instead of *****ing about the French, thank them

[BeBro]

Do what I want!

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Spiffor

The culture is extremely important to the nation, but the nation fails to make it important to the (young) people. Henceforth it has to protect it.

Besides, these laws have been extremely efficient, as they are the direct cause of the renewed French music. French music has never been as good as today, simply because broadcasters have no other choice than to give it a go, and to notice it is quality and profitable

Nationalist!!!

[cinch]

to the FFL. The French make good allies.

Sidenote: If America is looking to stick its nose into other nations' internal affairs, Liberia would be a better place to do it than, say, Iran. The justification for Liberia is much better: to clean up one's own mess.

[monolith94]

For a real lesson in French cowardice, check out the movie "Paths Of Glory".

[Spiffor]

...Or watch the Civ3 game I have just finished as the Spanish. The French have always been a pleasant buffer between me and the Celts, and they always stopped Celt agression, while allowing my own (gotta love taking Paris and half of France in early game to make France a willingful toy for the rest of the game I rewarded them eventually )

[Q Classic]

if you hate france for their language laws, why don't you hate the icelandics? or the germans (goethe institut)?

granted, i myself think it's kinda silly, but since i don't think it hurts anyone else, i don't see what the problem is.

[laurentius]

The french are mostly ok, but I often get the feeling that they think the EU as their little empire with germans. Chirac's a corrupted criminal(along with italys berlusconi), Giscard d'estaign is an old goat, trying to get his name to historybooks.

The french ain't perfect, but they are way better than Americans, after all they are "our" french.
Its just that they should respect more the smaller nations in EU .
Ugh

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by Sava
Certainly the millions that protested the war didn't care much about business interests.

Of course. The French protestors are the same kind of sheep as the Americans who buy their gov'ts propaganda. Not exactly admirable. And what were they protesting exactly? The overthrow of a brutal dictatorship? What humanistic reasons were there other than knee jerk "America = bad"?

Leadership elements in France certainly opposed the war for different reasons, that doesn't give anti-french morons an all-purpose excuse for hating the entire French people

And except for one or two rednecks, I doubt you'll find any real Americans who are so ignorant as to hate an entire people. This is just another strawman.

If the US is concerned about stopping brutal regimes, how come we aren't doing jacksh1t in Africa?

Well, #1 we really don't care what's going on in Africa and #2 practicality demands that we not enter EVERY war so we pick the ones that coincide with our interests. And #3 there's still the VietNam thing to consider: it ain't our business so let's stay out of it if we can.

And if this is about freedom and oppression, why is Saudi Arabia our "friend"?

I wouldn't say "friend". More like the relationship a junkie has with his drug dealer.

circular logic... we need to get Saddam because he supports terrorist elements, but we helped Saddam in order to fight terrorist elements

When "terrorists" take over the gov't, it's called a revolution. We still revere the colonial "terrorists" of 1775 who ambushed the British from behind trees instead of standing out in an open field in front of superior fire power. The point is, guerillas who win often give up their guerilla ways. Saddam taking over the gov't didn't have to mean he'd become a megalomaniac.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Liberia was never officially an American colony but it was funded by a group of racist white guys who thought slavery should end and all the blacks should be sent back to Africa. Other then insuring that no European country took over Liberia the US government just sort of ignored them.

I never said it was an official American colony.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by gunkulator
Of course. The French protestors are the same kind of sheep as the Americans who buy their gov'ts propaganda. Not exactly admirable. And what were they protesting exactly? The overthrow of a brutal dictatorship? What humanistic reasons were there other than knee jerk "America = bad"?

"War, death and destruction = bad"
Haven't you figured that the opposition to death and destruction was the main reason explaining why the war was opposed ? Sure, a latent anti-americanism worldwide put the spotlight on Gulf War 2, and explains why this war was much more protested than, say, Chechnya, but you won't have much trouble finding people who oppose the Chechnya war worldwide. Anti-Russianism ? No, anti-death-and-destruction.

And except for one or two rednecks, I doubt you'll find any real Americans who are so ignorant as to hate an entire people. This is just another strawman.

We have way too many rednecks on this very forum then.

