lol Lola

[Elkay]

Hello Lola. Hello Karendra.

I posted this here because I knew you'd find the embers in my controversy satisfying. I know I did.

The "why can't we all just hug and get along" attitude from some of my fellow citizens makes me want to vomit. No - not their message. Their attitude. You see, they've decided that while they have the right to act and behave and believe what they will...I do not have those same rights.

Those are the same people who believe they have all the answers and when I voice my opinion which happens to be opposite of theirs, I'm told I'm "wrong." Yet, were I to make the same statement regarding their attitude, I'd get the "Freedom of Speech" flag waved in my face so fast my head would spin.

Some of you reading this believe with all your heart and soul that the United States should immediately remove all our weapons of war from the Middle East and everywhere else on the planet. Disarm our armies, sink our navies and ground our air force.

I have personally taken my turn in the military - because I believe everyone in this country has been given the acts of free thinking and speech along with many other freedoms that almost no other country in the world has (and while I'm on that side note - ALL other countries with the same freedoms the U.S. can profess - earned them in the SAME WAY the U.S has.) But I also knew those acts were not free. They were paid for with the lives and blood of others.

I dont agree with those of you who believe the "hug those who supported and killed thousands of innocent people and will continue to do so forever until stopped) - but I have fought for your right to think the way you do.

How about (just for ONCE) you come to realize that I too (and many others just like me) ALSO have those same rights.

As far as I'm concerned, you can hate my message - but NEVER will you have the right to take my message away.

-LK

p.s. I noticed you "locked" my "France" thread....I guess that just proved my point, eh? It's amazing how far you'd go to keep someone else from voicing an opinion that just happens to not agree with you, Lola. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Oh, and taking up the "well, that's not an EQ thread" would be just about as bogus as possible. Fully 50% of the threads in "general" have nothing whatsoever to do with EQ. You know it. I know it. Everyone reading this knows it.

[Daeryn]

What's that quote?

"I don't believe a word that comes out of your mouth - but I'd die for your right to say it." Just thought of that when I read this.
/shrug.

[Lola]

I'll not repeat the contents of my PM to you here, but let's be very clear what this is about.

Your post was not an attempt to start healthy debate. It was a flame. Feel free to start a thread that might have the potential to be constructive (this one is off to a much better start).

[Rajakhan]

Not sure on the specific wording, but I thought it was quoted by Voltaire. Who knows! :D

[Torrid]

Ironicaly, he was french.

I hate when threads get locked. Feels good to get the last word, I suppose :D

[Daeryn]

That was it raja! thank you, had been bugging me.

[Tilea]

Ok here's healthy, non-flamatory debate. The guy with the french citizenship was offended by the picture of the cemetary/memorial of people who "died defending their country.". But I believe, and I could be wrong though, that cemetary is a monument to the allies who died at Normandy beach during the D-Day invasion. Which makes them British, Canadian and US soldiers who died defending an Allies country (france obviously), not their own. Correct me if I'm wrong of course, in regards to that image.




Now for a flamatory remark:

Paladins suck.

[Exitilus]

I used bad wording in my post, sorry.

The people in that graveyard are by far mostly americans - so - "died defending europe" would have been more appropriate. It was an act of goodwill on the part of the americans, and the picture being brought up still trivialized those deaths.

"Yeah, see, all these americans died at normandy, which happens to be in france - ipso facto they all died for the french - and look how thankful they are! They even tried to stop us from waging war on iraq!"

It's not like the french had helped the americans secure their freedom from the british, or sent you the monument to liberty you're so proud of.

History and generations fade, politics move forward - international relationships change. Never speak badly of the dead, especially of those who were honourable in life.


-Exit

[Lydia]

Maybe people just find it offensive to use the people who died during WW2 to create a rift between the US and France, regardless where those poeple came from.

Those people knew very well what they were dying for and it was definately not to be instrumentalized in stupid jokes on a messageboard about a computer game.

[Tilea]

I wouldn't say people use those images to be disrespectful towards people who died during WW2. More likely it's just an outet for frustration. For example, does the entire country of Germany hate the Coka-Cola corporation? No, but German restaurants etc are boycotting their products right now, simply because it's an American company. Convenient outlet for their frustration with the US. Same thing as with that image I'd say, but on a different level.

[Lydia]

I wouldn't say people use those images to be disrespectful towards people who died during WW2.

They surely don't use them TO be disrespectful, but in using them as they do they ARE disrespectful. At least thats my view.



No, but German restaurants etc are boycotting their products right now, simply because it's an American company.

Uh, thats in the news in the USA? Well living in germany I can assure you, its as true as the iraqui farmer bringing down the apache helicopter with his rifle or 9500 iraqui soldiers surrendering on the first day.

[Tilea]

Well the papers have quotes directly from people who own the restaurants in Germany that are boycotting poor coka-cola. I doubt they would fabricate the whole thing including the quoted text.

[waright]

I had a lot of thoughts that came to the forefront when I saw that photo. All coming from my bias as an American. I would not have thought of posting if Exitilus did not make his post that confirmed, to me, what I feel about what a lot of people in Europe believe... that America had it coming to them (and to some extent they felt vindicated). Does this mean a lot of people in Europe think this way? Who knows but it is what I have come to think. I know its natural to hate hate America because we are the only superpower, I know that America is not perfect and has a different set of priorities than in general Europe has (BTW I think that this goes hand and hand with us being a superpower... for example Microsoft is not well liked and is very powerful.... both for in general the same reasons IMO).

What I don’t like as an American is that I have a perception that Europe would rather talk over, discuss and debate instead of fixing problems. A lot of problems in the world have come about from a lot of different sources. France, America, Great Britain and a host of other power some even gone are the root cause of some deep seated problems in the world. I firmly believe that sitting around and doing nothing (a view that is coveted by France in my biased opinion) is absolutely wrong. While I wish America would have a different tact, but that is Sunday morning QB'n... I do believe that Europe in general will be "against" us in any case since we are doing something.

But the fact that America is damn if we do and damned if we don’t is clear to me. North Korea is a perfect example, Bush seems to feel if we do 1 on 1 talks with NK we will basically be extorted or we will have to go to war. Bush feels we should try to let china deal with this issue. I hear a lot of news of leaders of the world complaining that we are not fixing the NK issue... but damn they bitch when we try fix, in our own way, issues other place. You don’t give tell a 300 pound wrestler with a baseball bat the task of making your kid clean up his room and then bitch at him that your kid has 2 broken arms and a broken leg.

France in particular screwed up before WW2... this was not as I understand an American failing (well maybe not the root cause but defiantly the years before Hitler started invading other countries France had blind blindness) that Hitler was absolutely dealt with wrongly by Europe (hind site is 20/20 yes) America at great cost did bail Europe out of an issue that they really should have been able to fix without them if France in particular did not have its head in its ass (yes, we had to do it in any case, Hitler was more of a threat than the good that may have come from German speeking French).

France and America (among a ton of others probably) screwed up in Iraq. I 100% feel if in the mid 80's if Sadamn had gotten nuke... 100% due to French help. That not only would France not have understood how they fucked up (like how they fucked up in the 5 or 7 years pre 1942) France would have done nothing to fix the issue. And after this they scream at the Americans... this logic blows my mind... if I had screwed up as much as the French then at least I would have the courtesy to at least shut up even if America is NOT doing everything right.

Off topic (kinda) there was a movie where college kids invited a stranger into there house to poison him and the ethical issue of “if you met Hitler in the 20’s would you kill him” came up… anyone remember the name of that movie?

If you met Hitler in the 20’s would you kill him even if it meant you would die?
If you met Sadamn in the 60’s would you kill him even if meant you would die?

Edit: yes yes plz dont debate on "time travel" issues.. that is not the point of those 2 questions

[Exitilus]

I'm not saying france is in the right - I'm just saying the horrible anti-french attitude is biggoted and I take offense to it.


-Exit



edit: im fact, I support the war on iraq - my only qualm is the way it was brought about - but now that it's in full swing, more power to the troops overseas.

[waright]

Originally posted by Exitilus
I'm not saying france is in the right - I'm just saying the horrible anti-french attitude is biggoted and I take offense to it.


-Exit
.

lol, it seems you think anti-american attitude is ok.. but anti-french attitude is biggoted... honestly the only reason I have anti-french attitude is because of the anti-american attitude they have... this is childish yes, but I think that french's anti-american attitude is much more "evil" (evil not right word but closest I could come) than my childish reasons for my attitude.

[Exitilus]

Evil?

What do you see as their reasons?

Realistically, I know I have a bias against americans, or, the present republican gov't at the very least - but I don't think anything I've said is on par with Elkay's post. The closest I've come to being particularly offensive =>

"the way you're acting is part of the reason a band of terrorists slammed two innocent-filled passenger jets into the twin towers."

.. and, well, can you honestly say that americans being somewhat hubristic, or atleast the perception that all americans are, isn't part of the reason those terrorists did what they did?

