here is a lovely reminder for the french.....
the french :shootem:
:D
Printable View
here is a lovely reminder for the french.....
the french :shootem:
:D
Rollin5150...
I understand that your idea about this situation is as follows: the US liberated France 50 years ago, so now France should support the US. I find this logic flawed. Since you only seem able to express your thoughts via silly emoticons, I'll draw you an easy-to-understand analogy.
Situation: a 'weak' 12-year old boy gets beaten up by a strong 18-year old kid. An adult stands up for the 12-year old boy and beats the crap out of the 18-year old kid. A little later, the adult decides to go in the drugs-business and wants to recruit the 12-year old as a runner. Following your "logic", the 12-year old is morally obligated to help the adult.
Clear enough?
If I were that 12-year old boy, I'd feel some kind of moral obligation to that adult. That doesn't mean that every time that adult screams 'Jump', I'll ask 'How high?'.
The French still feel gratefull for the US having liberated them, don't be mistaken (maybe you should go visit the Normandy graveyard one day and see for yourself how clean and well-maintained it is. It's French people who make sure it is.)
Same goes for us Belgians. We still are gratefull for the US having liberated us. That doesn't mean we have to agree with everything the US does now or will do later.
And although I realize human lifes can't be repaid, both Belgium and France have been forced to pay A LOT of money for their liberation.
I'm not insulted: what you suggest by using that particular emoticon in your post is not insulting... I made a mental note that you just don't know any better.
Thanks for having liberated us.
just remember back in the day ,pre usa ,"americans" were terrorists/rebels and king Louis of France saved your asses from the Brits through arms and blockade(and lost his head indirectly for it) , that is how you became America
That's a hilarious comment coming from a Canadian, bugsthecat. You wouldn't happen to be of French ancestory.....? It's a reminder, oh grateful one.Quote:
Originally posted here by bugsthecat
just remember back in the day ,pre usa ,"americans" were terrorists/rebels and king Louis of France saved your asses from the Brits through arms and blockade(and lost his head indirectly for it) , that is how you became America
And Neg, that's the most ludicrous thing I have ever seen you write. I'm not trying to be insulting here. I am absolutely struck by how ignorant that entire post is. I usually have to give you credit for your debating skills, you've honed them to precise instrument.....Most of the time we don't see eye to eye, however I've always applauded your ability, but this is just a pitiful, petty attack. On a very powerful picture, I might add.
oh come on. most of the people that were liberated and most of the liberators have pasted on. we cant expect them and all future generations to bend over backwards for us
anyway we have our oun reasons to dislike them. like now they think they deserve the contracts to rebuild iraq. like they have something to say about it. those contracts should go to the nations that think enough about our way of life to put their asses and resources on the line. like oz the uk poland the us and all the rest.
I think if you're goin to bring up WWII that the big thing to remember is that it took the US 2 years to support the rest of the World... for 2 years they sat out and watched what was happening. It was until they were attacked that they decided to get involved. So how can you blame other countries for standing by and watching now. it's exactly what the United States did in the past.
KorpDeath: the picture indeed is very strong. The logic of the comment is flawed as I've tried to explain. You are free to give me your argumentation of why my logic is flawed (arguments, not just calling my attacking of an ignorant post pitiful). Why don't you try to convince me that France owns the US, whatever the US wants the French to do?
Quote:
I think if you're goin to bring up WWII that the big thing to remember is that it took the US 2 years to support the rest of the World... for 2 years they sat out and watched what was happening. It was until they were attacked that they decided to get involved. So how can you blame other countries for standing by and watching now. it's exactly what the United States did in the past.
correct me if im wrong but,
i dont think that the US paid other countries off to be against the war (WWII) like france :shootem: did @ the UN....
& didn't the US send a butt load of aid prior to joining WWII?
the french have sent 44 people in a decontamination unit to decontaminate the non-exsistent chem & bio weapons that iraqis dont have?
This is off topic a bit, but not completely. I've heard it said over and over that France is receiving "sweetheart" deals on oil prices from Iraq, and therefore are hesitant to involve themselves in the current debacle. I don't want opinion on this...I would like to see if anyone has cold hard facts that I can read? If this is true, then I do have a little bit of contempt for the French, however at this point I have to commend President Chirac for not being a lapdog to an ignorant bunch of hypocrites.
