Time for some French Bashing
- Thread starter Mr. Downtown
- Start date
Great post right up unti this point.....mr. x said:
You perhaps are not aware that the Canadian Airborne Regiment, until it was wrongly dismantled by Cretin, regularly defeated all other Nato countries in war games and consistantly, year after year won first prize. They defeated the Americans, the Brits, the French.
You are also probably also not aware that about 15 years ago a Canadian diesel OBERON class sub surfaced undetected by the USS Nimitz in naval war games and claimed the Nimitz as its trophy. Not bad for a little diesel sub. We may have shitty equipment, but don't underestimate the wiley guys behind it.
As far as the French go, i kind of admire them for saying NO to the Americans. It's not that they don't want to fight because no-one is compelling them to fight. It's that they think killing 10s of thousands of people is morally wrong.
I think I understand this reasoning.
I don't see the harm in increasing the number of inspectors, sending UN troops in to back them up and getting the job done properly BEFORE you go whacking a bunch of innocent people.
It's not just the French either, it's the Russians, the Chinese, and the French.
It would appear that the US is having a hard time convincing the rest of the world that killing thousands of innocent people is the right thing to do.
And, the UN inspectors haven't found one single weapon of "mass destruction" now have they?
Other than a few shitty "El Samood" missles which have a range of about 120 miles, they have found NOTHING.
It would be a different story if they went in there and found all these nasty weapons, but they have not. The americans have now taken to criticising Blix; who, as far as I can tell, is doing his job fairly well under INTENSE pressure. The americans don't like him because he's not their puppet.
I don't know boys and girls but in the pit of my stomach, there is this little nagging doubt about whether this war is just. I can't help but feel that the whole thing is being swept along by politics and rhetoric, and CNN (who would love a nice little war to increase thier pathetic ratings and sell more SUV advertising). It's partly about oil, but it's mainly about Bush wanting to be perceived by the American public as being tough on terrorism. If by Nov. 2004 Bush doesn't have something significant under his belt, he will be remembered solely as the guy who was asleep at the wheel on Sept. 11, 2001.
With the US economy in a death spiral, soring deficits, soring unemployment AND no tangible results after 911 do you really think the moron will be re-elected?
Last edited:
so whats the problem with simply dropping a single very well aimed bomb on saddam's head?? rather than rolling several thousand tanks accoss the desert... [expensive fuel these days]
as for the "osama binladin fan club"... hunt them all down.... hurt them.... LOTS
9/11 still calls for vengence.
I think that george jr. has ulterior motives to some degree, that he may lead the americans into something they had not bargained for [note, region is very unstable...] and I have doubts regarding the integrity of his position.
the french are opposed because they spent a considerable part of the 20th century caught in the cross fire, being the battlefield. they understand clearly as do the russians... that war is MESSY and generally a bad thing.
pretty much through out history, the most well concieved of battle plans generally go out the window about 15 minutes after "advance to contact".
history is important, its humanity's attempt to debug.
but thats just my oppinion.
as for the "osama binladin fan club"... hunt them all down.... hurt them.... LOTS
9/11 still calls for vengence.
I think that george jr. has ulterior motives to some degree, that he may lead the americans into something they had not bargained for [note, region is very unstable...] and I have doubts regarding the integrity of his position.
the french are opposed because they spent a considerable part of the 20th century caught in the cross fire, being the battlefield. they understand clearly as do the russians... that war is MESSY and generally a bad thing.
pretty much through out history, the most well concieved of battle plans generally go out the window about 15 minutes after "advance to contact".
history is important, its humanity's attempt to debug.
but thats just my oppinion.
Last edited:
Interesting coincidence
Do you remember Saddam’s nuclear reactor that the Israelis blew up back in 1981? Guess who sold it to Saddam? It was none other than Jacques Chirac. He was in charge of doing that deal at the time. That was a specific type of reactor designed to generate weapons grade plutonium. It wasn’t designed to generate energy. Consider for a moment how the world would be different if the Israelis didn’t have the incredible foresight to blow up that reactor. The Israelis took a lot of heat for that stunt at the time.
The French love dictators cuz they make great customers to sell their weapons to.
How did Iraq pay for the reactor? They gave the French oil exploration rights. The French have 10’s of billions of dollars in oil exploration rights which they’ve accumulated over the years of selling weapons and machinery to Iraq. This is why the French are opposed to regime change in Iraq. There’s a chance that they will loose their oil exploration rights if a new government is established.
It has nothing to do with “moral authority” or what the weapons inspectors say. The French are just protecting their own interests.
