France sucks!!!

DOWN WITH THE FRENCH!!!! JOIN THE FRENCH BOYCOTT!!!
It seems like everytime another country needs help, the U.S. bails them out, but when the U.S. needs back-up nobody is there.....
Maybe it is just me, but I think the U.S. should pull our troops out of every other country we are babysitting. Correct me if im wrong.

[Racing Rice]

I dont think they should pull them out of every country.. US has always helped, I think they just need to kick the Frenchies in the butt!

[Wren57]

Yeah... lets invade France weehee! jk, I know thats not the answer but Im feeling too lazy to be serious

[ebpda9]

yup frech suck. they are against the war cause they helped iraq with nuclear stuff. we'll leave it at that

[ChrisCantSkate]

i thought france said they wouldnt help unless there was proof of nuclear threat.... the words are being twisted by the time the news gets it

[Accord Man]

Originally posted by ChrisCantSkate
i thought france said they wouldnt help unless there was proof of nuclear threat.... the words are being twisted by the time the news gets it

Exactly!!


Its the US thats going loony on this one.. Bush doesnt even want to wait for Inspection reports..

[Racing Rice]

Ive heard France supplies weapons and such to Iraq, I dont know how true it is.. But I wouldnt doubt it.

France doesn't suck.

The French, on the other hand, do. Nobody likes the French, including the French.

But really, does the US need help? YES it does, we need a President who doesn't believe in cruscades rather than military assistance. Whether Saddam should be ousted by anybody at any time is a moot point because now is not the time anybody should be ousting him. There are bigger problems at home and abroad than trying to raid a country just to show Daddy and Jeb who's got the biggest balls in the family.

b

Originally posted by pureVTECfun
DOWN WITH THE FRENCH!!!! JOIN THE FRENCH BOYCOTT!!!
It seems like everytime another country needs help, the U.S. bails them out, but when the U.S. needs back-up nobody is there.....
Maybe it is just me, but I think the U.S. should pull our troops out of every other country we are babysitting. Correct me if im wrong.

George washington said that world affairs would be the downfall of America - dont ask me how i know this ( i just payed attention to the news one time )

I say we pull our troops out, there is no reason for
Americans to be shipped all over the globe to "keep peace" that is a waste of tax dollars and life. How would you like to be stationed in Boznia for 5 years? (i dont think Boznia has much of an import scene lol).

[ChrisCantSkate]

Bombing in the name of peace is like having sex in the name of virginity


from a 3rd peron point of view, not using any names.. lets look at the situation..

country 1 is bigger and more powerful than country 2, country 1 has a army that can defend its self, and invade any country it seems fit to. counrty 2 dosnt like conrty 1 because country 1 wants to regulate its business. country 2 is but hasnt done anything yet to country 1. country 1 is scared of being attacked because random group X who dosnt support country 2 attacked country 1 a while ago. since country 2 is in the same vicinity of group X and since both religious and ethnic backgrounds are different than country 1, country 1's ignorant people think they are the same. country 1 wants to invade country 2 before it attacks them. however counrty 1 thinks country 2 has stuff that cant be proven. country 3 has very powerful capabilities, but for some reason, country 1 isnt as conserned with them as a threat.

honestly, i support the UN. if there can be PROOF that iraq is planning an attack on anyone, then i feel thats a just reason to invade. if not.... may god have mercy on those in power

[armyguy5]

france isn't the only one supplying weapons...how do u think they (iraq) have stinger missles( i work w/ the stinger)....so i guess we would be guilty too

chris

[GT40FIED]

Yeah...the French suck ass...always have. But we suck too for allowing our foreign policy to get so totally out of control that we even need to talk to France for any reason other than tips on good wine. The French are pussies and we are bullies...so perhaps we should find a happy medium. Perhaps that medium lies in finding a president that doesn't have an obvious vendetta. I don't even see why he went to the U.N. other than to make it look like we're morally justified in carrying out a war that will happen with or without their approval. I'll bet everyone who's voting against action are just doing it to piss him off since he's disrespected the entire process of the U.N. by saying we'll go alone if need be thus making their coalition meaningless. As for boycotting France...what the hell good would that do? Not like we get tons of stuff from them anyway. Maybe some alcohol, some clothes...maybe weird cheeses. And yes, we should pull out of all of those countries. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. We're not their army...our primary objective is to protect our own country, not theirs. I'm by no means against war for a justified purpose but I can't reiderate enough that in no way shape or form does Saddam present a direct threat to us. His missles have a max range of under 1000 miles. If that puts another country in jeopardy, let them deal with it. Not our problem. Now that may seem a bit harsh...what with an election coming up next year with the president wanting to apease as many of the confused and apathetic masses as he can, but the primary job of any government is inherently to protect it's own people and I don't see that happening. We're apparently at "high alert", whatever the fu(k that means, but I don't see them telling us what to do or what to look for. All the vague transparent threats have jaded us to the point of not caring. So, in closing, yes...fu(k France, but we're not much better, if any.