Rollin...try to grow up a little bit.
Deb
Debwalin: There have been behind-the-screens negotiations going on about the post-Saddam Iraq for months. Of course, the French are keen to preserve the French oil-companies' interests. The US have publicly warned the French (and others) already that they who are opposed to the war, won't be involved in the post-Saddam deals.
Right now, the US don't have oil-contracts with Iraq. TotalFinaElf (French), Loukoil (Russian) and Chinese Petroleum do. TotalFinaElf for example has a contract for the exploitation of two huge oil-wells (worth 30 billion barrels - about as much as the US's current stock) once the embargo has been lifted.
TotalFinaElf aren't sweeties.. BBC - French Oil Trap Opens
So what we have here basically is:
- The French - already have the contracts with Iraq - opposed to war.
- The Americans - no contracts yet - at war.
To understand what's going on now, I think it's important to know Iraq's history. It'll show you how important oil has always been (and still is).
The situation in 1920:
France owns Syria and Libanon, the British own Palestine and Mesopotamia (Iraq).
In 1920, the Iraqi's revolt. The British RAF bombs the regio using poison gas. Winston Churchill, minister of the Colonies, defends himself: "I'm all for using poison gas against uncivilized tribes."
1922: The British separate Kuwait (under British protectorate) from the Iraqi province of Basra, thus preventing the Iraqi's from access to the Persian Gulf. This will also allow the British to act faster should Western control over the Iraq Petroleum Company (a consortium of British, French and American oil companies) be threatened. This is the beginning of years of Iraqi attempts to reconquer this territory.
1936: Huge oil-reserves are discovered in Kuwait. Concession goes to Gulf Oil.
1939: The Iraqi minister of Foreing Affairs reminds the British ambassador of the fact that the Ottomanian-British agreement of 1913 recognizes Kuwait as a district under control of Basra.
1951: the Iranian government - lead by Mossadegh - nationalizes the Anglo-Iranian Oilcompany (now known as British Petroleum). The Western countries immediately lay down sanctions against Iran. Kuwaiti oil is used to replace the Iranian oil.
1953: When Iran is severely weakened by the sanctions, the CIA helps to overthrow the Mossadegh-government. The US put sjah Reza Pahlevi in charge, who immediately places 40% of Iranian oil under control of American oil companies. William Colby, head of the CIA: "this is the proudest achievement of the CIA". General Norman Schwarzkopf senior helps founding the SAVAK, Iran's merciless secret police. Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA-agent responsible for the coup, becomes vice-president for Gulf Oil.
1958: A nationalistic revolution founds an Iraqi republic, putting Abdek Karim Kassem in power. Kassem immediately starts to nationalize the Iraqi oil. CIA plans a complot against Kassem. In the mean time, American generals make up a plan to invade North-Iraq (code-name: Cannonbone. Objective: the occupation of Kurdish oilfields).
1960: With Kassem's support, the OPEC is founded to break the power of western oil multinationals. Kassem: "We do not fight the oil companies because of the 7 million dinars a year. We fight for the industrialization of our republic. We fight for our independence from the sale of oil".
Again, Kuwaits oil-production is raised to keep oil-prices low and break OPEC's power.
1961: the British decide to give Kuwait its independence. Iraq doesn't recognize this one-sided decision. The British send troops to Kuwait to protect it.
1963: A coup, supported by the CIA, overthrows Kassem (a CIA agent for the Senates Commission: "The target suffered a terminal illness before a firing squad in Baghdad.").
Kuwait uses the confusion to extend its borders (untill than in Muttla) with 70 kilometers more to the north.
1968: Baath-party at power in Iraq.
1972: Iraq announces the nationalization of its oil-industry. Nixon, Kissinger and the Iranian sjah decide to arm the Iraqi Kurds and make them revolt against Baghdad to weaken Iraq. The Iranian sjah provides the Kurds with US-weapons. Kissinger convinces Barzani (the leader of the Kurds) to reject a soviet-proposal to negotiate between the Kurds and Baghdad. The CIA provides Barzani, through the Israeli's, with weapons worth 16 million USD.
