Peace between France and the USA

[Stefanel1]

Now that we know that there were no Massive Destruction Weapons in Irak, how can this war be justified ? We can speak about the caught of Saddam Hussein but that's not enough I think. Democracy ? the current situation is not better today. What else ?

I wrote this mail to remember to some Americans who have been very angry about French (there has been anti-French actions) that Bush's government and also Blair's were maybe wrong.
Isn't it the time of reconciliation between France (Jacques Chirac was maybe too sure of himself) and the USA (Bush was not right) ?

Since the Irakis war and the anti French manifestations, anti American sentiment has also increased in France. That's a pity for two friends countries. The French Kingdom helped the USA for the Independance (1776) and the USA helped France for the Libération in 1944 (D Day 6/6/44).

.... well, the idea is there ! I'm tired and my English is poorer than usually !
Regards,
Michaël de Villebois Mareuil

[2strokebloke]

The anti french people need to get a life. They're mad because they know Bush made the wrong choice, but they can't bear the thought that our own leader could be so inept, and so they have to let out their frustration on somebody else, and defend a terribly useless war that was a complete waste of their tax money.

[Stefanel1]

For the cost of the war -I'm not sure at all- but we can wonder if the USA will not "win" money with the Irakis petrol....

[justacruiser]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

The anti french people need to get a life. They're mad because they know Bush made the wrong choice, but they can't bear the thought that our own leader could be so inept, and so they have to let out their frustration on somebody else, and defend a terribly useless war that was a complete waste of their tax money.

I think it's more likely, (at least in my case it is), because the French were the ones doing everything possible to get the UN to say 'NO' to a war, not that they were getting everyone to say no, but how they were getting everyone to say it.

This wouldn't be all that bad if it weren't for people accusing the US of attacking Iraq for its own best interests and using the UN to do its deeds, when France worked over the UN to block the US because it was in Frances best interests, not Iraqs best interests. [sarcasm]Yeah, the US is the only country in the world that does that kind of shit, so lets hate it! [/sarcasm]

[DGB454]

IMO France didn't go against the war for humanitarian reasons or even because they didn't believe Iraq had WMDs but because they were going to loose a cheap source of oil. Same goes for Germany. I don't dislike French people or Germans but I do dislike their leaders. But then again they are no different that any other leader.

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by Stefanel1

Now that we know that there were no Massive Destruction Weapons in Irak, how can this war be justified ? We can speak about the caught of Saddam Hussein but that's not enough I think. Democracy ? the current situation is not better today. What else ?

I wrote this mail to remember to some Americans who have been very angry about French (there has been anti-French actions) that Bush's government and also Blair's were maybe wrong.
Isn't it the time of reconciliation between France (Jacques Chirac was maybe too sure of himself) and the USA (Bush was not right) ?

Since the Irakis war and the anti French manifestations, anti American sentiment has also increased in France. That's a pity for two friends countries. The French Kingdom helped the USA for the Independance (1776) and the USA helped France for the Libération in 1944 (D Day 6/6/44).

.... well, the idea is there ! I'm tired and my English is poorer than usually !
Regards,
Michaël de Villebois Mareuil

The current situation is better then before http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...m/iraq_poll_dc

I think Jacques Chirac is a terrible leader but he was elected by the French people which is their choice.

When did Chirac say Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction? He whined about letting the UN continue to inspect, but he never said he didn't have them. Thats a big difference that many of you have chosen to overlook.

I am not angry at the French. I've gone the gambit from leaning the language and studying the culture to wanting nothing to do with them. They're like the Pygmies of Africa. I know they're out there, but I really don't give a shit.

[Stefanel1]

What do you mean by "They're like the Pygmies of Africa" ?......

Chirac was against the war. And many Europeans were against this war (look at the demonstrations everywhere in Europe and in the world).
Chirac didn't say that Saddam hasn't WMDs.... I agree, and what ? He said that nobody were sure that there were WMDs in Iraq. And he wasn't wrong ! He just said that (as the UNO) a war was not a good idea in the short term, that we could have continued the inspections whithout killing people.
For the interest of France, isn't it a little bit too easy ?.... Of course, some French big companies were presents in Iraq (TotalFinaElf mainly). But France would have won more in beeing involved with the Americans (choice of Spain, United Kingdom and Italy) than in doing what Chirac did.
There is a problem of public opinion who didn't want this war (a big majority) : electoralist ? maybe, but all politicians in the Democraties are like that.
Bush is a "warrior" who wanted to finish the job of Bush senior... and have petrol. Don't say the contrary, even in your country, it is now said.

So, Yog, if you are so narrow minded and nationalist, let your country become something like the URSS. The politic of Bush is freigtening, either international or national. The democracy in the biggest .... democracy in the world is going to disappear. I hope I'm wrong.

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by Stefanel1

What do you mean by "They're like the Pygmies of Africa" ?......