P.S. Best French joke I've heard so far: How many gears does a French tank have? 6. Five reverse and one forward in case they get attacked from behind.

P.P.S. Hey Armyguy...what's it take to get ahold of one of those Stingers or another type of SAM? I really hate the guy who flies the news chopper around here.

Throughout history France's foreign policy has been based on one idea and only one idea REVENGE

IMO French hate americans, iv been to france and i hate french back. They hate us, so they dont want to support us. but hey, its only my opinion.

[GT40FIED]

Yeah...and all that after we bailed their asses out when the Nazis invaded them. Maybe we should've let Hitler have his way with those French bitches.

[Racing Rice]

Originally posted by armyguy5
france isn't the only one supplying weapons...how do u think they (iraq) have stinger missles( i work w/ the stinger)....so i guess we would be guilty too

chris

Lets bomb ourselves to then!

[GT40FIED]

Originally posted by Racing Rice
Lets bomb ourselves to then!

Why not...we sure as shit deserve it. But if we do bomb ourselves, can I recommend we start with Kenny Loggins?

We did bomb ourselves. 9/11 didn't happen with lack of action on our part. In fact it was in response to US actions in the past. No matter how much people want to claim terrorists are just evil American haters, they only hate us because we gave them reason to. Bless the people who died and had no real control over any of the past or present actions.

GT40FIED: Stationing our military in other countries does have an influence upon protecting the people of this country. You cannot completely protect your country through isolationism. It worked many years ago but we live in a global time now, everybody has some influence on everybody else. The only way to fully protect your people is to have some kind of dilluted investment in the global arena. I'm not saying that stationing our forces around the globe is the best solution, but it isn't necessarily the worst either. The success really depends on a wide variety of factors, but we will probably never know how many problems have been avoided by our forces being stationed throughout the globe. Foreign aid is actually one of the more prominent influences that can be a strong part of a good offense, the only problem is that the US government doesn't know how to do anything right when it comes to aid or "good things." That's what happens when you throw politics into everything, even aid isn't very helpful anymore.

I just laugh and want to cry every time I see Bush get up and make some claim about how great democracy is. Most recently he made references to the global war protests claiming that they wouldn't influence him at all by saying that the greatest thing about a democracy is that people can say what they want, but he "respectfully disagrees" with their opinion. Basically what he's saying is that he's got the power whether the PEOPLE want him to use it or not, very democratic of you Mr. Bush.

The UN is a democratic organization that, once again, Mr. Bush has decided to ignore and claim he'll go it alone if he must. That's like Congress claiming that they'll hold a symbollic vote for a matter of "taking a poll" but will pass the resolution whether ANYBODY votes for it or not. That's democracy people.

We don't live in a democracy anymore, we live in a corporatocracy.

Unfortunately the PEOPLE of the US will pay the price for the ill deeds of the FEW who have the power. The people of the US never supported helping Noriega, or bin Laden, or Saddam, it was the few in power in the government who made the decisions for us. And where are we now? They are the very enemies we trained and funded. Next up, Pakistan.

I give it a maximum of 10 years and we'll be fighting with Pakistan in some significant manner (not saying military, necessarily). They're using the current US backing as a shelter for their activities. As if Pakistan is void of large numbers of terrorists. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them were state sponsored.

Blowback.

b

Originally posted by Racing Rice
I dont think they should pull them out of every country.. US has always helped, I think they just need to kick the Frenchies in the butt!