It’s the same thing with Russia. The Russians have even more to loose.
Do you remember Saddam’s nuclear reactor that the Israelis blew up back in 1981? Guess who sold it to Saddam? It was none other than Jacques Chirac. He was in charge of doing that deal at the time. That was a specific type of reactor designed to generate weapons grade plutonium. It wasn’t designed to generate energy. Consider for a moment how the world would be different if the Israelis didn’t have the incredible foresight to blow up that reactor. The Israelis took a lot of heat for that stunt at the time.
The French love dictators cuz they make great customers to sell their weapons to.
How did Iraq pay for the reactor? They gave the French oil exploration rights. The French have 10’s of billions of dollars in oil exploration rights which they’ve accumulated over the years of selling weapons and machinery to Iraq. This is why the French are opposed to regime change in Iraq. There’s a chance that they will loose their oil exploration rights if a new government is established.
It has nothing to do with “moral authority” or what the weapons inspectors say. The French are just protecting their own interests.
It’s the same thing with Russia. The Russians have even more to loose.
Re: Interesting coincidence
If it is, Can you then please tell me who armed Saddam while he was fighting Against Iran? ("U _ _" ).
You cannot Blame the French to be against that war when your own country Vetoed 35 times in favour of Israel !!!
Get real, you had a chance to finish Off Saddam and blew it in 1991.....Get over it!
Frenchy ( Forza CHIRAC....LOL)
Are you doing it on purpose or is it really what you think?Cinema Face said:
If it is, Can you then please tell me who armed Saddam while he was fighting Against Iran? ("U _ _" ).
You cannot Blame the French to be against that war when your own country Vetoed 35 times in favour of Israel !!!
Get real, you had a chance to finish Off Saddam and blew it in 1991.....Get over it!
Frenchy ( Forza CHIRAC....LOL)
Please read carefully before picking on the French and Saying they are the Bad Guys....
http://www.deoxy.org/wc/wc-death.htm
http://www.deoxy.org/wc/wc-death.htm
i agree about hypocrisy - there is soo much hypocrisy on all sides though - the french, the US, even we Canadians.Mr. Downtown said:
BUT if the french and Russians wanted, I have no doubt that they would get the US to agree to honour their contracts as the price for supporting the US - to blackmail the uS in effect - they have the veto power as a lever, and in particular, Britain needs the UN support and even Bush wants it as well... so I think this idea of France and Russia being purely driven by their own oil interests in Iraq is a little overplayed.
i would too except that the one area where we fall down is on training - the US has greater resources so as to prepare their troops for combat in a variety of different climates and terrains...WhOiSyOdAdDy? said:
if there was some way of equalising the differences in training, then Canadians would be at least equal to the amercians - but i am biased of course.
Re: Mr X lighten up will ya
i do not think that the french were considered the best soldiers before ww2 - i thought that the british would have had that honour, due to the strenght of the empire, if nothing else.
i agree that france is still under the delusions of its power - but then so is britain.
the cliche about france is that they actually LIKE jerry lewis, not that they banned him. but like canada, they have found that american culture has crowded out much of their own, particularly in cinema.
but you see, here we are talking about real things, not some stupid cliche about french being cowards. vichy was terrible and the resistance was largely a myth for most of the war.
of course, if someone made the same types of comments about the negative aspects of the uS, they would immediately be attacked as anti-american, and this thread would have 12 pages off flames by now!
i actually agree with much of what you say - though in the case of napoleon and hitler it was russia, and the russian terrain and climate, that was the deciding factor.Cinema Face said:
i do not think that the french were considered the best soldiers before ww2 - i thought that the british would have had that honour, due to the strenght of the empire, if nothing else.
i agree that france is still under the delusions of its power - but then so is britain.
the cliche about france is that they actually LIKE jerry lewis, not that they banned him. but like canada, they have found that american culture has crowded out much of their own, particularly in cinema.
but you see, here we are talking about real things, not some stupid cliche about french being cowards. vichy was terrible and the resistance was largely a myth for most of the war.
of course, if someone made the same types of comments about the negative aspects of the uS, they would immediately be attacked as anti-american, and this thread would have 12 pages off flames by now!
For the record…
I’ve been re-reading my earlier posts and I may seem to be coming down on the French too hard in my efforts to make a point.
Just to clear things up, I’d just like to make my point again.
On an individual basis, from the French people I’ve met in my life, I have a great deal of respect and admiration. I have affection for the French women that I’ve had the pleasure of knowing. Please don’t take any of my negative comments personally.
