Pourquoi?? Why is everyone down on France??

[ABlairican Pie]

I don't understand why everyone is so uptight about France that they have to rename everyone's favorite grease-laden food "Freedom Fries" and be so francophobic.:confused: I understand that a French politician said something "not nice" about America wanting to go to war, but I don't understand the resulting Kristalnacht over everything French. People getting worked up over a Frencho's comments??:rolleyes:

[BrandonS]

France led the movement to thwart us in the U.N. We tried to prevent an evil, expansionistic dictator from acquiring weapons of terrible destructive power, and they obstructed us at every turn and impugned our motives. They tried to bully the Eastern European countries that sided with us and implied that if they did so, they might not get to join the EU. If Hussein had obtained nukes and used them against us, or used his bioweapons, France would have borne a great deal of the responsibility. France put its oil contracts with Iraq above my physical safety.

I am taking unilateral action. I have a list of French exports to the U.S. and I will not buy them, and that's not open to debate.

[Max Whittaker]

And we tried to bully all the other countries into letting us attack Iraq. So you see, this whole thing has been "who is the bigger bully".
Looks like we won!:cheers:

You are free to boycott anything you want. But that attitude will not make you any better than France, if that's what you are looking to be.

[Kitt]

The Bush administration intended to invade Iraq no matter what. They were building up to it from the beginning and had no intention of waiting for inspections to succeed. In fact they undermined the inspection process whenever possible by making up false evidence. The French didn't undermine our phoney baloney at the U.N. Bush and Co. got exactly what they wanted which was an invasion on Iraq; unilateral or otherwise.

I feel bad for the nutjobs who poured their already bought and payed for French wine down the sink or gutter. Some statement that was.

[Max Whittaker]

Originally posted by Kitt


I feel bad for the nutjobs who poured their already bought and payed for French wine down the sink or gutter. Some statement that was.
:lol: yeah. They only hurt themselves, if you ask me.

[ABlairican Pie]

Originally posted by Kitt
The Bush administration intended to invade Iraq no matter what. They were building up to it from the beginning and had no intention of waiting for inspections to succeed. In fact they undermined the inspection process whenever possible by making up false evidence. The French didn't undermine our phoney baloney at the U.N. Bush and Co. got exactly what they wanted which was an invasion on Iraq; unilateral or otherwise.

I feel bad for the nutjobs who poured their already bought and payed for French wine down the sink or gutter. Some statement that was.

Seems like it doesn't take much for freedom-fry-lovin' Americans to get set off by something stupid. "Send those gawddamn foreigners back to Frencho-Land!! No more Frencho wine!! More American beer!! Drink Schmidt!!!"

Okay, Schmidt might be more local, so, in the words of a great American, Dennis Hopper: "HEINEKEN?? F:mad: ** that S:mad: **!!! What we drink around here is PABST BLUE RIBBON!!!"

[BrandonS]

The difference is that we were trying to prevent a latter day Hitler from acquiring weapons which could have killed millions, whereas the French were trying to protect their oil contracts. They put their revenues above my physical safety, and that qualifies them as a country I want to boycott.

[ABlairican Pie]

WHY DON'T WE JUST BOYCOTT THE WHOLE DAMN WORLD??:mad:
REVERT BACK TO THE ISOLATIONIST 20'S AND 30'S, PEOPLE!!

The reason this irritates me is that suddenly anyone of French descent or anything French is targeted by Bush's Auxiliary Goon Squad.

Operative word: Goon.

[Czas na Zywiec]

Boycotting French products is idiotic. Just because a country happens to disagree with the US on a particular subject, doesn't mean they should be automatically labeled as outcasts and should be thrown out of our society. They have a right to stay out of the war if they choose. It's not like they're a part of the United States, why should they automatically support us if they don't want to? Any American who thinks that every country on earth must cooperate with the United States without question is just absolutely out of their minds.

Here's a question. Should we give the statue of liberty back? I mean, after all, it's made form FRENCH hands. Remember France, the country we hate? :eek:

[BrandonS]

Original Prankster wrote:

"Just because a country happens to disagree with the US on a particular subject, doesn't mean they should be automatically labeled as outcasts and should be thrown out of our society."

I couldn't agree with you more. And I also agree when you say:

"They have a right to stay out of the war if they choose."

Those statements, however, are not relevant to the situation with France, because they did a lot more than that. When a country does everything in its power, over a long period of time, to obstruct our efforts to keep a terrible, dangerous dictator from acquiring weapons that could be used to kill people on a scale not seen since Hiroshima, and when they sell the world's future for some oil contracts, and when they attempt to create conditions that put me at risk physically for said contracts, it makes a certain amount of sense not to do business with them - and I won't.

