


Nikflorida,
The President Bush is a Great American acting in American's interest...
he needs to justify nothing to ANY european EVER!!! We're Americans and that's our tradition! For examples of not needing to justify anything to europeans see diplomatic debates leading up to the Iraqi war. We didn't need them then, and we don't now.

I've seen the second article before when you posted it. It wants us to take on faith that such evidence has been found but is not being made public by the government. It provides no evidence and asks us only to take it on faith. The first article offers nothing either. This much is clear from the opening sentence,It never goes beyond its own speculations.

I can't really deal with your own personal hatred of the French, though it does seem a bit disturbing that somebody would promote hate as a family tradition. To each their own, though.

As for the French hating America and America hating the French... there's not a double standard being applied here (at AD) on the matter. While some French may indeed hate America, that alone is not justification for hating them in return. While I suppose I expect it of some, I would think most people would be above such playground politics.

[Edited] I'm curious how far back does your hatred of the French go, and from where does it stem? You talk about their "cowardice" in the past, but exactly how did any such instances affect you and earn your contempt? Just curious.

i know this does not really count, but some time back in the day, did the french not help, and indeed train the very soldiers who earned this country its freedom.

and as for the french who are cowardly, my grandfater on my fathers side, the vietnam vets dad, not only was part of the 8th airforce(the bombers over germany) but was also elected to o.s.s(now the CIA and SF) plus was a main pusher and a mind behind are space program, he was a french guy who moved to america from canada. so i think that means you cant hate the people, just the current goverment.

Sweet little historical nuances are not going to stop us from nuking Paris. Between California and France we will dominate the wine markets. Heil Bush.

No, no, no. In order to truly conquer the French, we must crush their spirit. This would not be possible through the use of nuclear weapons.
First, we set up a massive propaganda compaign suggesting the inferiority of French products. We confiscate all French wine and dairy which are renowned the world over. We replace all of their labels with American icons like Bartles and James, Ben and Jerry.

Next, we place the French labels on inferior products such Kraft cheese spread.
They wouldn't stand a chance. I predict complete submission to any of our demands within a fortnight.

MrsP,
NO! Don't you dare think of touching labels...I happen to think that French's mustard is an icon of Americana. HAHA.


Abs,
The article to which you refer is backed up by several other articles that came out around the same time suggesting that we found several documents implicating the french's involvment with several illicit programs going on in Iraq. It was around the same time we found letters indicationg that bin Laden DID have contact with Iraq through emasaries and shadow warriors including money hand offs to al-Qaeda.
As for examples of french cowardice you can either open a history book or read the other threads where I specifically detail the french GNP increase after the fall of paris and their lack of involvment in helping stifle the third reich. Or you could look at their lack of involvment in Vietnam (socialists) or their cowardice in Op. El Dorado canyon or even some of the great new color footage of WWII where the German Tanks start pushing through the front and they are running away...like cowards. But I won't go into any of that.

I hope you are joking. Otherwise you have just admitted proudly that you fit the description of the stereotypical Ugly American.

I would bet money that there is more than just the French or Europeans you are prejudiced against. Knowing that someone is so proud of their bias and ignorance before trying to have a meaningful debate with them is always helpful. It's no wonder you think so highly of Bush. Thanks for the heads up.

I didn't ask for examples of French cowardice.
There's what I asked you about, should you happen to take another stab at it later.

As to the reports, I'm sure there were others. Unfortunately none of them seem to have anything other than speculation holding them up. There have been no documents revealed or any official condemnation of the French. All that we've seen are rumours which appear more unfounded as time goes on. If there truly is some credibility to such claims, perhaps they'll actually cite those documents or show them to the public. Until then, there doesn't appear to be anything more than a smear compaign at work.

Danya,
And you just let me know that you are a stereo typical Human Being.
Always reading too far into context and making ridiculous assumptions based on your own past rather than taking what someone set's out before you at face value. People like this are typically very emotional. But to settle up and cash in I'll make very clear a list of countries and their peoples that I don't like.
here goes....
french
canadians (except their comedic exports).
whew.....finally finished.