And either way, I wouldn't consider that anti-american - it was just me stating something that's been regurgitated by the media again and again since 2001.


-Exit

[Eomer]

I don't see how Exit has been biggoted or anti-American. Disagreeing with American foreign policy does not make you anti-American, and unfortunately I think a lot of people don't realize it. Maybe it's due to the current atmosphere in world politics of "if you aren't with us, you are against us" that has been brought about. I don't know. There's just too much black and white going on.

I also don't agree with France's position on the whole issue. I don't agree with the US either. But to say that one country or the other is screwing their friends and ungrateful for past favors is stupid and offensive. Yes, the US sacrificed a lot in WWII, and so did many others. However, that does not mean that France has to give the US carte blanche to do whatever it wants throughout the world. They believe they are right, they are standing up for what they believe. I respect that more than, say, Jordan who won't even admit to it's own people that they are helping the US in Iraq with their hands out and their wallets open.

The thing I think is really stupid about this, is that Germany and Russia have both been almost as outspoken as France on this whole thing. Almost, but not quite :). Yet I haven't seen anyone out on the street pouring German beers down the drain, burning their BMW, throwing out all their vodka, or cracking constant jokes about Russia needing 20 soldiers to kill one enemy soldier. France is being singled out for some reason. I think it has as much to do with constant jokes about them in mass media (The Simpson's or any other irreverent comedy show, South Park, Maxim, it goes on and on) than past history. France is a fashionable target for some reason, and I think it's as least partially undeserved.


the acts of free thinking and speech along with many other freedoms that almost no other country in the world has (and while I'm on that side note - ALL other countries with the same freedoms the U.S. can profess - earned them in the SAME WAY the U.S has.)

You don't honestly believe that do you? Almost no other country? I guess all of Western Europe, North America, parts of South America, Africa, Asia, and Australia don't count? There are dozens upon dozens of countries with the same or similar freedoms to the US. They may not all be as economically successful, but they have the freedoms nonetheless.

And they all earned them in the same way? Really? Shit, I must have missed the Canadian Revolution. I wonder why they didn't mention it in high school :/. I am not knocking the way in which the US's independence came about, just saying that not everyone got those freedoms in the same way. Another example is Britain. They didn't need to overthrow the monarchy, theirs was a slow change.

[Elkay]

There's a difference between taking a topic and being controversial merely to attract attention and discord. I was stating facts. Not flame.

France declined ALL political requests (including fly overs) for the middle east war.

This is not the first time they've done this. This is not the second time they've done this. This is the third time they have denied assistance to us.

I dont have to recall - I can look at my original, "France is Shit" thread and see that I made no personal attack on anyone - while those who oppose me have done so twice.

To my opposition:
How about coming back with something that has a little backbone? Something in direct conflict with MY MESSAGE?

"ELEVEN THOUSAND ALLIED SOLDIERS (MOST OF WHICH ARE AMERICAN) DIED FREEING FRANCE FROM TYRANY AND NOW THEY ARE (FOR THE THIRD TIME) REFUSING TO HELP US IN OUR TIME OF NEED - WE NEED TO SERIOUSLY RECONSIDER WHO WE CALL 'ALLIES'"

That was the message - it was clear and to the point. They almost certainly would have been freed regardless but at the cost of how many of their people?

Now then - if you want to stand up and say, "So what? Those 11,000 men died for nothing. France owes us nothing. I support France." then fine. Do that. But dont try to hide behind threads and their specific 'requirements'

-LK

[waright]

Originally posted by Exitilus
"the way you're acting is part of the reason a band of terrorists slammed two innocent-filled passenger jets into the twin towers."

I dunno what to say.. if you really dont understand how offensive that statement was... well I dunno what to say. I get from your qoute that we deserved it. I still love my dad even though he did a ton of things wrong... he had good intentions and yes.. in the end my life was better because I had a dad. Can you say that the world would be better off without america.... Can you say we don't have good intentions for a better world. I can understand what my dad's dismay would feel like if he felt I did not like after I grew up and his dismay of how I did not like him while I was a child. well if we can assume france is grown up can you understand america's dismay.. or is france just still a child? I remember saying stuff with the same intent when I was a kid to my dad.

The true reasons for anti-americanism by french someone could do a discertation on... and do a much better job then me... in contrast my reasons are simple.. I have a belief that some of the reasons for french anti-americanism is due to:

1) the assault of there culture by american culture (this wording is missleading because the funny thing is, french is insecure about there culture and its ability to be changed by america even existing in its current form)
2) the fact that america is strong and french is week economicly and militarily (the hate the guy on top is bad syndrom)
3) a ton ton ton of other reasons I am not smart or knowledgable enough to try to psyco-analize. (yes yes, I still try)

In conclusion its my opinion that the motivations of french's anti-american attitues are ones rooted in envy, greed, insecurity and more... this is more "evil" (again for lack of a better word) then my childish reason of "I hate you cause you hate me" reason.

Edit: wont ppl try to answer my 2 ethical delema quesitons in my first post.. would be fun to see what ppl say on that... answer the question before you watch the movie.. it will be interesting to see what you think of your original andswer after seeing the movie... damn .. no one knows it name?

[Exitilus]

France declined ALL political requests (including fly overs) for the middle east war.

Fact, okay, check. Though, what makes you think that asking *multiple* times should change their opinions on the issue?

US: We want to go to war, for X reasons.
France: We don't find your reasons convincing, we won't support your war.
US: Please?
France: No, we said that already.
US: Pretty please?
France: No!
US: You suck, you cheese eating surrender monkeys!


This is not the first time they've done this. This is not the second time they've done this. This is the third time they have denied assistance to us.

Well, they don't agree with you on some of the issues involved, so? That's life.


I dont have to recall - I can look at my original, "France is Shit" thread and see that I made no personal attack on anyone - while those who oppose me have done so twice.

Well, "france is shit" sounds alot like a personal attack on anyone with french connections to me. (that, of course, wasn't in the first post, but anyhow)


To my opposition:
How about coming back with something that has a little backbone? Something in direct conflict with MY MESSAGE?

By a little backbone do you mean hate-mongering?


"ELEVEN THOUSAND ALLIED SOLDIERS (MOST OF WHICH ARE AMERICAN) DIED FREEING FRANCE FROM TYRANY AND NOW THEY ARE (FOR THE THIRD TIME) REFUSING TO HELP US IN OUR TIME OF NEED - WE NEED TO SERIOUSLY RECONSIDER WHO WE CALL 'ALLIES'"

As I said, the attack just happened to take place in france - it was a liberation of europe. As I'm sure you learned in highschool the D-Day attack wasn't solely a liberation of france.


That was the message - it was clear and to the point. They almost certainly would have been freed regardless but at the cost of how many of their people?

You still haven't explained why exactly things that happened generations ago should dictate france's present foreign policy. It isn't very just to expect it, either way. People need to stand up for what they believe in, and, well, that's what the french are doing. (regardless of ulterior motives - it's not like the united states is perfectly clean on this count either)


Now then - if you want to stand up and say, "So what? Those 11,000 men died for nothing. France owes us nothing. I support France." then fine. Do that. But dont try to hide behind threads and their specific 'requirements'

Those men died to destroy a a military power that was an immediate menace to the dozens of countries in its immediate vicinity, as I said. France owes you nothing. That being said, I don't particularly support france either, but I respect their rights as an independant nation.


-Exit

[Andaas]

The forums here typically leave threads to run on their own legs, however, I agree in locking and/or removing any threads that devolve from healthy discussion and debate to flames.

Elkay - your previous post sparked off a conversations that lead to much flaming, flames not necessarily created by you, but the result is the issue.

Whether your post was intended to spark discussion or flame is irrelevant to me - the thread in itself had lost its ability to be productive on these boards and was locked. No further explanation is needed.

[Exitilus]

1) the assault of there culture by american culture (this wording is missleading because the funny thing is, french is insecure about there culture and its ability to be changed by america even existing in its current form)

What is american culture? I will say that european countries are inundated with american fast-food chains and products, but how do you define your culture as something people would be afraid of being "converted by"? (this isn't a response, I'm actually interesting in knowing)

2) the fact that america is strong and french is week economicly and militarily (the hate the guy on top is bad syndrom)

France isn't particularly weak economically. *shrug* .. and on the military front .. I can't speak for france but I know that I don't envy the ability to wage war, not in the least. (french AND canadian, hah)


-Exit

[Tarissa]

A lot of people simply dislike France for the reason that it seems that, regardless of the past, they don't seem to take any action. Hell, I'm not anywhere close to a history expert - but on a rundown here, it seems France is the country to save, and the one to talk a problem to death until it smacks them in the face.

There is a lot of talk about the dangerous of pre-emptive action. But on the other side of the coin, how many times does it seem that we are a race bound by only reacting to disasters we could have prevented?