[Jem]

Originally posted by Original Prankster
Boycotting French products is idiotic. Just because a country happens to disagree with the US on a particular subject, doesn't mean they should be automatically labeled as outcasts and should be thrown out of our society. They have a right to stay out of the war if they choose.

I totally agree with you, Chris. France has the right to say whether they want a war or not with Iraq the same as Germany and Russia and all the other countries that are opposed to this war do. I was reading in the newspaper this week that one country that was also against the war, but seemed to be left out with the mentioning of the countries that are against the war, is Mexico. Gee, would that mean that the States might boycott Taco Bell? :eek:

[Kitt]

Originally posted by BrandonS
Original Prankster wrote:

"Just because a country happens to disagree with the US on a particular subject, doesn't mean they should be automatically labeled as outcasts and should be thrown out of our society."

I couldn't agree with you more. And I also agree when you say:

"They have a right to stay out of the war if they choose."

However, when a country does everything in its power, over a long period of time, to obstruct our efforts to keep a terrible, dangerous dictator from acquiring weapons that could be used to kill people on a scale not seen since Hiroshima, and when they sell the world's future for some oil contracts, and when they attempt to create conditions that put me at risk physically for said contracts, it makes a certain amount of sense not to do business with them. I thought the French were wimps and stuff. How'd they get so tough that they managed to influence pratically the whole goddamn world to go against the God fearing Americans? It's spineless to blame the French for the all-powerful and money wielding Americans not being able to get more than Britain and smattering of Aussies to play in our sandbox.

One day at the daily press briefing Ari Fleisher answered a reporters question about us trying to buy Turkey's cooperation by saying, "It's not reasonable or accurate to conclude that the U.S. buys influence". The room broke out into laughter. They Literally laughed Ari, looking stunned and humiliated, off the stage. He promptly picked up his toys and left the podium. The snickring continued while the camera lingered on the suddenly vacant stage.

[BrandonS]

I'm not asserting that the French efforts to thwart us had this effect or that effect, merely that they tried very actively over a long period of time to oppose our efforts. Since I believe that we were doing something very necessary to protect ourselves and others, I choose not to do business with France. If they had merely disagreed with us and voted against us in the U.N., I would have no problem with them. It is extremely important that someone like Hussein not be allowed to arm himself with weapons like nukes, one of which can destroy a large city, or like bioweapons, that could spread a plague. Nerve gas and other chemical weapons, while not quite as destructive, can still kill a lot of people. Check out how he used them on the Kurds one day in 1988. Five thousand people died instantly and about seven thousand were taken to hospitals, many of whom suffered permanent injury. Therefore, I regard this as no laughing matter, and believe that choosing not to buy French products is very justified.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by BrandonS
I'm not asserting that the French efforts to thwart us had this effect or that effect, merely that they tried very actively over a long period of time to oppose our efforts. Since I believe that we were doing something very necessary to protect ourselves and others, I choose not to do business with France. If they had merely disagreed with us and voted against us in the U.N., I would have no problem with them. It is extremely important that someone like Hussein not be allowed to arm himself with weapons like nukes, one of which can destroy a large city, or like bioweapons, that could spread a plague. Nerve gas and other chemical weapons, while not quite as destructive, can still kill a lot of people. Check out how he used them on the Kurds one day in 1988. Five thousand people died instantly and about seven thousand were taken to hospitals, many of whom suffered permanent injury. Therefore, I regard this as no laughing matter, and believe that choosing not to buy French products is very justified. Hussein having or not having WMD's is not the "laughing matter" my post refered to. If Ari Fleisher or anyone tries to say that the U.S. doesn't bribe whomever for influence, that's laughable. And saying that the French are responsible for the fact that the world didn't get on board with the Americans and their unjust war is laughable.

But what if, as has so far been the case, no or no substantial WMD's turn up? Then your fear of the potential threat of mushroom clouds galore, and how much of a danger you've told us that Hussein was to us loses validity, wouldn't you say? As does the Bush administration's drumbeat prior to the invasion about the extreme and immediate danger posed by Hussein to his neighbors and to the United States.

The French didn't agree with the administrations claims that Hussein had the weapons that the administration claimed, falsely, over and over. No matter what does or doesn't turn up the administration lied to everyone and fabricated evidence. So I don't see how you can blame the French for disagreeing with a pack of lies. But that's your perogitive.

Still, though,I'm not predicting the outcome of the hunt for weapons. But it was weapons not "liberation" that the Bush crowd used to sell this invasion. If that reasoning doesn't fly or even flap it's wings do you move on to "liberation" as reason enough, or what.