But you know what? With a site full of pre-judgmental people (I know based on personal experience) that make decisions about personal beliefs based on one's political affiliations I hold the only claim to a higher morality than all of you that condemn me for my postings here. That being honesty. In my signature I think it is perfectly clear where I stand on this issue.

Abs,
I'm sorry I thought that right here you ask which instance "affected" me. But in all seriousness Abs, I don't hate the french... I just can't respect them.

Pretty high horse you have there, john. I am always amused by sweeping generalizations of the membership here.

Let's not forget it was you who made this a personal issue by stating you "hated" France. This means you have taken the time to make a negative emotional investment on such an arbitrary notion like nationhood. Why try so hard? Why not just be indifferent? Why so much time and effort to actually hate?



Morally? Tough one. I've never really looked at anything from a "moral" standpoint and so I've never known what is moral and what isn't. There is a vague line but it always seems to be changing. Thus, I haven't spent much time trying to develop a lifestyle that ascribes to some ever-changing moral standard.

It's always been my understanding that in order to be moralistic, one must believe in the morals offered in the Bible. Maybe my thoughts on this are incorrect and someone could help me out with this.

So, short answer, I have no idea.

OH MY...Did you just call me a HUMAN BEING? Was that supposed to be an insult?

Yes, I made an assumption that you likely are prejudiced against more than French or Europeans (and hey I was right). Hating Canadians and the French for being civilized countries is so irrational that I figured you might have some prejudices that could be taken a bit more seriously...such as if you hated the Saudi's for their subjugation of women or something like that. Prejudice would still be wrong but at least it would stem from something rational.

But the fact that you have always hated the French and will make sure your kids do too and that you take pride in it is certainly a consideration for taking your posts in this thread seriously or giving them any merit.

BTW, you don't hold the patent on honesty. Many of us have no fear of honestly giving our opinions here. It doesn't make you special or give you any moral authority.

Jaime,
A high horse indeed...but in response to your question, I believe that to have morals you have to have a belief system (not necessarily the bible). Next your belief system has to have rules on how to treat people.
I believe you do follow a moral code...for instance you can (and have many times) enforced the rules of this site by instructing contributors to get back on subject and not "get personal". I theorize that the reason you want people not to get personal is because it creates a hostile environment in which good debating is not able to happen. So to keep people from being insulted (so as to keep the debate going) you enforce a moral code.

My short answer: It is morally okay to hate anything and everything if you have a good reason ("good" being subjective), But you probably won't be happy. I still maintain that the french are more racist that Americans any how.

Ah, I've been waiting for someone to ask this question, I hate the French gov't because, not because they don't support the war, but because they're reasons to do so are soley based on $. They are being very sleezy about this and are blackmailing other European countries by threatening their admittance into the European Union. And as if that wasn't enough, it's not like we just hate them, the feeling is mutual.

CP

well, i dont know how much of anything you can hate about a country. i dont know names but i knwo that certin indivduals were critical of chirac(is that correct spelling)'s policys and stated in english on pri thier dispostion to it. but its like america, we have bleeding heart liberals and nzi conservitives so its hard to judge an entire nation. france like alot of european nations are old, alot older then the u.s, and have seen a fair amount of war. and world war II france was still in the mindset of world war I fighting(trench) so the germans like most other european nations were taken without much of a fight, lets not forget the underground.

and maybe france has a moral position here to be its own nation and not a stailite of the u.s, you all sometimes make it sound as if they have not lifted a finger to help us on the WOT. and if i am not correct its not the only antion to do so, and one more thing on the money side of it and global politics. how much does france and the other nations stand to lose $$ wise supporting iraq, if thats the charge it hand and not the u.s. it just sounds funny to me, maybe they think the whole thing stinks or something.

The invasion was purely at the insistance of America. Have you considered the possibility it was motivated by money and greed?
After all it's American companies that are making huge profits that they otherwise would not have had an opportunity to make.

Besides being more likely to have greedy motivations than anyone else our country stooped to new lows in attempting to get support for it...including bribes, bullying, threats, spying, etc.