I am not arguing the case or the justification - as a reasonably skepticle person, I believe there is TS level information about both Iraq and our intentions that I am not aware of. If anyone is believing the press to come out of the US, or any country for that matter - well, what can I say? You are what you eat.

Does anyone have any real stats on military technology / numbers? We've got some major players, but in the event of a crisis demanding military power - what does France have? Canada? Isn't that the sum of what we have just keeping NYC in order? I bet there are more guns in NYC combined. What are the French going to use, cresaunt trebuchetes?

No one criticizes Germany because we know they are some mushroom cloud layin' muthafuckas, and we know Russian has some serious tools, but France - hell they might as well have a red carpet in their country labeled 'Invading Forces: Move your Armored Infantry Here, Goverment Building This Way (Quiet, Debate In Progress) ----->'

:D

OK, OK, so I poked some fun and made some jokes, but at what point will all of those politician stuck on their lofty perches of intellectualism debating going to find the world around themselves crumbling with no one to talk to anymore?

[Exitilus]

hehe .. well, france does have "Teh_BoMB" as it were.


-Exit

[waright]

Originally posted by Exitilus
France isn't particularly weak economically. *shrug* .. and on the military front .. I can't speak for france but I know that I don't envy the ability to wage war, not in the least.

lol... trying not mention anything about a white flag.. or 3... man our cultures are like black and... uh white... it semes

Edit: I find it hard to reconsile your statememt with my belief that WW2 happened exactly because of the belief's that go along with your above statement.

as for your other questions... I have heard some quotes from native's of france that leads me to think this. Not sure I could add much by going deeper... as I say I am not an expert on what are french reasons for anti-americanism.

What reasons for anti-americanism do french have that you beleive that is not rooted in envy, greed and insecurity... Or do you truly think french think america has truly and willfully fucked things up or is just plain evil.(if so please give some examples) (that is a reason that would not be rooted in envy, greed or insecurity)?

Honestly this is not a fair question because what motivates humans in general is envy, greed and insecurity so I have rigged the question by asking it.. still it would be interesty to see if you think that french have holyer than thou reasons for anti-americanism (holyer that thou is what they accuse us of) or do you think french could admit that they are as flawed as we are and let by gone's be by gone's

[Elidroth]

Say what you want about the various foreign policies..

We get called the 'ugly american' because we don't, in general, try to learn about other cultures, especially when we travel abroad. This would piss be off too BTW.

The French on the other hand, have a reputation for being rude to foreigners in general. In fact.. I was once told "The French don't hate Americans.. they hate everyone, including themselves" by a friend of mine who is in fact.. French.

Stereotypes, as much as we hate them and denounce them, DO have some basis in fact. Otherwise.. they wouldn't evolve into stereotypes.

France and Germany boycotting American goods does what exactly? Do they think that somehow we'll say "OMG.. the French and Germans aren't buying Coca Cola!! STOP THE WAR NOW!!"

The sooner the respective countries realize that quite honestly neither gives 2 shits what the others think of them and moves on.. the better off we'll all be.

As for the WW1 & WW2 issues, let's take a hard look at what happened. Keep in mind these timelines are VERY generalistic and not specific in any way. In both cases.. Germany attacked France (and other parts of Europe) in an attempted land grab basically. In WW1 we were reluctant to assist in a large scale, but did so to stop an act of aggression by the people who assisted us in our time of need some 125 years earlier. In WW2, it was again initially with reluctance that we helped until WE got attacked and then basically it was "Oh yeah? Fuck with us will you" and the gloves came off and we went into full motion, kicked the crap out of Hitler's Nazi regime and booted their ass out of France. In WW1, France didn't exactly roll over and play dead. In WW2, I think they were just overwhelmed by the speed and ferocity of the German attack. Regardless.. the major difference between the 2 conflicts is.. we have people who were alive during WW2, fought during WW2, watched their friends die in France during WW2 who are now at least in part in the power structure of the USA now who are saying "UH.. WTF? over.." It's OK that we went and spilled our blood to give you back your country and now you won't stand united with us in this struggle? What's worse is it seems more and more likely that the reasoning behind this attitude is purely economically based, along with a healthy does of covering your ass for breaking UN trade embargoes. So again.. people are saying "uh.. WTF?" and all the French government is doing is basically thumbing their noses at us.

When you compare the actions of France, with the actions of Great Britain, you see a vastly different recollection and rememberance of what the USA has done for them in their time of need. What I find most telling of this tale is the fact that the British recognize and remember what we've done for them, IN SPITE of the fact that we separated, fought with, and beat them in our war of independance.

As for Germany? Fuck if I know what their problem is.. but I do know there has been resentment of US military forces in Germany for a long time now. Guess that's the price you pay for stepping on your dick twice in less than 50 years.

[Exitilus]

The French on the other hand, have a reputation for being rude to foreigners in general. In fact.. I was once told "The French don't hate Americans.. they hate everyone, including themselves" by a friend of mine who is in fact.. French.

Well, if he's from france, he probably has a step up on me in that respect - I've only spent a few summers there, visiting family and whatnot. I speak french with an accent and am obviously not a resident - yet I have never been shown any hostility whatsoever. From what I've heard, completely heresay, the french aren't too nice to americans in general, but are warm to many other groups. (or, atleast not cold to)


What reasons for anti-americanism do french have that you beleive that is not rooted in envy, greed and insecurity... Or do you truly think french think america has truly and willfully fucked things up or is just plain evil.(if so please give some examples) (that is a reason that would not be rooted in envy, greed or insecurity)?

The french are very proud of their history - as are americans - and the history of the two countries are rooted in very different events. France prides itself on being cool (in the calm sense), calculating, and I suppose a bit in its snobbery. The united states seems to pride itself in its freedoms and economic / military dominance. (the three areas are surely tied together) I do suppose there must be some remenants of envy, as europe is likely still reeling from no longer being the world's power-center, but am not sure that's as dominant as in generations past - those who actually witnesses more of the decline.


The sooner the respective countries realize that quite honestly neither gives 2 shits what the others think of them and moves on.. the better off we'll all be.

Agreed.


-Exit

[Eomer]

In the locked thread, I think it was Vin that posted them, there are two very good articles about the differences between the US and France and their cultures. Pretty good reading, if you haven't read them, they are worth a look.

[Tilea]

Exitilus, I guess from your posts that you're a french canadian? likely living in Quebec? Just to take this little quote from your post...

"US: We want to go to war, for X reasons.
France: We don't find your reasons convincing, we won't support your war.
US: Please?
France: No, we said that already.
US: Pretty please?
France: No!
US: You suck, you cheese eating surrender monkeys!"

Sounds vastly familiar to this :

Quebec government: We want to take a referendum to leave the country and form our own country!
Results: no.

Quebec government: Please? Let's try a second referendum!
Results: NO

Quebec government: Pretty please? how about a third referendum??
Results: HELL No and if you try it again the referendum goes nation wide!
Quebec government: Wahhh


And in response to saying France ows the US, or allies in general, nothing? Nothing? You know, WW2 may have been over 50 years ago, in a world much different than todays... but by saying that France owes the other allies nothing, is a HUGE disrespect to all the soldiers that did die. And it was you who was just preaching to not disrespect them. They may have died over 50 years ago, but they died for France. So yeah, they owe them something.

[Exitilus]

Nah, I actually live in ontario. And yeah, the connection between the two situations is funny, haha. I'm not "french-canadian" as it's generally understood - my mother is came from france in her early 20s, thus being where I got my citizenship from.


And in response to saying France ows the US, or allies in general, nothing? Nothing? You know, WW2 may have been over 50 years ago, in a world much different than todays... but by saying that France owes the other allies nothing, is a HUGE disrespect to all the soldiers that did die. And it was you who was just preaching to not disrespect them. They may have died over 50 years ago, but they died for France. So yeah, they owe them something.

But that's the thing - they didn't die for france, they died for europe. If anything, the germans are the people horribly in debt to the allies/united states. The french, british, and whomever else owe the united states thanks, but they surely don't owe them political favours that would go against the wishes of the general european populace. The united states fancies themselves the international bastion of democracy - that isn't too consistent with them pressuring international leaders to bow to the wishes of the AMERICAN public regardless of what their own citizens want.


-Exit

[Forty]

Ramblings of a low int shaman......

FDR was opposed to the war and was elected, in part, because of his stance not to involve the US with the European conflict. And the US would not have been directly involved in WWII at all had the Japanese not bombed Pearl Harbor. The US then declared war on Japan (but not Germany). Three days after Pearl Harbor the Germans declared war on the United States mainly because of the treaty between Japan and Germany (your enemy is my enemy type of thing).

ENGLAND and France tried diplomacy with Germany before WWII for sometime. It wasn't until Germany invaded Poland that England and France took military action (which basically amounted to France telling England to "Go get him"). Main reason for this was that England had a treaty with Poland that stated England would come to the aid of Poland if they were attacked.