As a nation, the French are a waning world power. I agree with Mr. Downtown, (the French) are spineless hypocrites. They are snobs even to other French-speaking people. The French are also starting to become Xenophobic. They are trying to block out external influences in an effort to preserve their language and culture.
I’ve been re-reading my earlier posts and I may seem to be coming down on the French too hard in my efforts to make a point.
Just to clear things up, I’d just like to make my point again.
On an individual basis, from the French people I’ve met in my life, I have a great deal of respect and admiration. I have affection for the French women that I’ve had the pleasure of knowing. Please don’t take any of my negative comments personally.
As a nation, the French are a waning world power. I agree with Mr. Downtown, (the French) are spineless hypocrites. They are snobs even to other French-speaking people. The French are also starting to become Xenophobic. They are trying to block out external influences in an effort to preserve their language and culture.
What oil interests do the russians have in Iraq?mr. x said:
The russians have more oil than all of the middle east put together.
But yes, the Russians do trade with Iraq.
But given that Bush and co. are willing to fork over 30 Billion to Turkey, I doubt that the offer hasn't been made to Russia.
If you are intrested please re-read mr. x's original post. It has some good historical references in it.mr. x said:
You have made some good points here about French gallentry in battle. However I have to point out that often the brunt of the French battles in its colonies after WW2 was handled by French Foreign legionnaires. Not the numerical brunt mind you, but the most brutal battles. This includes Diem Bein Phu.
I for one don't hold it against the French for bailing on indochina. The Vietnamese are incredibly tough and determined fighters. No one has ever had much success against them. Not the Chinese, Japanese, French or Americans.
Also, lets not forget about Vichy France during WW2 I bet this didn't help their reputation.
And, if you want to make fun of the French for surrendering you have to give it to the Italians for changing sides once the Axis started to have a rough go of it.
Lets get real for a second...
What people have been trying to express here is that it is extremely rare that nations go to war, or oppose war, for purely "humanitarian" reasons.
I'm sure that many in America, including Mr. Bush, actually are repelled by the horrors of the current regime. However, that is not the sole reason their government wants to go to war. After all, Iraq is not the only country with a repressive dictator.
Similarly, most people in France, including the government officials, are probably legitimately concerned about the loss of innocent lives if there were to be war in Iraq. However, there are clearly economic reasons which also contribute to their position.
We won't get anywhere useful if we pretend that one side is all right and the other is all wrong.
Zog.
Under the passion and rhetoric I don't think any of us really believes that any nation of people are all "bad guys". Even Iraqis are, for the most part, innocent victims of their dictatorial leader.Nic Frenchy said:
What people have been trying to express here is that it is extremely rare that nations go to war, or oppose war, for purely "humanitarian" reasons.
I'm sure that many in America, including Mr. Bush, actually are repelled by the horrors of the current regime. However, that is not the sole reason their government wants to go to war. After all, Iraq is not the only country with a repressive dictator.
Similarly, most people in France, including the government officials, are probably legitimately concerned about the loss of innocent lives if there were to be war in Iraq. However, there are clearly economic reasons which also contribute to their position.
We won't get anywhere useful if we pretend that one side is all right and the other is all wrong.
Zog.
Originally posted by mr. x
if you put an average battalion of amercian soldiers in a fight against russians, chinese, british, french or canadians, and each side was given the same equipment, or equivalent equipment, do you think the americans would beat any or all of those other countries? man for man, i would bet on the russians or the chinese, unlike the softer americans (or canadians - were're pretty soft too).
I would bet on the Isrealis or the Japanese. Not sure how the Isrealis would do now but back when they outnumbered 20 to 1 they kicked ass. Since the Japanese became pacifists we forgot how the Brits were sure that they safe in Singapore because nobody could come through the jungle next thing they new they had it up in the ass in Niponese bayonets. Even though the Americans may have been able to to win the war they really did not want to face the tired starved Japanese soldiers and commmitted an atrocity by dropping the bomb on civilians. This of course is in no way an endorsment of the policies of the Isreali or Japanese government (of the time). But just a statement of facts.
Also as far as the Iraq situation goes I think they should get rid of Sadam. He is a major pain in the ass to the rest of the world a real puss oozing pimple. This issue of attacking a Sovreign state being a bad precedent is BS. The US attacked lots of other places, Greneda, Serbia, Panama, etc
The real problem is that George W is just a piss poor diplomat and negotiator. He is the perfect example of a brat that has been handed everything on a silver platter and does not know the meaning of the phrase give and take. For example the Germans, in order to please his oil company executive masters he says:
"I spit on Kyoto".