[Defiant]

Sava,
It is very hard pressed to see any warcrimes against Israel, they have only been attacked 3 times by allied Arab countries just for their extinction, nothing more. I don't like see any innocent civilians killed anymore than anybody else but when you have Palestinian terrorists hiding behind innocent women and children while firing their weapons at Israelis, I would no problem either in taking out the entire group to get that damn f*****. The terrorists are the ones putting the civilians in danger and the result are horrific but predictable. So trying to justify warcrimes on incidents likes these is flat out stupid but the world community will try. There are 6 million Arabs living in France, don't you think they voice to French leaders to try and bring war crimes against Israel, ggggeeee I wonder. So of course the US will veto any kind of measure and so will UK probably.
I am not saying that each incident shouldn't be looked at, but it has to be impartial and good luck trying to find that.
So what we are doing is sticking up for an allie and when Sharon does something like trying to take out the Hammas leader, like yesterday, and misses but hurts innocents Bush needs to very strongly suggest to him, cut that **** out or do it where you don't cause massive collateral damage, if you can. I don't pretend to know covert ops but the Israelis are supposed to be very good at it, why not take an agent and surgically remove the Hammas leader, not firing 7 missiles at him in a public street, that question should be answered. This is the big world of politics and not everything seems to be what it looks like.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Defiant
There are 6 million Arabs living in France

I am curious to know where you did find these figures. I don't argue with them, it's just that I have no idea about how many Arabs we have here, and I'd like to get a reliable figure for it. Same for Jews btw.

don't you think they voice to French leaders to try and bring war crimes against Israel, ggggeeee I wonder.

Of course, our Arabs -who most often belong to the lower classes that are so disenchanted with politics that they rarely vote- pull the strings of French politics.
Obviously, our Jews -the most important jewish community in Europe, who most often belong to integrated middle and upper classes- only shut up...
Well, no. The relative weight of both groups is balanced, with a slight advantage for the Arabs (in the media). France's policy towards Israel aren't hostile, even though they are often know-it-all like always.

[Defiant]

Spiffor,
I was watching CNN on the subject about 6 months ago and the number came up, the issue was why is France so Anti-Jewish. I will try to find a source. The show did say that the Arabs were of a lower hierarchy, for lack of a better term.

[Defiant]

http://rasa.iht.com/articles/92727.html

Here you go, it doesn't give the hard number, but says they are about 7% of your population, what is the population of France now?

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by Spiffor
"War, death and destruction = bad"
Haven't you figured that the opposition to death and destruction was the main reason explaining why the war was opposed ?

Saddam = War, death and destruction. Even before GW1, Saddam = death and destruction. Noone should be mourning the overthrow of his regime. If you insist that war = always bad then you basically are saying you are OK with slavery, dictatorship and genocide.

Sure, a latent anti-americanism worldwide put the spotlight on Gulf War 2, and explains why this war was much more protested than, say, Chechnya, but you won't have much trouble finding people who oppose the Chechnya war worldwide. Anti-Russianism ? No, anti-death-and-destruction.

Comparing Russia and Iraq is apples and oranges. You have one country struggling with new freedoms and democracy while the other is nothing but a brutal dictatorship. You have to cut the Russians some slack since they're still figuring out the rules. Saddam otoh makes no secret of his oppression of his people.

The thing that is very frustrating as an American is that we are d@mned no matter how we act. When we supported dictatorships during the cold war, we were dumped on for being so short sighted in protecting our interests. But when France does the very same thing and we call them out year and year and then finally step in to rid of the world of a cruel and evil man - well, that apparently is bad too.

[mrmitchell]

Guys, if France was protecting its interests, so whut? Are they just supposed to sit by and watch their finances go to hell?

(Also, whut makes it so different when the US protects its interests?)

Gunk

Saddam = War, death and destruction.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Also, the war was supposed to be about WoMD, not freeing anyone, right?

Comparing Russia and Iraq is apples and oranges

I thought he was comparing Russia and America, as in: Russia is to Chechnya as America is to Iraq.

The thing that is very frustrating as an American is that we are d@mned no matter how we act. When we supported dictatorships during the cold war, we were dumped on for being so short sighted in protecting our interests. But when France does the very same thing and we call them out year and year and then finally step in to rid of the world of a cruel and evil man - well, that apparently is bad too.

Is this all? We're the biggest nation. Our sphere of influence is greater than all the others and it's only natural we are going to come under more criticism.