Not that France is perfect but do you also hate your own country for being everything you hate about France?

sorry for my spelling up thier, i get carried away sometims bounceing around the internet, i got 3 pages of web going right now going for four.

Danya,
Actually the french government had a lot to lose monitarily after the saddam regime was moved out. I sited these facts before in another thread. Always point with your stongest finger so that it is not grabbed and pointed back at you.

Can you site any evidence that supports the claim that America did these "dirty deeds"? Spying doesn't count. That's is already a foregone conclusion and we have proof that everyone was spying on everyone.

As you amply demonstrate, there are plenty of stereotypes about the French, Germans and Europeans in general about.
Fair enough. Here in Europe there are plenty of stereotype about America as well - but the question is:
given that these stereotype generally pre-date the Iraq-War, President G.W. Bush and anyone alive today, why did
a) anti-Americanism rise in Europe and, apparently, globally since Bush became president of the USA?
is France-bashing and, as some of you say, France-hating en vogue now?

Personally, I believe simply because the French (and to a lesser extent the Germans) have made diplomatic blunders (e.g. Chiraq saying on French national TV that France would veto a second resolution reg. the Iraq War no matter what. This led de Villepin to make Powell look like a stooge in one memorable session of the UN security council.) This is by no means to say the French are to blame for this mess - it was a downward spiral to which the USA, Germany, France etc. contributed. Another example is the debacle at NATO when Belgium, France and Germany blocked a motion for invoking Article 5 in case Iraq would attack Turkey if a the USA attacked Iraq.

Why were the France and Germany (most notably) against the war? Was it really because the USA not "them" got attacked by Al Quaida?
Then remember the international response after 9/11: Le Monde, one of France's foremost and most widely read newspapers opened on page one with the headline "We are all Americans", politicians and the general public showed unprecedented solidarity with the USA. US embassies across Europe were inundated in flowers, wreaths, condolences. Everyone joined the US-led alliance against terrorism and backed the war on the Taliban.

Lets have a brief look at the reasons for the war, the casi belli:

Reason for War #1: WMD
The UN inspectors were already in the country, searching with utmost speed for them. They, together with the IEAA, are the body to deal with tasks like this and are as close as you can get to internationally recognised objectivity regarding their results.

Reason for War #2: Iraqi Freedom
True, it's an long-standing, and very honourable US American tradition to liberate other countries from oppressive regimes - and Europe owes to the US it's almost 50 years of peace after world war II. It has to be noted that not every invasion by the US was in that stemmed from that tradition: see Panama, Vietnam, Cuba etc. In these countries US-interests, and only US-interests, were at stake. Now if we look at other countries (North Korea, Zimbabwe, Sudan, etc.) – if the USA would really want to “liberate” all those countries where autocratic despots oppress their people for the sake of liberty and democracy: truly a task worth of Sisyphos.

Reason #3: Saddam is in breach of UN-Resolutions and used WMD against his own people
As much as Saddam Hussein was an utterly ruthless dictator – who than the UN itself has the authority to decide whether or not to act on breaches of their resolutions? Certainly not the US.
He used the poison gas Sarin against the Kurds in the late 1980s – supplied courtesy of the USA which had equipped him so he could counterbalance the rising, and very anti-American power in that region: Iran. He attacked his neighbouring countries: yes, he even asked the local US-representative prior to invading Kuwait – who gave him the green light.

Reason #4: Iraq = Al Quaida stronghold

There has been no conclusive evidence of that – indeed, the evidence that, e.g. the British secret service MI5 supplied was based on a term-paper by some University student, downloadable from the internet. Powell mentioned and lauded it in his presentation to the UN.

Given all this very reasonable doubt, why the urgency by the US in early 2003 to attack Iraq and not wait for the UN inspectors to finish their job?
How and why did the support and solidarity that Europe and indeed the world had shown after 9/11 change after Pres. Bush put Iraq on the agenda?