Now who does Shroeder need to form his next government but the Green Party. Are they now willing to bend over backwards to help him? NOT. All the while he hides from dealing with the Palestinian issue. Now this issue is somewhat intractable. However it is a crutch that Sadam and Al Queda lean on and bring up everytime they want to stir bad feeling among muslim Arabs. So George sends a bunch of envoys to Isreal. Half way through, like a kid with a limited attention span, because things become difficult to deal with and the issues are more grey than black and white he wanders off.
Now he decides to form his coalition of the bribed and the dragged in kicking and screaming. WTFK All the while he is busy trying to move the US tax system to a flat tax while spending like a drunken monkey. The next crises that he will bring on, when he tries to pay for the tax cuts and war, is a big jump in interest rates. So if you think the market is tanking now wait till rising interest rates put the real estate market into the deep freeze. Of course while the market and the ecnomy is tanking all the administration spokesmen can say is:
" the US economy is stronger than you think."
Somthing tells me these good ole boys are very good at making their arguments but real bad at delivering the goods.
if you put an average battalion of amercian soldiers in a fight against russians, chinese, british, french or canadians, and each side was given the same equipment, or equivalent equipment, do you think the americans would beat any or all of those other countries? man for man, i would bet on the russians or the chinese, unlike the softer americans (or canadians - were're pretty soft too).
I would bet on the Isrealis or the Japanese. Not sure how the Isrealis would do now but back when they outnumbered 20 to 1 they kicked ass. Since the Japanese became pacifists we forgot how the Brits were sure that they safe in Singapore because nobody could come through the jungle next thing they new they had it up in the ass in Niponese bayonets. Even though the Americans may have been able to to win the war they really did not want to face the tired starved Japanese soldiers and commmitted an atrocity by dropping the bomb on civilians. This of course is in no way an endorsment of the policies of the Isreali or Japanese government (of the time). But just a statement of facts.
Also as far as the Iraq situation goes I think they should get rid of Sadam. He is a major pain in the ass to the rest of the world a real puss oozing pimple. This issue of attacking a Sovreign state being a bad precedent is BS. The US attacked lots of other places, Greneda, Serbia, Panama, etc
The real problem is that George W is just a piss poor diplomat and negotiator. He is the perfect example of a brat that has been handed everything on a silver platter and does not know the meaning of the phrase give and take. For example the Germans, in order to please his oil company executive masters he says:
"I spit on Kyoto".
Now who does Shroeder need to form his next government but the Green Party. Are they now willing to bend over backwards to help him? NOT. All the while he hides from dealing with the Palestinian issue. Now this issue is somewhat intractable. However it is a crutch that Sadam and Al Queda lean on and bring up everytime they want to stir bad feeling among muslim Arabs. So George sends a bunch of envoys to Isreal. Half way through, like a kid with a limited attention span, because things become difficult to deal with and the issues are more grey than black and white he wanders off.
Now he decides to form his coalition of the bribed and the dragged in kicking and screaming. WTFK All the while he is busy trying to move the US tax system to a flat tax while spending like a drunken monkey. The next crises that he will bring on, when he tries to pay for the tax cuts and war, is a big jump in interest rates. So if you think the market is tanking now wait till rising interest rates put the real estate market into the deep freeze. Of course while the market and the ecnomy is tanking all the administration spokesmen can say is:
" the US economy is stronger than you think."
Somthing tells me these good ole boys are very good at making their arguments but real bad at delivering the goods.
Re: Lets get real for a second...
I mean, How many people die in USA from Drunken Driving each year?(I'm sure it's more than the number that died on 9/11)...or increased free violence?
I think there are other priorities for the USA (and French as well since we have the same inside problems)
Frenchy
I agree with your post but don't you think Bush has enough problems on the Inside?zog said:
I mean, How many people die in USA from Drunken Driving each year?(I'm sure it's more than the number that died on 9/11)...or increased free violence?
I think there are other priorities for the USA (and French as well since we have the same inside problems)
Frenchy
Excellent point.drg said:
Bush is spending money he does't have like a drunken sailor. Running up record deficits AND tax cuts at the same time doesn't make sense mon ami.
If you want to buy all the nice new military hardware, you have to pay for it.
Last time such tom foolery was in vogue Bush Sr. was at the helm and Greenspan punished him by raising rates to stem run away gov't deficits.
I can only figure that Uncle Alan isn't doing the same thing now because he knows the US economy is in even worse shape than it was under bush sr. And perhaps because of 911.