Well, #1 we really don't care what's going on in Africa and #2 practicality demands that we not enter EVERY war so we pick the ones that coincide with our interests. And #3 there's still the VietNam thing to consider: it ain't our business so let's stay out of it if we can.

Like I said, we're protecting our interests, it's only fair we let France protect its interests too.

And except for one or two rednecks, I doubt you'll find any real Americans who are so ignorant as to hate an entire people.

You must live such a nice life around your intellectual, ideologically similiar friends. Lemme tell you whut: "real Americans" either don't care or eat three squares of Media a day. People like Sava and you, people intelligent enough to make discussion about topics on a higher scale than sports or movies, are a lot harder to come by than you think.

[Defiant]

Mitchell,
You are missing one thing, what about the relationship between France, our supposed longest allie, as a French interest, wouldn't catagorize that as very important to some oil interest from Iraq that they would have gotton anyway from the United States??

What about in the 80's when we wanted to fly across France on our way to Libya and they said no. What intest was benefitted from that.

Also, don't forget the 11 billion dollar trade advantage France has right now against us.

You must weight the so called national interests and France is falling way short to the United States, our longest standing allie.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Guys, if France was protecting its interests, so whut? Are they just supposed to sit by and watch their finances go to hell?

(Also, whut makes it so different when the US protects its interests?)

Who said it was right?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

CounterPithySaying: All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Also, the war was supposed to be about WoMD, not freeing anyone, right?

Who cares what the motives really were? If in the end, an evil madman is stopped, then this is a good thing and should be recognized as such. What sticks in the throat of so many people is that the Americans did something good - not for altruistic reasons, surely, but overall a better thing for the Iraqi people and the world.

We're the biggest nation. Our sphere of influence is greater than all the others and it's only natural we are going to come under more criticism.

Yes, yes. But if France criticizes the US for doing X and then turns around later and does precisely the same kind of X, then I cry foul. At the very least they must expect the same criticism that they once dished out.

Like I said, we're protecting our interests, it's only fair we let France protect its interests too.

I don't buy the premise so I can't accept the conclusion. In any case, French and US interests clashed in this instance. Since Iraq is not in either the French of American sphere of influence, there's no clear "hands off" situation. Lacking such, the US action is better from a humanistic pov.

You must live such a nice life around your intellectual, ideologically similiar friends.

I'm just saying most people don't give a two farts about the French one way or the other. I don't know anyone who eats "freedom fries" or "freedom toast".

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Defiant
http://rasa.iht.com/articles/92727.html

Here you go, it doesn't give the hard number, but says they are about 7% of your population, what is the population of France now?

60 millions
hence, 4.2 millions Arabs. Thanks fr the link. The article is pretty good, and even if it's exaggerated (Marseilles is the most extreme case of France, by far), the trends depicted are very true.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by gunkulator
Saddam = War, death and destruction. Even before GW1, Saddam = death and destruction. Noone should be mourning the overthrow of his regime. If you insist that war = always bad then you basically are saying you are OK with slavery, dictatorship and genocide.

Saddam = death and torture, but the ones directly responsible for the war are those who decided it in Washington. Besides, for the French public, war would have brought much more death and destruction than Saddam could.

Comparing Russia and Iraq is apples and oranges. You have one country struggling with new freedoms and democracy while the other is nothing but a brutal dictatorship.

I am comparing Russia with the US. Both wage wars which aren't appreciated by the public opinion worldwide. Strangely enough, both wars are highly supported by the domestic population.

The thing that is very frustrating as an American is that we are d@mned no matter how we act.

This may be true, but you'll notice that:
1. For some reason, you were much les damned when PR boss Clinton was in power.
2. Having the spotlight can be a good thing PR-wise too. Had Sept. 11 happened in Reykjavik (or hell, even in Paris), the international reaction would have been much, much less intense and sympathetic.

When we supported dictatorships during the cold war, we were dumped on for being so short sighted in protecting our interests. But when France does the very same thing and we call them out year and year and then finally step in to rid of the world of a cruel and evil man - well, that apparently is bad too.

Of course, Chirac didn't go to the TV saying : "We protect Saddam because he is a good client, no matter how ruthless his regime is". He tried to get the moral high ground by "defending the peace". Bush tried to get the moral high ground by "liberating the Iraqis". Both excuses were of course not the real reason behind the two countrie's behaviours, but were needed to foster the population in the favourable way.