The article that the following paragraphs are excerpted from is indebth about the subject of the hunt for WMD's:
_____________________________________________________
Before the war, American intelligence officials said that they had a list of 14,000 sites where, they suspected, chemical or biological agents had been harbored, as well as the delivery systems to deploy them. A substantial number of those sites have been inspected by the invading troops. Evidence to date of a "grave and gathering" threat: precisely zero.

Much of what has been unearthed points to something we knew about all along: the weapons programs that Iraq ran before the 1991 Gulf War, before sanctions, before regular US and British bombing raids in the no-fly zones and before the UN weapons inspection regime that ran from 1991 to 1998.

US troops have discovered a few suspect barrels here, a sample bottle of nerve agent there, stacks of chemical suits and some drugs typically used to counteract the effects of a chemical attack, such as atropine and 2-pam chloride. According to many military experts, these finds suggest the vestiges of a weapons program that has been dismantled, not one that is up and running. The US government argues that the weapons have been deliberately dispersed and hidden – a claim that would have more merit if there were any evidence of where the materials might have gone.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0413-01.htm

[BrandonS]

I made no comments about Ari Fleisher, either pro or con, therefore you can't criticize me for what you perceive as bad behavior on his part. I have explained clearly that I am not saying France is responsible for the ratio of countries that were or weren't with us (and many were with us), merely that France opposed us on a matter of life and death. You suggest that if WMDs are not found, I will switch to liberation as the pretext for invasion. I'd like to request that you wait until I do something before criticizing it. The reasons why we invaded are clear to me. We went in to save ourselves and the world from WMD in the hands of someone who couldn't be allowed to acquire them. Freeing the Iraqis from a brutal dictatorship was just a fringe benefit while we were in the neighborhood. Whether the WMD are found or not doesn't change the fact that we played the odds correctly. Hussein's track record is such that he was likely to have them, and to someday use them.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by BrandonS
I made no comments about Ari Fleisher, either pro or con, therefore you can't criticize me for what you perceive as bad behavior on his part. I have explained clearly that I am not saying France is responsible for the ratio of countries that were or weren't with us (and many were with us), merely that France opposed us on a matter of life and death. You suggest that if WMDs are not found, I will switch to liberation as the pretext for invasion. I'd like to request that you wait until I do something before criticizing it. The reasons why we invaded are clear to me. We went in to save ourselves and the world from WMD in the hands of someone who couldn't be allowed to acquire them. Freeing the Iraqis from a brutal dictatorship was just a fringe benefit while we were in the neighborhood. Whether the WMD are found or not doesn't change the fact that we played the odds correctly. Hussein's track record is such that he was likely to have them, and to someday use them. You totally misinterpreted the 'laughing matter' part, but so be it.

I didn't suggest what you would do if WMD's aren't found, I asked you the question. I asked for your answer. So don't admonish me for something I didn't say.

As for your opinion that invasion is justified no matter what is or isn't found: well, I couldn't disagree more with you aoout that. But, that's all there is to say about it. You have your opinion I have mine.

[bandito]

Isn't it funny how France is changing it's tune a little bit, as the Iraqi regime crumbles. Philippe Moreau Defarges of the French Institute of International Relations stated "We're seeing a subtle shift. We are starting to hear a more dissonant voice in France. The U.S. victory has made the debate more complex." French leaders said Thursday they "rejoiced" in the collaspe of Saddam's regime, and political analysts said the French people now wonder whether their country was right to oppose the war so staunchly.

On Thursday, media criticism was aimed squarely at the fallen Saddam. Several newspapers and magazines ran lengthy features on the cruelty of his regime. "The dictator who terrorized Iraq" was the title of a two page spread in Le Monde newspaper. "The Americans have won the war in 3 weeks," Le Figaro newspaper wrote in an editorial. "It's a victory for George Bush."


IMO France shows it's true colors once again. Once the fighting is over, and France has sat back and watched everyone else risk their lives to liberate a country, they now want to get a piece of the pie.

[Kitt]

Americans’ intolerance is evident in ostracism of France

Sunday, April 13, 2003

Since the beginning of this war, an anti-French sentiment has risen across this nation. My question is: Are you saving the world from destruction because you didn’t eat French fries, toast, cheese, quiche or mayonnaise? Do you think the Iraqi people feel better because you didn’t eat those French treats? They are without homes, food and water.

This ostracism of France shows us that Americans don’t practice what they preach. This country was supposedly built on freedoms of speech, press and religion. Our actions show that we are not tolerant of other people’s views.