Fast forward....

France is the one everyone picks on because they are the ones that are seen as leading the "No" vote side. Russia and China may be as vocal now but they are seen as following France's lead. The same way everyone points at the US rather than England or Spain.

The issue to re-start the conflict was more of an issue of timing more than anything else. Remember Reso 1441 was signed by EVERYONE and stated that they ALL thought Iraq currently has chemical and bio-weapons. France, Russia and China (and yes, Germany) had a resolution that would have supported military action AFTER giving the inspectors time to do their work (never went to vote). BUT, the timing of the military action would have be at the height of the summer. The Coailation forces wanted to go now, everyone else wanted to go later. France, Russia and China would NOT have sent troops that would have been on the front line so why would they care when the military action starts, right?

The United States felt that 16 (yes, SIXTEEN) resolutions over the last 12 years asking Iraq to disarm was a tad bit much. Especially seeing that Iraq ignored every single one of them.

People seem to have forgotten that we have all (including Russia, France, etc...) been at war for the last 12-years with Iraq. A cease-fire doesn't equal a Peace Treaty. Same goes for North Korea. We have a cease-fire, not a peace treaty there as well. So yes, the United States has been at war for the last 50-years (well, through the United Nations anyway).

Funny that when President Clinton sent troops in THREE times without asking for UN approval, no one seemed to care and the UN eventually sent troops for support (Bosnia, Kosovo and Somaliea(sp)). But this leads to....

Bush lost most of his support from the European allies long before 9/11. Pulling out of atleast FIVE treaties within the first month of office kinda pissed people off. That whole "kiss me before you fuck me" thing.

Of all the heads of states, I think I like Tony Blair the most. The man stood up for what he felt was the absolute most important and correct decision and never once faultered. I think that if he is that commited to this cause despite that kind of pressure, there has to be other things going on that he (and Bush) feel that they cannot reveal until after the conflict is over.

I can see and understand that there are a LOT of things we, the general public, will NEVER know and that the United States and England *may* have information that they cannot release to anyone because it could jeopordize future operations. (We have a guy on the inside and if we tell you everything we know then Saddam will know we have a guy on the inside since only 10 people in the world are suppose to know where they keep their weapons type of thing.)

While I am not a Bush fan (yes I'm from Texas and I'm still not fond of him), I do support going in NOW.

I really don't think Bush will win in 2004, so it'll be interesting to see what happens in Janurary 2005.

I have more but it's lunch time =)

[Tilea]

"Nah, I actually live in ontario. And yeah, the connection between the two situations is funny, haha. I'm not "french-canadian" as it's generally understood - my mother is came from france in her early 20s, thus being where I got my citizenship from."

Oh well. :( It was still a pretty funny joke though!

I'm not saying that France or anyone should just automatically go along with US and britain etc like puppets because of WW2, that's a very big stretch. But the opposite side of the coin, saying that none of it meant anything and that they owe them nothing, is also quite a stretch. And believe me, there's is NO government opposing the war I'm more disappointed in than my own. Canada will have to suffer the backlash from this mistake long after the freak is out of office.

Forty : very nice post, not bad for an old bear. ;)

I couldn't agree more with your opinion of Blair. He faced a public poll of over 50 percent of British opposing the war, and a revolt from his own party. Yet he stuck to his guns and did what he felt was proper. Oddly, all recent polls in Britain are now showing a major swing in opinion. Now more than 50 percent of people polled there support the war. The exact same thing goes for Austrailia, their government also had an above 50 percent opposed, who are now showing above 50 percent supporting.

[Exitilus]

If a democrat gets elected in 2004, things will likely be as good as ever between the two countries.


-Exit

[Elidroth]

Originally posted by Forty
Of all the heads of states, I think I like Tony Blair the most. The man stood up for what he felt was the absolute most important and correct decision and never once faultered. I think that if he is that commited to this cause despite that kind of pressure, there has to be other things going on that he (and Bush) feel that they cannot reveal until after the conflict is over.


Oh yeah.. Tony Blair is a man of conviction and I'm very impressed with him. He's given solid reasoning behind all his actions and decisions and had vigorous debate with parliament. In fact.. I'm very impressed with the British Parliament in this issue. They had heated debate going on until the action started and then said "OK.. time for debate is over.. We support our boys over there!"

[Buazag Bonesteel]

Funny that when President Clinton sent troops in THREE times without asking for UN approval, no one seemed to care and the UN eventually sent troops for support (Bosnia, Kosovo and Somaliea(sp)). But this leads to....

There's no oil involved in those places ;)



I feel a little bad about having poked a bit of fun at the french myself....however seeing as so many people are going back in time to WW2 and what France owes us maybe we should go a little further back and remember that if not for the French we would all likey be British citizens still. Awful lot of American towns named Lafayette...wonder who that's for =D. And American culture? Our culture is a conglomerate of all the cultures of the people who came here to found it in the first place. French, British, Spanish, African...etc. There's even a little Native American left :|

In a general sense I am for this war. The UN met and decided that certain rules needed to be followed for Saddam to remain in power. These conditions were not met and therefore action needs to be taken. That is the reason every country in the UN should have for supporting this war....not any old debts from the past real or imagined. I certainly dont feel France "owes" us anything for a war that happened almost 60 years ago that we didnt even get involved in until OUR interest were infringed upon. What they and every other country does owe is the moral fortitude to stand by their convictions. If conditions set by the UN are going to be allowed to go by the wayside then it certainly doesn't work the way it was intended. As Bush said(and I dont agree with much of the stuff he says or is told to say) and I am paraphrasing here...If we wait to act until our only recourse is a response that would be suicide. I couldn't agree more. On a personal note we as Americans have shown ourselves to be vulnerable to terrorist attack. Iraq doesn't have the military muscle to attack us in the open so that will definitely be the route that would be taken. On a general note, Saddam does have chemical and biological weapons. He has used chemical weapons against the Kurds. If we are to honor our obligations to the UN as all countries should then this is the same as an attack against us.

The biggest problem with enforcing UN regulations is that you have a room full of politicians with differing opinions. Recipe for a waste of time and very little accomplishment. Imagine if Hoss didn't have officers to make some semblance of a plan for nightly raids...how much would get done? =D

The difference is that not getting a raid planned is of no real consequence. In the Iraqui problem....people will die. As in all wars no matter how justified the reasons, innocent people die as a result of the power struggle amongst the leaders. There are a lot of Iraqui soldiers over there that are fighting the "evil americans" because that is what they are taught....kinda like we have people here talking about the French without any practical experience.

Debating differing opinions is all well and good...but people are people the world over. I guess I just hope that this war is over soon....Saddam is ousted...and not too many people have to die.


Will probobly come back and read this later and wonder wtf I was babbling on about :D

[Vinilaa]

Originally posted by Buazag Bonesteel
There's no oil involved in those places ;)


Actually that's not true. There was a disputed pipeline issue. I haven't had much time to research this or I'd post a link but I'm sure the information is out there.

But an otherwise great post Buaz ;) I'm not sure that I agree with all of it but I appreciate the thoughtful honesty that went into it.

[Vinilaa]

Originally posted by Buazag Bonesteel
There's even a little Native American left :|

Yeah, I'm still here contributing my 1/4 Chiricahua, 1/4 German, 1/4 Croatian, 1/4 English .02 to the culture. :p

[Lexoon]

Nevermind that France wanted nothing to do with getting rid of Saddam and wants everything to do with rebuilding Iraq after Saddam. Here's the kicker: France says Britain and the U.S. should not have a role -- it's up to the United Nations to decide.

So -- France offered not one soldier, not one plane, tank or ship, convoy or grenade. Not one missile. Not one drop of blood. Yet, France is going to decide the new Iraq?

Heh, I don't think so.

I don't know what amazes me more: How callous the French are, or how arrogant they are. People are still dying in Iraq and they are already tripping over their corpses to cash in on Iraq?

France couldn't lift a rifle to help us, but is more than willing to go for a few of their precious Euros to screw us?

We fight and die to free a people whose suffering you more than happily ignored. They saunter in to set up shop so that they can merrily profit?

France schemes to sell brie, after we've given blood?

France plots business storms, while our guys are choking in sandstorms?

France notifies the world they're ready to do deals, while we have servicemen in this country notifying families of killed soldiers they're ready to do funerals?

What the French lack in guts, they more than make up for in nerve.

France wouldn't help the Iraqi people when they needed rescuing, but is more than willing to dive in and take the money because maybe France needs rescuing.

The French are as morally bankrupt as I hope soon they will be financially bankrupt.

Pity the poor country that calls you a friend and realizes the hand it's holding, is only digging for spare change. It makes me sick.

[Maelikki]

Hummm well might be me but there is no huge anti-US movement in france.
At least i dont feel it nothing on tv or in medias telling us to boycott or kill any US peep we see in the street

I mean am not gonna hold a grudge toward 250M americans nor stop drinking coke just because their countries foreign policy is against the one from my country.