At this point, Iraq - not the US - is placed on the list of countries who support terrorism.
1975: Under pressure of the US, Saddam Hoessein (Iraqi vice-president at that time) and Iran's sjah come to an agreement. All US-help to Barzani and the Kurds is immediately stopped. The Pike Report (published by the House Select Committee on Intelligence) describes this as "a cynical enterprise, even in the context of clandestine operations". Kurdish leaders flee the region. Kissinger: "Covert operations should not be confused with missionary work."
1979: A revolution overthrows the US-supported Iranian sjah. Khomeini calls for a jihad against Saddam Hoessein.
1980: The Carter Doctrine: the US will military interfere in the Persian Gulf to protect American access to oil. Iraq invades Iran, publicly supported by the US (Brzezinski), after so-called border-violations by Iran. What follows is an 8-year war, where the US support both parties. Kissinger: "I hope they kill each other. Too bad they can't both loose."
1982: During this war, Iraq's name is taken off the list of countries supporting terrorism. The Turkish -after a visit by US general David Jones - send troops to north Iraq to fight Kurdish rebels, so that Iraq can fully concentrate on fighting Iran.
1984: Full diplomatic connections between the US and Iraq. Reagan allows the CIA to trade top-secret with the Iraqi's. This exchange also takes place between the US and Iran. The US sell weapons to Iran. Kuwait uses the confusion surrounding the Iran/Iraq-war again to extend its border to the north, taking about 1400 km² from the Iraqi Rumaila-oilfields. Helped by the new American supplied-slant-drilling-technology, Kuwait manages to drill for oil in that part of the Rumaila-oilfield that is without a doubt Iraqi.
1985: Oliver North tells Iranian negotiaters that the US will help Iran in overthrowing Saddam's regime.
1986: the Iran-Contra-scandal. Co-operation between the US and Iraq never stops. When it turns out like Iraq is about to lose the war, the US start supporting them even more.
1987: General Norman Schwarzkopf junior is appointed head of CentCom (American Central Command). In this same year, the US support Iraq against Iran by escorting Kuwaiti and Iraqi oiltankers, and bombing Iranian oilplatforms.
1988: American, European, Kuwaiti, Saudi-Arabian and Jordanian help give Iraq the advantage in the war with Iran. A cease-fire is reached on August 8th.
1989-1990: an American veto blocks UN-resolutions to condemn the American invasion of Panama, to condemn Israeli behaviour in the occupied regions, and to condemn the gain of territory by force.
Februari 1990: General Schwarzkopf witnesses before the Senate the importance of raising military presence in the Gulf. He warns for Iraqi military threat. "The oil of the Middle-East is vital to the West".
April 12 1990: Saddam offers to destroy his complete arsenal of chemical and other non-conventional weapons if the Israeli's agree to destroy their chemical and nuclear weapons. The US are against.
May 1990: Saddam accuses Kuwait of having stolen oil worth 2.4 billion USD from the Rumaila-fields.
July 1990: Saddams troops gather at the Kuwaiti border. The US silently agree.
July 25 1990: US-ambassador Glaspie guarantees Saddam they won't interfere with inter-Arabic differences.
August 2 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait. The UN lay an embargo on Iraq. The US send in 540.000 troops.
The rest is umm... history.
How is the comment flawed. Obviously there are Americans ho beleive we could do without the French as freinds. How should I convince you differently? You obviously understand the situation with history and yet the sentiment in a picture is toatlly lost on you....Quote:
Originally posted here by Negative
KorpDeath: the picture indeed is very strong. The logic of the comment is flawed as I've tried to explain. You are free to give me your argumentation of why my logic is flawed (arguments, not just calling my attacking of an ignorant post pitiful). Why don't you try to convince me that France owns the US, whatever the US wants the French to do?