Simply because the case for it was not watertight in the remotest. The link between Al Quaida and Iraq? Apart from the "q" in both not much at all apparently - Powell's attempt at the UN security council to make it watertight was far from it. It remained as leaky as ever. No evidence, no reason for going to war.
And before you tell me that the US-administration couldn't share at inter-government level their intelligence because sources could be compromised - think again.
There was an alternative to plan, developed by Germany and France, which would have put more resources under UN-mandate into these inspections.
Why then press ahead with war?
Because the US and Britain had already deployed a quarter of a million troops down there. Now think about the daily rate of your average GI, add the military high-tech gear and all the resources necessary to keep this force ready and armed - and then multiply by 250.000.
Also, summer-temperatures in the Iraqi desert easily exceed 50°C (~122F) - not the nicest condition to invade a country in. The attack had to be made before summer.
What does this mean: the USA had their very own timetable and reasons which apart from some countries who had their own agenda no one understood or supported:
Australia (Bali bomb),
Britain ("special friendship" and "EU leadership") ,
Italy ("vain opportunism") and
Spain ("political profit").

Oh wait, there was Albania on the list of countries, the "alliance of the willing". Anyone ever been to Albania? No? It's a country where the greatest dream of the largest majority of the Albanian population is to emigrate or flee to another country. When they say they support the USA, they see trade and proper roads, not morals or international politics - and most certainly not from an American vantage point.
Oh, and Poland? They wanted to gain clout given their full EU-membership very soon.
"Coalition of the Willing"? No. With the notable exception of Britain it was an accumulation of countries bribed or dogded into an "alliance".

The German secretary of state, Joschka Fischer, said during a press-conference with Donald Rumsfeld in Munich in January 2003: ""My generation learned you must make a case, and excuse me, I am not convinced" (after Rumsfeld had had discussions with him). His statement is a very adequate summary of what people and governments those countries opposing the war thought and felt.

The agenda, the reasons and the timetable were entirely US American – and the reasons were heavily spin-doctored (think of the forged documents that were supposed to prove that Iraq had imported aluminium cases from (Uganda? Nigeria?) for developing nuclear weapons, the shifting reasons why Iraq had to be attacked, the fear-mongering: “If we don’t attack now, the answer comes in a mushroom cloud!” (Rumsfeld).

The view of the USA from a European perspective is very much that of the most powerful country on the globe in fear and shooting before taking proper aim.
If long-standing and -trusted allies of the USA such as Germany or France criticise and oppose the USA in this – it does not mean that they are dictating terms to the USA or trying to extort them or deprive them of their way of live. On the contrary.

The diplomatic blunders on all sides happened after this and led to the ensuing unnecessary and totally counter-productive rift. Nothing against taking the *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** out of other countries – it’s healthy, if you’re not dead serious.

P.S.: If you dismiss all this as academic blurp, go ahead. But at least do try and find counter-arguments and don’t just rip sentences out of context to disprove them.

Welcome to the forum, Shaka. While I appreciate your sentiments, most of them have nothing to do with the topic. If you would like to discuss the war itself, please join us in one of our many threads going on that subject. I would like to keep this one to discussing the actual or perceived hated of France.

Shaka,
There has been ample evidence to prove that bin Laden was in contact with Iraqi ministers and operatives around the world. INcluding the paper that was discovered in Iraq that proved that Iraq sought breifings with al-Qaeda members and even gave them monies. This also included information about Iraq obtaining passports for Al-qaeda members in Afrika. bin Ladens name was mentioned three times in these letters.

Shaka
I agree. Also, why is it that France ended up with applause after the speech by De Vellepin at the UN? It was said to be the first time that has ever happened.

The rest of the nations agreed with France...yet they are blamed for turning the votes against us. I've said all along...the votes were never there in the first place. I think the animosity towards France is simply jealousy at their popularity for standing up to the US.

This is not true. You can make the claim in the evidence thread if you'd like to continue the discussion.

Danya,
First I'll address what you mentioned about not "really" having anyone on our side. We had a grand total of 50 count 'em 50 countries backing us for the war in Iraq which went very well considering the number of libs that were standing around talking about a body count of 75,000 for America.

Next I'll opt to post my evidence here since you seem to like calling me out. here is an article that site exactly what I posted.