Am against war like most french are, france started to quiet down toward wars since ww1 thats pretty much the reason of hitler rising and ww2. French ppl didnt react because they didnt want to get involved in another conflict.

Am not a political expert nor even that good at history so wont try to go in details .

Something tho i find quite amusing is that people who were shocked by the atrocities of the NY attentats can support the bombing of cities cus in the end the result is the same
Innocent civilians die along with some tactical/political targets.
Remember the paranoia you guys faced after the attentats ? now try imagine what ppl in irak feel atm during the night a bomb can hit there house they can wake up with half of there families dead or not wake up at all.
There is no clean war, wars kill ppl whatever happens wars kill innocent ppl and therefor there are anti war movements.

The day wars will just kill soldiers and building they will prolly get more support as they are to some extent a radical but fast way to solve conflicts.

Am not anti-american
nor specially pro-french
Am just some normal human beeing intending to live in peace

PS : always nice to see a bunch of fine political experts with huge history and economy backgrounds discuss world key issues on eq gaming forums

[Eomer]

Yeah, I really like Tony Blair too. He is very well spoken and intelligent, yet he doesn't seem to dodge questions etc like other politicians do (or he is just better at it). I can't really put my finger on why, but I have a huge amount of respect for him. He deserves a ton of credit for having the balls to hop on the bull (the US) and trying to steer it's course towards a diplomatic solution. While that eventually failed, I respect him for trying.

[Exitilus]

Lexoon: I'm glad you're putting your PhD in political science to work with all that stilted sloganeering. Very biting commentary.

I see a little padlock in this thread's future.

-Exit

[Forty]

Maelikki,

Major difference is that the World Trade Center is not military based. Had the terrorists targeted just the Pentagon or military bases, while still shocking, you might not have seen it go as deep.

The United States military is NOT targeting civilian areas but, as in all wars, there will be some civilian deaths. Especially when the opposing force has such little regard for human life as to use women and children as human shields.

I would not be at all surprised to learn that most of the footage shown on Iraqi TV was either taken during the 80's with the war against Iran or that they actually targeted their own people for "photo op" reasons to try and sway public opinion.

If you think about it, you'll see that the US government has been pretty good at admitting it's mistakes in regard to errant missles, to a fault. And understand that while there might be injuries during the night, some of those will be because of where the Iraqi's placed the anti-aircraft weapons. Those bullets going UP are going to come DOWN.

In the end, I fear that it really won't matter. Saddam could nuke all of Iraq and the United States will get blamed for it. After all, had we not gone after him, he wouldn't have used it.....right?

[Forty]

I have a question for anyone outside of the US and/or North America....

The US media outlets will take the Armed Forces to task when they screw up, but can the same be said for other news outlets towards the Iraqi regime? Do the non-US news outlets question whether or not Iraq executed US PoW's and/or violate the Geneva Convention in any form or fashion? Or do they avoid it and/or deny that Iraq would do such a thing?

Do they question Iraq's use of human shields?

Do they simple take what the Iraqi Minister of Information says as fact?

The impression I get is that they are more than happy to show US screw-ups but treat the Iraqi's as if they can do no wrong. Just wondering how accurate that is from someone that can see news feeds from various other places.

[Maelikki]

Forty well of course there is a diff but the thing is in the end mistake or not innocent ppl die. In one case it was intended and thats why the whole community blames those acts in the other case its collateral damage and part of the war.

Am not blaming US for fighting for there beliefs somehow as i told some peeps my opinion is that the US i still a young country that havent faced the fact of beeing occupied by an ennemy military force and therefor are somehow fast at taking the weapons and go shoot around. They also prolly one of the only country atm who can decide to go and settle a problem on there own of course it pisses ppl off but its a strength i cant deny.

I mean whatever you think i feel USA is a heavy weaponed country like there is more weapons in US schools than in the french army (exagerating here but not sure am that far)

I dont hate anyone due to this war i do hold grudge on people going balistic on french peeps using reminders of ww2 to try bring some guilt feelings.

Would be like english ppl going mad at US and calling them tards for not helping em on "name a stupid conflict here" even if britain sent the mayflower there and therefor you owe them the whole country.

[Maelikki]

Forty> The only echoes am really getting from that war atm are basically all the allied forces screw ups.
And also the iraqi press stuff like we are gonna win and stuff

Of course we are not getting the geneva convention violation and whatever could make irak sound like a country we were meant to attack.

My guess is that that like in most countries the gov has some control on the press and they wont let too much stuff go out that will be against the position they taken

[Forty]

Then you might be interested to read:


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82339,00.html


While it might be a US news source it reflects what we see.


It use to be said that a woman and/or religion was behind all conflicts. Now I think it can be revised to read "news media" and religion are behind all conflicts.



/shrug

[Maelikki]

problem i have with press and medias atm is that since i cant get a grip of whats true fake partly true partly fake i dont really care.

There is no one clean of course there is no black nor white everyone is grey and saddam seems a lot darker than others

[Exitilus]

The canadian media seems a bit biased against what they see as a facade of righteousness on the part of the american government itself, but they've not denied that any of the things iraq has done (human shields, POW treatment, etc ..) as reported by the troops are fact. They report everything, with a bit of bias against the US, but far more bias against iraq, in that they ignore or mock anything their information minister says. (and rightfully so)


-Exit

[Quote]

Hey.. i only read the first page but the idea that Europeans always talk things over and the Americans are so quick to act has come up a myriad of times.

I have mixed opinions on this. I feel that the "American" way in which we act quickly seems to be more logical. Why would u want to allow someoen to amass a larger army while u "talk" about it. I do think that the US does give into the Europe opinion often times. For istnance, the 12 years that they tried to talk to Iraq.

I believe the europeans have this general attitutde beucase of the many wars that have been fought there. Europes history is littered with wars while america has a few here and there. Europeans, perhaps, are either sick of war or have realized that there is ALWAYS a better alternative. I think the problem with this is that other countries have not realized that. The US seems like it would be willing to alwyas goto talk and bypass war, but some of these dictatorships refuse and even exploit this kindness.

THis is why i support the removal of Saddam. The more countries we can get that support the use of diplomacy rather then military is a good thing!

Also.. i am NOT anti-french. I do think of them as weather friends, but i reguard them indifferent. If you ask any US administrator they will say that the French are with us on 90% of problems, its just on this one they are not.

The idea that the US had it "coming" is bullshit. I absolutley HATE it when people say this. Does the US deserve 2 planes crashing into our symbol of economic growth when we shovel out BILLIONS of dolars to developing countries or loan money konwing we will never get it back? Does the US deserve this travesty when it constantly sends aid when needed? I think the problme with the world is they take for granted the things the US, and other coutnries, do for them. If the US with drew all its international aid it would be widly noticed, but yet no oen seems to care about this. I have never been more perplexed by anything then this idea in my life.

Lenaldo
-just trying ot make clear some things

[Quote]

Forty, to your FOx post i have one comment. Although i am a conservative myself, Fox is, of all the american news companies, the most conservative. They are also the closest to the middle where as the others are generally quite liberal biased. So an article like that from Fox does not surprise me.


la~

[Torrid]

What I don't understand is, how can anyone justify NOT removing Saddam with what we know now? Are we supposed to let him murder tens of thousands of innocents? Unless my president is OUTRIGHT LYING to me, I just don't see why our actions are not the most appropriate course. Its such a no-brainer to me.

I havn't seen anything from the protesters to try and convince me that what we are doing is wrong. Dead civillians? How many would die if we DIDN'T take action? This morning the president went up and told the reporters of a story where they tied some dude to a stake in the middle of town, cut out his tongue, and let him bleed to death.

[Elidroth]

Here's another little tidbit to mull over.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82382,00.html

Still think we're wrong to go in and kick him out?

[Vinilaa]

The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions.
Plato, Dialogues, Phaedo

[Maelikki]

Of course foxnews will pull out nasteh stuff about irak what do you expect they gonna show you dead civilians and stuff ? no they will emphasize anything bad done by irak and hide US mistakes as much as they can.

And btw the point is not is it right to go in irak or not ?
Of course war is a solution to a conflict but was it the only one ?
thats basically the dif between europe and US atm to my feelings.

US had a working fast solution (war) and the only question they were asking themself is : is it legitimate ?
On the other side euros knew about the war solution but were asking emself : is there another way ?

[Torrid]

Heh, well we are starting to see the same questions and answers all over again. 12 years to disarm, didn't happen. How many sanctions? Saddam certainly doesn't appear to be the kind of guy to quit his bullshit after being asked nicely. We already had trade embargos. Inspections missed plants. How many civilians would die if we delayed further? I mean, seriously, look at the lunitics running the country on TV. Freaking telling their people how they are winning the war. If they gave a shit about thier people, they would be discussing terms of surrender to at least get more of thier way, instead fooling them to fight a battle they have no prayer of winning, just to make us look worse.