Some Americans resent the actions and the posturing of the French.... Some Americans resent the actions, or should I say, inaction of the U.N.... What should I try to convince to of, that there are some people who believe differently than you? I'd find that a little beneath you, wouldn't you? :D
Here's a "c and p" from Micheal Moore's open letter to Mr Bush on the eve of the outbreak of war. I just thought it fit in well with all the "We saved you from......You owe us...blah, blah, blah" arguments floating around the forums.
Quote:
Finally, we love France. Yes, they have pulled some royal screw-ups.
Yes, some of them can be pretty damn annoying. But have you forgotten
we wouldn't even have this country known as America if it weren't for
the French? That it was their help in the Revolutionary War that won it
for us? That it was France who gave us our Statue of Liberty, a
Frenchman who built the Chevrolet, and a pair of French brothers who invented
the movies? And now they are doing what only a good friend can do --
tell you the truth about yourself, straight, no b.s. Quit pissing on the
French and thank them for getting it right for once. You know, you
really should have traveled more (like once) before you took over. Your
ignorance of the world has not only made you look stupid, it has painted
you into a corner you can't get out of.
BTW, I enjoyed Micheal's speech at the Oscars. :)
Michael Moore, there's an authority I'd believe. Might as well watch Fox or CNN. The epitome of bleeding heart, whiney, hollywood. Three cheers for disgruntled directors!! Hip Hip Hooray!!! Hip Hip Hooray!!!!
I realize that was only two cheers but I'm putting as much effort into my cheer as he puts into his writing. All under the disguise of being humorous.. Well, Michael, your funny. Now shut up and sit down, fat ass. Join the ranks of Andrew Dice Clay, and CarrotTop already.
Wow..., you don't trust Michael Moore's authority on the the subject when all he offers is the truth? (speaking just of that excerpt)
You yell at Negative for rhetoric when all he gives is facts and solid arguments and you just stick your middle finger up at him.
You are acting exactly like the United States government, the world asks for reasons and you just say something attacks them, but not for having a flawed argument, not for having false information, not for any valid reason what-so-ever. It has been taken to the level of children arguing with adults.
"We can't buy you a new toy today."
"But,... WHY?"
"We have to get other things at the store that we need."
"You suck, I HATE YOU."
So far the only thing that I have observed in anti-war vs pro-war arguments is one side spouting of verifiable facts, histrical data, international law, ehics, and well formed arguments, and then another side dancing around the issue throwing the world "evil," "terrorism," "security," and just generally playing off of blind fear.
Blind faith belongs to religion and dictators, educated judgements and well formed arguments are the basis of democracy. Hitler was elected, but he worked his country into a nationalistic frenzy so that he could lead them blindly. Bush is no Hitler, but the threat of overzealous patriotism turning into nationalism should send all true patriots of the US into a panic because it threatens everything that our nation has struggled to be a model for. Americans think that our government is rock-solid and impervious to upheaval. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press only do us any good if the press is actually reporting and all citizens are allowed to speak their minds without fear of being labeled anti-American. I love everything this nations stands for and the potential this nation has to lead by examle and to take the moral high-ground while setting precedents. Currently we are setting precedents that threaten international diplomacy to the point that when we are done it may be us and England against everyone else.
Something to stop and think about before slamming the French summilarily for speaking agaisnt the war. I don't know the exact numbers, but France's largest growing minority is of Arabic heritage. Do you really think that France wants to cause an internal strife comperable to if every Mexican or if every black American decided to riot? How easy is it to fight a war against a country and your own people at the same time? They cannot do it.
God save the US! Because I'm pretty sure that He is the only one that can now; we surely aren't...
Hello,
Here is one comment that is going to be felt:
Who cares about what happend during WWII beacuse those who faught have almost died out. No their memory will not die out and neither is their accomplishment but recall your fist algebra lesson where your teacher said don't confuse bananas and oranges... (the fruits are up to the teachers' will lol)
The iraqi's situation is much different because countries beg to differ. THe reason is that each countries have the right to have a mind of their own and that if one choose A well other can choose B or C or whatever.
No one will say that sadam is a saint and a bullet through his head would have been more efficient then sending the only us and british (and 65 polish!!!!) and MUCH cheaper for everyone.