I could understand the backlash if we were physically attacked by France. The truth is of the matter that France dares to think differently than America.

If we continue with this backlash, we need to do it all the way. We should take a black cloth and cover the Statue of Liberty. It should be banned as well. You remember the Statue of Liberty — a product of France.

Camilla Bazen

[Kitt]

Europe had better be involved in the aftermath or things won't go well at all. The French populaion still overwhelming professes to be against the invasion that took place in Iraq. That hasn't changed. That doesn't mean they or any of Europe is not pleased at the downfall of Hussein. The following linked article states, I believe, quite well where things stand now.

http://www.scotlandonsunday.com/politics.cfm?id=431442003

[bandito]

From an article By Jocelyn Gecker The Associated Press.

[Kitt]

I read the article and it was a mixed bag. This is how it finished:

''Two weeks ago, everyone was taking their hats off to France,'' said former Prime Minister Alain Juppe. ''Today they're starting to say we were wrong. We have nothing to regret.''

By the way, I meant to add something to the post I quoted you in but I messed up pushing clicks and what have you. It was too much trouble to fix it. That's why it's different now than it was before.

[bandito]

We will see when the rebuilding of Iraq starts if they have nothing to regret. :)

[Max Whittaker]

Originally posted by bandito
We will see when the rebuilding of Iraq starts if they have nothing to regret. :)

We will see if the rebuilding of Iraq finishes. :)



So what if we are attacked again anyway? Your justification for invading Iraq was to prevent an attack. So what if we are attacked by an Islamic militant who was inspired by the anger the invasion bred?
Wouldn't that mean we would have been safer if we had not attacked Iraq?
Before you argue, just think about it a minute.

[Brad]

So how many of these people who are boycotting French products think we should send the Statue Of Liberty back to France?

[bandito]

Originally posted by AKA
So how many of these people who are boycotting French products think we should send the Statue Of Liberty back to France? Send it back! I could care less if I ever see it again.

[Brad]

Originally posted by bandito
Send it back! I could care less if I ever see it again.

A lot of people - on the pro and anti side - would disagree with that statement (myself included). I think the Statue Of Liberty is a beautiful symbol of American opportunity. It's the first thing many immigrants see as their planes approac the States.

[ABlairican Pie]

Originally posted by bandito
Send it back! I could care less if I ever see it again.

Mon Dieu! Quel cretins sommes Americains! Est-ce que cette le finis a liberte et democratie? :confused: Savez-vous votre "Freedom Fries.":rolleyes:

[Kitt]

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world wide-welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame,
" Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp ! " cries she
With silent lips. " Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door !

by Emma Lazarus, New York City, 1883

http://home.online.no/~kanda/statue.htm

[Czas na Zywiec]

Originally posted by AKA
So how many of these people who are boycotting French products think we should send the Statue Of Liberty back to France?

I asked that same exact question on the last page and no onem seemed to answer it. Christ, I wonder why...

[Czas na Zywiec]

Originally posted by AKA


A lot of people - on the pro and anti side - would disagree with that statement (myself included). I think the Statue Of Liberty is a beautiful symbol of American opportunity. It's the first thing many immigrants see as their planes approac the States.

When my parents immigrated to this country from Poland, their plane went straight to Chicago, so they never saw it. After about 20 years of living and working in America, their dream is to one day go to New York and see it. However, when my great grandmother traveled to and from the states by ship, she got to see it every time and told us all about how inspirational of a sight it is to see when you first sail into New York Harbor.

[Jem]

Originally posted by Kitt
http://www.scotlandonsunday.com/politics.cfm?id=431442003

(QUOTE)"Most European leaders realise that a policy of opposing the United States makes European unity impossible. The Bush administration, for its part, should embrace Europe." (QUOTE)

I totally agree with that. I think it's ironic that the States accuses people of being anti-american when it was them who threw away their British culture when they went to America. Canada who refused to ally with the States kept a lot of their British culture with celebrations like Mosaic. Ironically, the British are allies to the USA, since Tony Blair supports the war. The USA may not like some countries such as France, Germany and Russia opposing the war, but they should remember that when the USA points the finger at France, Germany and Russia, there's three fingers pointing back at the USA.

[ABlairican Pie]

Anyone who rags on the Statue of Liberty is being un-American.
I thought I'd never see the day when being so PRO-American would be so ANTI-American.:rolleyes:

[Max Whittaker]

Originally posted by Captain ABlairica
Anyone who rags on the Statue of Liberty is being un-American.
I thought I'd never see the day when being so PRO-American would be so ANTI-American.:rolleyes:

Agreed.
Sometimes I wonder if people really think.