And no Vin, I don't expect this post to convince anyone :D

[Arcius]

Of course foxnews will pull out nasteh stuff about irak what do you expect they gonna show you dead civilians and stuff ? no they will emphasize anything bad done by irak and hide US mistakes as much as they can.

Actually, US news organizations have mentioned some of the civilian deaths and missles / bombs that miss their targets, American television just doesn't show the corpses of Americans or Iraqis.


Of course war is a solution to a conflict but was it the only one?

When France promises to VETO any resolution we put up for a vote in the UN? Effectively prevents us from even trying. And besides, after 10+ U.N. sanctions and hardly any cooperation until there were 200,000 troops sitting on Iraqi borders I doubt Saddam plans to say 'Okay, I give up. We lied - here are the TONS of VX, Anthrax, Mustard Gas, and miscellaneous others we didn't have!"

Plus, 1441 promises extreme consequences to result if all of the conditions within are not met. We didn't even HAVE to go back to the UN and propose a new resolution, but we that wasn't possible anyway because France doesn't like ultimatums! I'm sure Saddam would be disarming fully if there hadn't been a threat of force...

Just want to express my opinions, I don't expect to change anyone elses :p (Hi Vin the Philhossifier! =o)

[Cardinal]

... basically countries always act in what is perceived to be in their own best interests.

The claim that France came to the aid of the "Colonies" during the American Revolution out of their concern for moral, humanitarian or philosophical reasons is utterly and patently hogwash.

France helped the rebels in the America's purely to serve their own self interest. It was not so much as to "help" the americans as it was to HURT the British. In case people forget historical context, France had gotten thumped within recent memory during the French and Indian war vs. the British and colonists. The French and British were each trying to assert their own imperial interests in the "new world." There was no great love between the French Gov't and the colonials. There was a deep seated hatred for the British however. (The French would again battle the British during the Napoleonic war not all that much later.)

A further case in point took place during the American Civil war. During the early years of the war, the Confederacy was in constant contact with the european powers, France included, to garner support for their war effort. The French remained on the sidelines waiting for indication that the Confederacy had a chance at victory. They dangled hope of French involvement until it became evident that the confederacy was doomed (the British guilty of this as well...). Again, their course steered not by grand philosophical or moral compass, but by simple self interest.

Obviously, the US acted in WWII not to save France in particular, but to further the national security interests of the US. It does not lessen the fact that twice in the 20th century, France owed its very existance to those rude yankee pigs.

France today is only relevant because of their veto power within the UN. Even this is now rapidly fading in importance. The recent events in Iraq have greatly lessened the legitimacy and power of the UN. Essentially, France was called on their bluff to direct international policy toward Iraq. The net effect : France has forced the UN to become as marginalized as themselves.

France is a third rate military and economical power which is utterly and completely irrelevant in the geopolitical landscape. However, they are a proud people. The French, since that pompous fool DeGaule (or however you spell it...) , have made it policy to act as the foil to the US. From their withdrawl at one point from Nato, to their constant arming and commercial dealings with the likes of Libya, Iraq and the like, if it is within the power of the French government to be a thorn in Washington's side, you can bet they will make all effort to do so.

French policy to Iraq is guided by their own economical interests and their interest in seeing the influence of the US in the mid east held in check. Anyone who believes the French (feel free to insert "Germany" "Russia" "China" in there as well...) have a greater moral justification than this is woefully naive.

- Card

[Myztlee]

Originally posted by Cardinal
From their ... constant arming and commercial dealings with the likes of Libya, Iraq and the like...

I thought that was the USA's job.

[Eomer]

feel free to insert "Germany" "Russia" "China" in there as well..

Or "The United States", "The United Kingdom", "Spain", "Jordan", "Turkey", "Qatar", "Saudi Arabia", and virtually anyone else involved.

[Forty]

Or anyone NOT involved....

[Juneau]

When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.

He answered by saying that, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."

Just thought it was a good quote :)

[Vinilaa]

from You made monkey cry (http://youmademonkeycry.blogspot.com/)

This site cracks me up. But seriously, the writer is right about one thing, we need to question our sources and be critical of the information we're given by the media... any media.

"If you're looking for unbiased journalism, stop. Go watch some cartoons instead.

Surprisingly, this isn't about the war at all, as that would be far too obvious to warrant writing this. Although I could point out that a scant 12 hours ago Fox News reported their reporter (and the military that must have been tagging along with him) found an active chemical weapons factory in the middle of the desert (which, I believe, is where all of Iraq is located). Shocked to see that no one else was reporting this, it took a whole 12 hours to find out that no, it wasn't active, nor had it been active for quite a few years. Responsible journalism at its best."

[BrainlessTroll]

just use a laser guided bomb with an uranium, chemical and biologial warhead weapon terrorist proppeled on the white house!

[Jalynfane]

Go Go gadget grammar dude.

[Torrid]

If nothing in the media is true, then how do the hippies know whats going on there? :D

[Lilcix]

Fuck the hippies

[Vinilaa]

Originally posted by Torrid
If nothing in the media is true, then how do the hippies know whats going on there? :D

Well you might be surprised by this but there are other sources besides the media. ;) Also I didn't say it was all false, I merely said you need to question your sources and think critically about the information you are given. :p

And um there are no real hippies anymore :rolleyes: You'd think after 40+ years people would be able to make up a new term.

[Vinilaa]

Originally posted by Juneau
When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.

He answered by saying that, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."

Just thought it was a good quote :)

Hell when you've got a great company line you might as well milk it. :rolleyes:

[Torrid]

Vin, whatever you do, don't go to www.expectnothing.com :D

[Vinilaa]

hehe Tor ;)

[Lothbah]

I dont remember when Iraq blew up the World Trade Center. We seem to have no problem playing "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon" with Osama and Saddam to such an extent that we fail to see a difference (not that either is a good guy) between them.

Pic taken down, takes too long to load

[Twong]

My cats breath smells like catfood...

hi

:D

[Shik]

http://headbangdude.dynu.com/images/CNN.jpg

Why you all leave australians out~ we are representing the coalition too friends!!

These fucking protestors piss me off, if they love iraq, go fucking live there.

You guys should just leave iraq in a creator and save a few tomahawks for the protestors.

Shik
Australians Representing Since WW1!

[Buazag Bonesteel]

Refer to my sermon on humor in the "Truth in media" thread for this one ;)

Personally I might find this unfunny and slightly offensive....but someone must be getting a laugh out of it so more power to them.

[sendain]

WHO CARES WHO CARES

[Tarissa]

I'm sorry, but Sak and I got a huge guilty laugh out of that pic heh

[Elidroth]

Actually.. the Australian Commandos are doing a fantastic job in Iraq. This was even mentioned specifically by a few of the news reporters. The US troops were quite impressed with their training and action.

And I thought the picture was pretty funny too. When I first saw it.. I knew it was from Shik even before I read the poster's name.

[Tilea]

Australlians also contributed a lot to ww2 but don't get much credit for that either. Anyways, I think if people want to protest a war, do it before the war starts. Once the war does start, there are men and women over there with the badge of your country sewn onto their clothing, that are fighting and dying for you.

Whether or not you agree with it, at that point, it's time to shut the hell up. Especially the morons who lay down in streets, should just start running them over, I say.

PS: don't forget the Polish commandos that are over there too! :) Oh and those 31 Canadians who aren't allowed to fire their weapons until they're fired upon first.

[Ubar]

It's not like the french had helped the americans secure their freedom from the british

Just a small point, but didnt the french mainly help the US at the end of the revolutionary war when victory was already practically ensured? I do believe they didn't want to get involved at first because they were afraid we would loose, but once we started winning they jumped right on the boat. Just pointing it out....

[Gheltire]

France was covertly funneling money in via a trading company (name escapes me) for some time...they didn't officially "come on board" until the US won the Battle of Saratoga....it speaks more to the theory that Europeans were more interested in politics and deliberation, while the United States earned its cowboy reputation for quickly jumping on pirates, Mexico, and any other country that launched some form of attack at us...

Lafeyette was a great aid in winning the War for Independence, but IMO coming to save France and libertaing it to repay the French has always seemed really "for show". We also had the help of a German/French speaking Prussian by the name of von Steuben...and we didn't have too many issues walking into Germany...

Even if you do consider the liberation of France from Nazis a repayment for their aid in the late 18th century, it still doesn't account for the fact that the United States might not have become involved in the protection of French rights in Vietnam...were it not for the fact that NATO had just formed and we were kindof looking to make the organization work and went to the aid of France (who already had England onboard since 1945). Eisenhower's Domino Theory in 1954 did not come out until AFTER the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu....so if you believe American politics today are just geared towards swaying world opinion in our favor, you also have to believe that the Domino Theory was created for the same purpose...to sway world opinion (ie NATO/UN) to assist France

So in effect, the very thing that the French (and many other Europeans etc) accuse the US of being responsible for, the French did 1 generation ago....and brought us in as an Ally. Within 1 year, the US were actively training S Vietnamese troops...so our "cowboy" mentality served France once again...