The aftermath of the war is not clear for anyone because there are too many uncertainty:
is turkey going to invade the north of iraq ?
how will the kurds react?
will the us support the kurds or the turcs
is iran going to intervene ?
can saudi arabia tolerate a democracy next door ?
when will be the next terrorist attack (is the gaz bottle one ?)
can the arab leaders resist to their public opinion if not what happens ? (deos the us care ?)
... the list goes on and on and on
But here are a couple of nice facts:
1 the war is going on
2 there will not be a us birtish blessing for "new" iraq gover by the un
3 war sucks (....)
so in my opinion get it over with. the longuer the war the more problem and the more expensive! Enough of this ****.
Bush, chirac, Blair &cie have all failed because their unwillingless to compromise has killed the un and nato. As a euroepen i don' know who i'll vote for but i do know who i will NOT vote for.
The point is they are all failure because even with the "superior technological might" of the us army well there are only 60k + troups and that is not enough to conquer/pacify a whole country. besides iraq is so rich couldn't get all get along sharing the "reconstruction" contracts ? nope .
This reminds me of my two nieces fighting over a toy... how childish. Not a single one is guilty yet they both are and shame on them.
So yes Micheal Moor is right on shame on Bush but he forgot the other part: shame on all of us!
I wouldn't take Michael Moore as an authority, he is a scam journalist who really doesn't know he's an entertainer. Kind of like Rush Limbaugh, Geraldo Rivera, Phil Donahue..... the list goes on.
I wish Andy Warhol was right, give them their 15 minutes of fame and send them home.
well actually michael moore was the youngest elected school official ever ,mainly resposible for for ending discrimination in the Elks club and others , has written several books one which has been on the nytimes bestseller list for 46 weeks ,number 1 right now is one of americas most acomplished documentary directors ,has won many awards for his films including peer awarded ones and is neither a talk show host or journalist.
And his primary motivations are for all of his "justice seeking"....
making movies or documementaries, selling books and whatever.
There are thousands that fight discrimination and injustice every day. They don't get Oscars.
and your point is ?
My point is that Mr Moore will find an issue that he feels is sensational enough to sell, he will push it with his bias, find a high enough ranking person to ridicule, sell his "media", walk away without fixing the problem or leaving a reasonable solution.
Most of us can find faults with any system without an "authority" like Mr. Moore.
Whoever listen's to a bitter nut like Micheal Moore, and actually believes what he says is the "truth" has no credibility in my eyes. When will the far left realize that those sentiments don't resinate with the majority of American's.
Michael Moore is a genius.... More people should listen to him instead of attacking him. Those of you who are attacking him... I'd have to question why you are doing it.. Are you NRA members unhappy about Bowling for Columbine, or are you proud GM owners who don't like the fact that Roger Smith took some heat from Mr. Moore? Maybe you've taken issue with one of the stories on TV Nation... Who knows... maybe you didn't like Canadian Bacon.. Anyways.. he's a genius and more of you should open your eyes and realize this and instead of attacking him and criticizing him you should listen to his words. No matter his reasons for speaking, personally I don't care what they are, his words ring true.
I rest my case. :eek:
Maybe it's just me... but I'm pretty sure you should make a point before resting your case.
Just a suggestion......
You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper out there is white, the best golfer is black, the French are calling the US arrogant and the Germans don't want to go to war.
- Unknown (I found several references and don't know which one is right)
Hey so we agree to disagree! These are just my opinions and you have yours. I have nothing against the French i just dont like what their government is doing. I don't hate the liberals in my country i just STRONGLY disagree with them. The case was made in my own mind and maybe those who agree with me. At the end of the day i leave politics where it belongs, in the forums and debating arena's in which they take place. For example im a conservative and one of my best friends is a liberal, when i see him coming up to me to talk the fact that he is a liberal doesnt even cross my mind. For those of you Americans in here that watch Fox news, Allen Combs is my favorite Democrat. LOL :D
Well said nix347...That's the important thing that we all have to remember.... politics needs to be left here... Peoples political views shouldn't get in the way of friendships and aquaintances.... That's the nice thing about AO... lately everyone has been realizing leave the politics here in Cosmos and get down to business with the rest of the board.