Amen. :P

[GT40FIED]

Spooge: Actually I completely agree. I guess I kind of made myself unclear. Allow me to wax intellectual for a moment and clarify. I'm not saying it's a bad idea to station our troops abroad. We have interests in seeing many other countries prosper and there's nothing wrong with protecting our interests, however self-serving they are. What I think is that it's a poor idea to be the ONLY protective force is said country or at least the basic backbone that protects it better than it's own militia/military force. Problem with that is that once we leave that country for one reason or another suddenly we've abandoned them and they hate us. Just look at Afghanistan. If we hadn't gone in and heavily armed the "freedom fighters" and helped them beat out the Soviets then It would have been viewed as a communist victory. The situation that occured there was that, after all that help and the Afghanis win the war, we took off leaving not only a destroyed country but a power vacuum. We cared just enough to kick Russian ass but not enough to stick around and clean up. Now they hate us. Sorry for not clarifying earlier.

As for us bombing ourselves...I agree but not for the same reasons. I'm not big into conspiracy theories, so I'll let the good folks at Alternet do the talking. Basically, if you read down to #9 then you'll see the government has actually planned to attack American interests to get the public behind a war effort. No, I'm not saying that this was an orchestrated event by the American Govt., but they certainly had previous knowledge of the imminent threat and seemingly chose to do nothing. I'm not going to speculate...like I said, I'm not big on conspiracy theories but it is a bit hard to ignore. If anyone here is familiar with the statute for criminally negligent homicide, you'll catch my drift.

Ok, that's a little different than what I first thought you were saying, but it is more clear now.

It is definitely a bad idea to allow or force another country to be dependent upon you. In a situation like that you're damned if you do damned if you don't.

The US has a nasty history of helping one enemy merely to get at another, it's a basic principle of offset risk. The government actually uses the offset risk principle in many of its dealings. For appropriations and planning they never spend the money to do things right up front, it's always based upon "save a buck today and hope you're rich enough to pay to fix it tomorrow." It always costs more in the end to do it wrong first, but when you've only got a buck and you're hungry, you just might be willing to go to Toxic Hell and worry about being sick later.

Government pisses me off.

I'm not a huge fan of most conspiracy theories either, but there are a lot of "conspiracy theories" that are actually fact that someone lacks the evidence to convince everybody. Perhaps this is one? Sounds a lot like the whole Pearl Harbor thing....

Bush is a conspiracy theorist. He has yet to produce any good hard evidence that Saddam has WMD or any other concrete illicit weapons program yet he likes to flaunt the "facts" all day long. I couldn't believe it when I read the news article about a British intelligence dossier that went on and on about Saddam's illegal programs and the vast majority of it was copied, verbatim, from old academic papers, some of which date back to the late '80s. And it was all presented as "new evidence" until after their bluff was called. Oh but of course it's aaaaaalllll still relevant. I currently trust Bush to tell me the truth about as much as I trust Saddam.

Ok so now I'm just babbling....off to do some shopping.

b

[GT40FIED]

Conspiracy theories can be fun until they get crazy. They all start with a nugget of truth but usually spiral wildly out of hand. If you want some truely great ones, check out "Them" by Jon Ronson. I garauntee you'll laugh you're ass off. Funny you mention Pearl Harbor...it's the exact same thing. U.S. intelligence had prior knowledge of a Japanese attack but did nothing. Sure, it could have been a series of mistakes, but who here thinks we would have had such enourmous support for a U.S. effort in WWII without that threat and feeling of fear?

And as for France, I cannot even begin to state how much they suck. On the news the other day their prime minister Jacques whatever told the eastern European/Baltic states that backed up the U.S. something to the effect that they "missed a good opportunity to keep their mouths shut". Good lord does this guy have some brass ones. He must have a specially fitted suit in which to carry these large testicles. The fact that France of all people would tell someone else to keep quiet is beyond me. If the entire world consisted of the United States, France would be the equivalent of New Jersey. Sorry if anyone's from Jersey, but if you are you know what I'm saying. Everyone hates New Jersey except for the people who live there and they're the butt of everyone's jokes. So France, I salute you with one finger (and both hands). Too bad you're in the middle of a continent meaning we can't bomb you into the ocean...at least not easily.

[ShEaNy]

lol i dont even understand y the hell Bush turned to Iraq in the first place....IT was Afganistan(SP?) (Bin Laden) that was his damn concern (sept 11)...Saddam didnt want anything to do with it....Bush just used the Terrorism BS to turn on Saddam for the Damn Oil/Gas there...thats all its about..money in the end....P.S. Did Bush even GET Bin Laden himself yet??? meh what do i know....im in cold canada...

[ShEaNy]

lol...sorry i forgot to say WHO cares about THe French..ya thats about it Lol..