I don't hold anything against the French, or any other country that doesn't agree with the United States foreign policy (I don't agree with a lot of it myself) But I do have a real problem with hypocrisy. The current leadership of France may be too young to feel they "owe" anything for WW2...but they surely were around during Vietnam, when the US backed the French in something that dragged out for nearly 2 decades....and it wasn't something even remotely altruistic...it was land and economic factors pure and simple...

I'd say any debt to France for the American Revolution has been overpaid...If you don't wanna go then fine, I can respect that viewpoint...but don't try and back the stance with the US's actions over there over the past 30 years. France's hands are just as dirty as the US's in the overall scheme of world politics...maybe yer just upset that Napoleon dropped the ball, or that great big wall didn't quite work out, or even with US asisstance you lost Vietnam...I don't know...but fair weather friends are soon forgotten as it were....think that's where at least some of our sentiments lie at any rate:)

[Gheltire]

and as for the British...those first ships were filled with landless men, indentured servants, religious refugees, and debtors...all formed under Charters which were either penal or commercial in nature....so basically the US is a bunch of ruffian capitalists at its base:)

It took less than 165 years (1620-1780ish) for the US to seperate itself from Britain...compared to 300+ for some countries in South America to free themselves from Spain....lesson? Don't send boatloads of people who want to make money and don't like the current system of govt to go form a facsimile of that govt 3000 miles away:)

As to the US being too young to ever have been invaded and know what it feels like to be occupied...I'd argue that Britain has lasted nearly a thousand years under the occupation of its only invader and has done pretty well for itself:) And we have been invaded (1812).

[Torrid]

Hah, our capital was invaded and BURNED TO THE GROUND

[Inizen]

US has been invaded plenty of times, just not in recent times...

[Myztlee]

Originally posted by Torrid
Hah, our capital was invaded and BURNED TO THE GROUND

In your lifetime? In the past 100 years?

[Torrid]

Yes, the British mop tops came in during the 60s, and brainwashed our women. My poor mom.

[Vinilaa]

It's amazing how 200+ years of history can be compressed into a post of less than a page...

The US war with Mexico was started by the US NOT Mexico (it started with a border dispute and the US was clearly in the wrong) and France (although they were in Viet Nam for the usual $ reasons: rubber and tin) pulled out of Viet Nam long before the US finally did. ;)

I guess my point is this, the US had its own reasons for entering WW2 and its own reasons for entering the Viet Nam conflict; to say either incident was "pay back" for France's help in the US War for Independence (which France had its own reasons for entering) is to grossly oversimplify the issues. Governments change, political ideologies change, and one particular administration is not necessarily analogous to a different administration even within the same nation or governmental entity.

[Shik]

I dont give a shit about the history, or enough to read all those long posts anyway but one thing i cant get over is these countries, france canada whatever, not supporting the US. If they(<--- other countries, not america) were getting invaded, who would they turn to first for help?

Its not a very fucking hard question...

As much as i like to get up on the anti-yank pony, who the fuck is probably the only reason your countries(<--- Other countries, not america) arent run by germans or gooks(<--- Please dont take offense, asian people)?

[Vinilaa]

The US has been invaded? :rolleyes:

[Arcius]

1814, Vinilaa. Washington was occupied and there was a failed attempt by the British to take Baltimore, which resulted in a treaty ending the War of 1812.

Edit: Nevermind! I think you were responding to Shik, whose post I did not read :|

[Eomer]

Shik, a pre-emptive strike on a country that is a debateable threat is a lot different than an invasion of Canada or France or whatever.

[Gheltire]

If that were true though, noone would be bringing up the US involvement in the Iran/Iraq war and saying "well it's your mess, you clean it up". If Bin Laden hated the US for occupying Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, why attack embassies during Clinton's administration? 11 years after the Gulf War ends, he then decides it would be a good time to attack during GB JR's administration...There is no blank slate just because an administration changes.

Why is the generational warfare and hatred aspect of this or any war expected, but when it is also supposed that there should be things like general gratitude it is cast aside?

I picked out some major events in US/France military relations to augment Ubar's point about wasn't France involved in the US War for Independence. And also to toss some light on another reason why America feels a little betrayed. In the long or short of it, the US has been there for France. What is the point of stating that the US may have come in on the side of France for whatever reasons, but it stayed longer? It sidesteps the fact that the United States came to France's aid, wheter it was a stupid reason or a good one. And my generation remembers it.

I don't see how condensing 200 years of our history into a post of less than a page regards to this argument, unless you'd rather I went into long detail about things totally irrelevant to this topic. I could however elaborate on the Mexican American War just so that barb doesn't go unanswered...

Texas achieved its independence from Mexico in 1836. It existed as a Republic for 9 years until Pres Tyler signs a reso to annex it. Mexico withdrew its diplomats (Almonte) to prepare for war. As of July 4th when Texas votes to join the United States, Mexico STILL had not recognized its independence...9 years later. In fact, General Santa Anna had just been ordered to sail into exile 3 months prior thanks to his handling of the Texas War for Independence...Yes the United States needed land (this was also the time the Oregon territory threatened war between US and Britain...and Polk himself in his diaries stated his aims to expand the US from coast to coast) But Specifically, the Mexican American War did not come about until 9 years AFTER Texas had decalred independence from Mexico.

Texas chose to join the Union...you may be able to argue that the US would have taken Texas by force, but the fact of the matter and history is that Texas asked to join the US for the benefits that a larger country could bring. Such as defending your borders from a turbulent neighbor to the south who starts building up troops. Even as late as October 1845, however, Mexico is still considering selling the land to United States, even though they had no rights to sell it since they had lost it a decade prior.

The war itself finally started in 1846 when Taylor moved troops into the noman's land between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande. Mexico responded by ordering its troops from Matamoros to cross the Rio Grande and engage, which they did, ambushing a scouting party.

So yes the Mexican American war was spurred by land, but not in the way you depict it. Texas had been independant of Mexico for the better part of a decade before the United States annexed it. After marching to Mexico City, the US pulled out and ended up with NM, AZ, CA. Had Mexico sold settling rights to the US of TX, or were not preparing for a forcible retake of TX in 1845, that war could possibly have been "diverted by diplomatic means". The US was actively trying to buy CA and NM before the war ever started, and I think it was the Gadsden purchase even after the war that paid Mexico some money for territory taken

At the time, not only the US was involved in "Manifest Destiny". Mexico had those same aspirations. In fact, Mexico has more of a history of taking land from its prior owners than the US does. The Aztecs conquered the Toltecs, Cortez conquered the Aztecs, Mexico freed itself of Spain, Texas freed itself of Mexico...the US came in on the end of a land swapping party that had been going on for over 300 years.

Now granted that's only really 10 years in a page:P but that's kinda what I was trying to avoid in my original posts...history tends to bore people until they get a nugget that works to their advantage in an argument..so I was attempting to address the question as broadly as possible so as not to make this discussion too long.

Fun topic tho:) Nice to read a lot of differing opinions.

[Vinilaa]

Originally posted by Arcius
1814, Vinilaa. Washington was occupied and there was a failed attempt by the British to take Baltimore, which resulted in a treaty ending the War of 1812.

Edit: Nevermind! I think you were responding to Shik, whose post I did not read :|

hehe Arc yeah I was :p

[Shik]

read my edits~
i dont understand ur posts maybe u misread me~

[Vinilaa]

Originally posted by Gheltire
I don't see how condensing 200 years of our history into a post of less than a page regards to this argument


My comment wasn't intended as a barb I was merely pointing out that historians have written 1000+ page books on a single incident and still discovered that they'd only scratched the surface. I also don't see how a random textbook explanation of "what happened" in any particular historical event amounts to a true indepth analysis of the actual events by a historical scholar... but that's not even really the point... history is and always has been flawed in certain respects, especially the history you find in most American text books. This point is moot.

As for the Mexican American war... [Edit] Texas, and now the United States, claimed the border at the Rio Grande River. Mexico claimed territory as far north as the Nueces River. The so-called "independence of Texas" is not the issue, in the US people supported the war because they were under the impression that Mexico had "invaded" the US... In reality this is not what happened. The American people were lied to, congress was lied to. The US invaded Mexico for no other reason than to grab land.

*These facts have been documented by historians and political scientists whose studies appear in respected scholarly journals.

[Shik]

http://www.axg.net/rebellion/kk/productoffrance.jpg

Export that shit~~

[Forty]

"The "so-called" independence of Texas"????

Ohhhh now ya dun it...those are fightin' words if ever I heard 'um!!!!!!!

[Gheltire]

if that were also completely true then why was the first engagement on the US side of the Rio Grande? And not the Mexican side?