I use to like GM products pre "Roger & Me" days, you had to fix them but you could do it yourself. As far as Moore thinking Roger Smith had to suck up to him, well hey it's capitalism. One doesn't have to like GM, I don't like Moore.
In honesty after seeing his other work, I wouldn't pay to see "Bowling for Columbine", if it's ever of "free" tv I'll give it a view, I won't directly pay Mr Moore to have more reason to dislike him.
As far as taking shots at the NRA, I was a member about 20 years ago. When the anti gun lobby went "all or nothing" ( a viewpoint not supported by me on any issue) and then the NRA went to "all or nothing", I "voted" by not renewing my membership. I believe in a free and democratic society, gun ownership can be a good thing. One can hunt, one can protect one's life or one can shoot holes in tin cans. I live in Vermont USA, we have the LEAST gun laws in the country, we have the worst ratings by the anti-gun lobby and we have the lowest crime rate in the USA. The issue of violence isn't guns, it's violence.
First for those who are not french, EACH YEAR we make an anniversary of the liberation by the US. In Normandie we have plenty museum that explain the liberation. So when US says that we don't remember you can't imagine what we fell, how that hurt us.
rollin5150 says :
I'm sorry but that's what the US have done not France. France has just gone and see some country to explain their point of view and have paid no one.Quote:
correct me if im wrong but,
i dont think that the US paid other countries off to be against the war (WWII) like france.
Negative says :
So US make the war for the oil !Quote:
So what we have here basically is:
- The French - already have the contracts with Iraq - opposed to war.
- The Americans - no contracts yet - at war.
I forgot,
If France is against USA why Mr Chirac said that US planes can fly over the french territory ?
I really don't think we are fighting this war since we are getting less than 5% of our oil from Iraq. We are fighting this war because we are finding everything that Saddam said he didn't have.
As far as Mr.Moore goes I think what he said was completely wrong. He's just one of those uneducated left wing democrats. Him and all of those antiwar protesters saying that by fighting this war we are gonna kill lots of innocent children and people. Well what about the innocent children and people in the Twin Towers. They never did anything to anybody. You might come back and say well Iraq didn't do anything to anybody either, but its not Iraq we are fighting. We are fighting the regime of Saddam Hussein. Not the people, not the children, just the regime.
Keep in mind that Saddam will do anything that he thinks will help his country, which includes launching missiles at his own people and blaming it on us (U.S.).
cheyenne1212 says :
There is NO link between Twin Towers/Ben Ladden and Saddam. Mr Bush take this to argue for his war but there is no proof. There's a big difference between Ben Ladden and Saddam. Ben Ladden is an extremist islamic and Saddam is a secular. I'm not saying that one is better but Saddam don't see the US (and non islamic countries) like the evil. I think Saddam want power and Ben Ladden want Islamic power, that's a big difference. That's why in the early 80's Saddam want a friend of France, UK and other country but after getting the power he becomes a dictator. And yes, France still have commercial exchange with Iraq but USA have commercial exchange with South Arabia and everybody know that they finance the terrorism, a country can't stop exchange with this countries or his economy will fall down.Quote:
Well what about the innocent children and people in the Twin Towers.
How sad, I guess you can pick your friends but not your family?
As far as no link between the two(saddam and bin laden), I'm sure some money AND favors have passed between them. Hussein favors all types of terrorism, that's how the S.O.B. stayed in power.
Just about every country in the region uses heavy handed tactics to keep their "unwanted" citizens in check. I don't hear any bleeding heart, whiney, movie stars screaming for THEIR security. I guess it's not popular enough an issue to take on.
So in closing Michael Moore is, as usual, wrong, but at least he brings to light HOW wrong one can be when you want sensationalize something to make a buck. Cheap tactics from a cheap mind.
Of course, you go beleive what you want, you'll find out in the end.
KorpDeath, I'm agree with you when you say "some money AND favors have passed between them". In some days ago in France we've got a TV report about the commercial exchange between Iraq and France (and others countries). In this report a man says that when you want to make exchange with Iraq you have a tax of 10% and we don't know where the money goes. I'm sure that's not for the population, the food or medecine.