(if you get a page that says not found please take the time to write the address in by hand, it's worth it)
http://www.channelonenews.com/articles/200.../04/28/ap_iraq/

Now that I have dispelled your lies about that, Can you please provide your evidence that you stated was going to prove that we "bribed bullied and blackmailed" other countries.

Here's your list of "50", no I mean 34 countries supporting the war against Iraq.

2001 population
(millions)
1 Albania 3.4
2 Armenia 3.8
3 Australia 19.4
4 Azerbaijan 8.1
5 Bahrain 0.7
6 Bulgaria 8.1
7 Costa Rica 3.9
8 Croatia 4.4
9 Czech Republic 10.3
10 Denmark 5.4
11 Estonia 1.4
12 Georgia 5.0
13 Hungary 10.2
14 Israel 6.4
15 Italy 57.7
16 Japan 127.1
17 Jordan 5.0
18 Kuwait 2.0
19 Latvia 2.3
20 Lithuania 3.5
21 Macedonia 2.0
22 Oman 2.4
23 Philippines 77.0
24 Poland 38.7
25 Portugal 10.2
26 Qatar 0.6
27 Romania 22.4
28 Saudia Arabia 21.4
29 Slovakia 5.4
30 Slovenia 2.0
31 Spain 39.5
32 Turkey 66.2
33 United Arab Emirates 3.0
34 United Kingdom 59.9
TOTAL 638.8
AS % OF WORLD TOTAL 10.4

It's the only list I've found so far.

http://informationclearinghouse.literati.o...article1741.htm

So where's your 50?

Rickmanx

I could but I won't. I'm through debating with you. Not only did you not apologize for basically calling me a liar last time but you have the nerve to do it again even after I proved you wrong.

Any future posts by you will be ignored by me. Bye bye now.

There is no need to call anyone a liar. If you disagree with someone's argument refute it with facts and sources. Now, let's get this thread back on topic, and DEBATE CIVILLY.

Ok, that was a pretty big list of countries that support the war. Are all of these countries involved in it militantly? I think not. And if you notice, most people are making fun of the french for being "sissies for not wanting to fight." Why are they singling out France? Is this because they haven't had the best military history? I think yes. So, why single out France? Why not make fun of the Italians? (Not saying that I do. Just using this for debative reasons only. I have no beef with the Italians )

You left out the United States, which is kind of important considering we elect a President to promote OUR interests.

Do our interests include alienation from the international community?

France is hated and despised by so many Americans because she refused to support or become involved in the war on Iraq.

I think the majority of Americans believed the false claims of their government that Iraq was in some undefined and vague way linked to the attack on the WTC.

Consequently, by some unfathomable contortion of logic, it was argued that, by not supporting the US in an unjustified war on a nation with no links with Al Qeads, France was somehow expressing tacit support for the terrorists responsible for 9/11.

Additionally, as a member of NATO, albeit a non-military member, France is required by this tortured and misleading logic to support war on Iraq as a retaliatory strike in response to 9/11.

The American right appear to believe that 9/11 gave them a moral imperative to invade weaker nations, falsify evidence, imprison suspects without trial, economically coerce dissenting countries, and to generally re-order the world under what they spuriously term the 'benevolent hegenomy' of America.

Let's turn this so-called 'logic' around. Surely it is equally valid to argue that, by engaging in a war which France did not support, it was actually America who was betraying France.

Why are we hating France? One of the big reasons as several of you have pointed out is their lack of military action. So what? Out of the 50 countries who've been named as supporters of the war, how many have given actual military support? I have a feeling that the list won't be so large anymore. This leads me to the question once more of, "Why single out France?"

There were no such claims.

France must face its own ACTIVE opposition to the US position here. Other countries did not ACTIVELY lobby the other SC members, France did.

Well i dont hate France... however i am furious of their reactions. As i recall president bush said " We will come after terrorist and the country who support them" or something in that aspect May i send you these links? Webbie and Webbie 2 in which the world with an overwelming vote. Image if someone were to hit China or Japan, the world would face to US and the UK and UN for guidance. In this case we looked to the UN for guidance and France decided to not agree.