The US built Ft Texas south of the Nueces specifically to prevent Mexican forces from entering Texas to reclaim it. The Mexican army ambushed a scout force still on the US side of the Rio Grande.

CA had actually already thrown off Mexican leadership as of 1846. When the US Navy arrived to take Monterey, it was actually the Bear Flag Republic (which was US settlers led by John Fremont).

Again, we were trying to buy this land prior, but considering that the US Army did not arrive until 1847 to "steal" it, and it had already freed itself from Mexico's control, how exactly did the US take it from Mexico?

It was ceded in 1848, but it had been lost in 1846.

Truth be told, the REAL reason for the annexation of TX was as much political as it was manifest destiny...TX was a slave state...it was needed to bring the House into some form of balance between free and slave states, so while the land was a factor, its population of slave holders was as big of one.

So scholars have ample room to argue about the validity of the US Mexican war...and yes you are right about the skewing of facts in American history books...which is why its good to read sources from both sides, as I have in many American/British and Mexican/Spanish topics concerning revolution.

A timeline may be simplistic, but it avoids things like claiming people were lied to (Polk and Herrera were both accused of this) and proposing to know the motives of men dead 150+ years, even once some of their journals and diaries have been found.

When two of the territories have already declared independence from one country and are annexed by another, in one case a decade later, the landgrabbing nature of the US has to be viewed in both lights...Texas stood alone for 9 years until the US moved in...CA for 1 year. If the US had moved in in 1836, after the Mexicans threw down the revolts at Alamo and Goliad, I would be more ready to say that the US was there soley to take land from Mexico...but the fact of the timeline is that it was 9 years later. So the independence is relevant since it is hard to steal something from Mexico that they did not own.

And we havent even gotten to the Mexican civil war, German backing of Pancho Villa's raids into NM, and the Zimmerman note which explained how Germany would be glad to split American territories with Mexico if they allied themselves against us in the early 1900s:) Or the fact that before invading Cuba to free it from Spain (the war that coined the phrase "you provide the pictures, I'll provide the war") the US even passed a reso that it in no way was invading Cuba to annex it, which it still has not...

so we do have a history of grabbing some land from neighbors whether they have solicited aid or not, but we also have a history of entering lands just long enough to free the populace, and head out...one gains emnity and envy from others, one gets you the Donkey's ass award for helping out in countries that seem to be ok with how it was before the US came to help...compare Grenada to Bosnia...we move in to save students and are lambasted, but find mass graves in Bosnia and everyone is so glad we're there to help...I don't really forsee either being a state anytime soon, however

So it's ok to kill and invade as long as it protects YOUR national rights and economic ventures? but when it's deemed soley ours it's wrong? I just don't see it that way...any smart person would want NOTHING to do with the politics of running a country thousands of miles away that has been involved in regional warfare for thousands or years...oil or no:)

We helped out France and Britain, didn't build any New Washingtons there, haven't controlled any towns for the past 50 years since WW2 (HK), but we're building an Empire...

[Gheltire]

and one of these days in one of these threads somewhere out on this damned internet....

I'll post something that is 2 sentences



It will happen...and my PMs will fill up with "are you ok?" emails;)

[Vinilaa]

Originally posted by Gheltire
if that were also completely true then why was the first engagement on the US side of the Rio Grande? And not the Mexican side? The US built Ft Texas south of the Nueces specifically to prevent Mexican forces from entering Texas to reclaim it. The Mexican army ambushed a scout force still on the US side of the Rio Grande.

I'm sorry my post reflects the border dispute inaccurately. I was rushing to a class, this is what I meant to type:

Texas, and now the United States, claimed the border at the Rio Grande River. Mexico claimed territory as far north as the Nueces River. Both nations sent troops to enforce the competing claims, and a tense standoff ensued. On April 25, 1846, a clash occurred between Mexican and American troops on soil claimed by both countries. The war had begun.

PREDECESSOR: The Texas War of Independence (1835-1836), Texas-Mexico Border Conflict (1837-1845?), U.S. Seizure of Monterey (1842)
CONCURRENT: The Bear Flag Revolt in California (1846), Apache War in New Mexico (1847), Taos Rebellion (1847)

April 25, 1846 President Polk sent troops under General Zachary Taylor to the region between the Rio Grande and Nueces Rivers. Texas believed that its southern boundary was represented by the Rio Grande River. The Mexicans, however, did not acknowledge this boundary and instead believed that it was the Nueces River. So, the Americans believed they were on Texan (soon to be American) soil, while the Mexicans believed that the Americans were on Mexican soil. When Mexican forces attacked the Americans in this region, Polk believed that Mexico "invaded our territory, and shed American blood upon the American soil." With this information in hand, Polk proceeded to ask the Congress for a declaration of war, which he received easily. However, according to Polk's diary and other sources, he planned to ask Congress for a declaration before word of the Mexican "attack" ever reached Washington. Refuting this "Mexico's Fault" theory even more is the fact that the government of Mexico at this time was in a period of chaos. Still, the attack proved an effective scapegoat for not only Polk, but many other pro-war politicians.

The Mexicans can not be totally blamed for this war. The attack that many patriots were so fond of using as justification for the war was simply an attempt by Mexico to defend land that it believed belonged to Mexico. Of course, Mexico could have responded in a more peaceful manner to the idea of Texas annexation. And Mexico could have responded better to American desires to purchase California and other areas of the Southwest.


We agree on this part: ;)

The Mexican-American War was the first major conflict driven by the idea of "Manifest Destiny;" the belief that America had a God-given right, or destiny, to expand the country's borders from 'sea to shining sea'. This belief would eventually cause a great deal of suffering for many Mexicans, Native Americans and United States citizens. Following the earlier Texas War of Independence from Mexico, tensions between the two largest independent nations on the North American continent grew as Texas eventually became a U.S. state. Disputes over the border lines sparked military confrontation, helped by the fact that President Polk eagerly sought a war in order to seize large tracts of land from Mexico.


Originally posted by Gheltire
So it's ok to kill and invade as long as it protects YOUR national rights and economic ventures?

I'm not sure how this applies to me exactly... When did I advocate killing? My national rights? Economic interest? I'm not sure what this means.

I'm an American born poet... I'm pretty sure most of us (poets I mean) don't have any national economic interests. :p I was born in Phoenix, AZ and as a native Southwesterner (who happens to be 1/4 Chiricahua Apache), I think I know a thing or two about the Mexican American war. ;)

FORTY LOL! I lub! I merely meant that Texas didn't become an "Independent Nation" (even though most Texans felt that was the way to go) instead it became part of the US. ;)

[Gheltire]

not a YOUR as in you just the rhetorical YOU:) Only bad thing about text debate:)


And believe it or not, Texas was a nation:)


For almost a decade Texas existed as a sovereign nation. It exchanged foreign ministers with other countries; it had a national army and navy (though neither was especially effective); it maintained a national currency (though, to be sure, the money was never worth much). When Texas joined the Union in 1845, it did so as a nation and thus demanded rights not accorded to mere territories. By order of Joint Resolution of the U.S. Congress, Texas retained possession of its public lands. So large was the landmass of Texas, the same resolution allowed Texas to divide into as many a five states. In 1850 Texans did, in fact, sell a portion part their western holdings to pay off the debt incurred during the Republic period. Since then, however, they have been reluctant to part with even so much as an inch of their sacred soil - the resolution notwithstanding. Texas nationalism has proved stronger that political expediency.

texian historical link (http://www.texianlegacy.com/march2.html)

Kindof an interesting read, although it appears to be a speech:) Don't think I would have made it very far into this one;)

Grew up in TX, History degree from UT, so I also have some vested interest in knowing the history of this state:)

[Vinilaa]

I agree that there was a distinct push toward real independence (which would have been interesting!) but there were political forces in place from the beginning that pretty much ensured that Texas was going to join the Union once they declared independence. ;)

[edit] I agree Forty ;) The nine year experiment is an interesting one. All I'm saying is that there were just too many resources (natural and political) that Texas had to offer the Union. The US had its eye on Texas from the beginning, there was no way that Texas wasn't going to become a part of the US.

[Forty]

I'm sure there were those that felt it should have become a state right away, but you can't ignore the French Embassy that graces Austin or the fact that we had elected Presidents. Or the fact that it took almost ten years for Texas to become a state. Had the direct intention been to become a state at all, I don't think they would have gone through all that trouble.

[Ktul]

Nice back pedalling

[Eomer]

Bah, would a moderator ban and remove any posts by Lost? These pop ups seem to be related to him.

[lost]

??

[Lola]

He had some no-no stuff in his sig which has been removed. If he puts it back, he shall be removed.

[Scor]

Originally posted by waright


Off topic (kinda) there was a movie where college kids invited a stranger into there house to poison him and the ethical issue of “if you met Hitler in the 20’s would you kill him” came up… anyone remember the name of that movie?



"The Last Supper"

I think this is the one you are referring to.