I don't think morals have any bearing on the matter.

France is become a scape goat for the failure's of the Bush administration and I suppose it could be argued that this in it self is immoral since it is a deception by an elected government, against the people it is supposed to serve.

The reason I suppose France is hated is because they are a very easy target. Especially in these martial times.

Are we to believe that those France lobbied opposed us strictly as a result of lobbying and not out of true disagreement?

Might it be that administration officials were right, that France really doesn't hold much sway over the international community, but that France's opposition gave other countries an excuse to actually disagree with us in public?

France was not the only country to disagree with, and refuse to support, us. I doubt seriously if they were powerful enough to convince the world to stand against us. I think they stood their ground and in doing so helped others do the same. As the ringleader of a world in disagreement, they're the whipping boy.

If people want to get in a huff over their position, it would be nice to see them express similar disdain for all the other countries who took a similar stance. While I think it's silly in its own right, I think it even sillier to only hate France and remain forgiving of everybody else.

On another note, depending on where world events head into the future, such a campaign against France could later turn against us. While they may be the scape goat or whipping boy today, officials should be wary of making them the martyr of tomorrow.

As I pointed out earlier it was not 50 countries. And only 3 of them actually sent troops ( US, UK, and Australia )

And no I don't hate France. If our president truly did have hard core evidence that proves that the threat was severe enought to warrant bombing the heck out of em, France never saw it. And that is where the problem lies.

France ( and the rest of the world ) saw:

1. Forged Nuclear Documents.
2. Reports coming in from UNMOVIC calling US intelligence tips "Garbage, after Garbage, after Garbage."
3. Almost every demand that the Weapon Inspectors had met by Iraq.
4. All neighboring countries of Iraq not feeling threatened by Saddam.
5. The Al-Samoud 2 rockets ( which went a total of ~15 miles of the allowable limit ) being destroyed.
6. Complete and total access for the weapons inspectors.
7. Turkey not allowing US Troops on its soil.
8. Hans Blix ( Team leader for UNMOVIC ) stating it would take months, not years to determine if Iraq was free of WMDs and also stating he was seeing "Real signs of Compliance."

What evidence did the Bush Administration have( that they chose to share )? Old UNSCOM documents from an age filled with so much corruption that the group had to be disbanded and brought about UNMOVIC.

Countries should not trust and support an attack on another without SOLID evidence. Old news from the early 90's shouldn't cut it. The new information appeared to be baseless or forged.

I respect France for standing up. All the US had to do was prove their case to the UN. They chose not to. And France was going by what they heard from the Weapons Inspectors as everyone on that council should of.

Maybe we had a good reason for attacking Iraq, Maybe we didn't. All I know is I don't blame France for taking a stand.

But they weren't alone.. as we all know.

And what ever happened to the US's first plan of letting the second resolution be voted on and ignoring France's veto? That is what they were originally going to do.

Rickmanx

Danya,
Here is the first instance in which one of us makes claim to the other posting untrue threads
or as others might call it, "lying". Oh look it was your posting. I still proved my point and I feel that if you could tear down my allegation, you should. But you can't because I have posted the truth.

Rickmanx,
Actually your number of 34 is good but it only counts the countries that publicly supported The US. There were / are 15 more that provided financial help to the coalition forces. As Bush stated three days before the decapitation strike, they wished to go unnamed. For what reason? Perhaps they were afraid of retaliation at the EU? I don't know. The point is there were 50.

France. Discuss France. Hating France. That is the topic. Stick to it

Riiiight, and there were a hundred who supported Iraq but they wanted to remain unnamed for fear of retaliation from the US. If they're unnamed then IMO they don't count. That's how low the administration's credibility is right now.

According to the latest polls the admin's credibility is quite high right now. At last look it was 60-70%.

No reason to hate France. They acted in their own best interest, which was opposed to ours. Get over it, and get used to it. We're going to see more and more of this type of dispute, followed by alliances with the same country over a different issue. It's the nature of the beast.