Chirac was against the war. And many Europeans were against this war (look at the demonstrations everywhere in Europe and in the world).
Chirac didn't say that Saddam hasn't WMDs.... I agree, and what ? He said that nobody were sure that there were WMDs in Iraq. And he wasn't wrong ! He just said that (as the UNO) a war was not a good idea in the short term, that we could have continued the inspections whithout killing people.
For the interest of France, isn't it a little bit too easy ?.... Of course, some French big companies were presents in Iraq (TotalFinaElf mainly). But France would have won more in beeing involved with the Americans (choice of Spain, United Kingdom and Italy) than in doing what Chirac did.
There is a problem of public opinion who didn't want this war (a big majority) : electoralist ? maybe, but all politicians in the Democraties are like that.
Bush is a "warrior" who wanted to finish the job of Bush senior... and have petrol. Don't say the contrary, even in your country, it is now said.

So, Yog, if you are so narrow minded and nationalist, let your country become something like the URSS. The politic of Bush is freigtening, either international or national. The democracy in the biggest .... democracy in the world is going to disappear. I hope I'm wrong.

Pygmies of Africa - read the whole sentence, the point was at the end of it.

The politics of Crirac and the bulk of the EU is quickly leading the sheep of your countries into oblivion. Its to bad the poeple there are to dumb to see it.

[2strokebloke]

It's strangley sad, Yogs, that what you said about the EU and Chirac, could easily be switched to the USA and Bush.

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

It's strangley sad, Yogs, that what you said about the EU and Chirac, could easily be switched to the USA and Bush.

If that is what your opinion is. The difference is that I don't immediately start insulting you (such as calling you small minded like Stefen does) for thinking that - I might say you're wrong, but that doesn't make you small minded.

[2strokebloke]

I could care less about insults like "narrow minded" "dumb" and "smelly" I just find it strangely ironic, that one could say that Bush is leading the USA down the wrong road, and most people are so blind to the obvious that they can not see it, but that you said the same thing with Chirac substituting for Bush, and the EU substituting for the USA - and how that comment represents fairly well the point I made with my original post in this thread.

[YogsVR4]

Its all about perspective.

[2strokebloke]

Perspective? I know we can't argue about a complex subject such as this in terms of black or white, but perspective? No matter where you stand, from any angle (except that of paid speech writers, and Ad wizzards for Bush) our president and his cohorts, made a mistake in going into Iraq. And his continuing insisting that his missinformed choice was the correct one, is absolutely rediculous. Even Bill C. owned up to his choices with Monica after the Public found out the truth, we now know the truth about Iraq, and Bush continues to defend a poorly informed choice. I'd honestly vote for him if he had enough of a backbone to own up to his mistake.
What he's doing is like a judge sentencing somebody to death without getting his facts straight first, and then after the execution, evidence is found clearing the the dead criminal, and the Judge justifies his mistake by saying that the man he killed was a jerk anyway so it doesn't matter that he was improperly sentenced to death.

That may be getting a little off topic, but I still hold my opinion that people would rahter not admit their own country is wrong, because it's always easier to start pointing fingers elsewhere to make yourself feel good, even when you're certainly not one to be talking about making poor choices.

[DigitalPhantom]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

Perspective? I know we can't argue about a complex subject such as this in terms of black or white, but perspective? No matter where you stand, from any angle (except that of paid speech writers, and Ad wizzards for Bush) our president and his cohorts, made a mistake in going into Iraq. And his continuing insisting that his missinformed choice was the correct one, is absolutely rediculous. Even Bill C. owned up to his choices with Monica after the Public found out the truth, we now know the truth about Iraq, and Bush continues to defend a poorly informed choice. I'd honestly vote for him if he had enough of a backbone to own up to his mistake.
What he's doing is like a judge sentencing somebody to death without getting his facts straight first, and then after the execution, evidence is found clearing the the dead criminal, and the Judge justifies his mistake by saying that the man he killed was a jerk anyway so it doesn't matter that he was improperly sentenced to death.

That may be getting a little off topic, but I still hold my opinion that people would rahter not admit their own country is wrong, because it's always easier to start pointing fingers elsewhere to make yourself feel good, even when you're certainly not one to be talking about making poor choices.

The problem with 85% of the United States, is that they were brought up "knowing" that the United States were the "good guys" and that anyone who the United States was against were the "bad guys." Its how this nation has been brought up not knowing anything about their own country or just politics in general. I must agree though that Bush is in fact a flagrant moron. Sorry, but its true. Two years ago after Sept. 11 the United States had many countries behind its back ready to help out in many ways. However, the Bush administration, being as bright as they are, decided to lie to their own people, and to other countries about the reasons for going into Iraq. "To Protect our individual liberties" Are you kidding me. Any politician who states something like this is either: A. LYING or B. A FLAGRANT MORON. Absolutly no country does something like this unless they are attempting to improve their economic or strategic standpoints. Now....The United States has essentially NO support at all. I mean shit, when we went into Iraq, al qaeda was already present. They were not there trying to attack the United States. They were attempting to take down Saddams regime. All Bush had to do was to say listen Saddam (AFTER HE AGREED TO LET US TROOPS IN TO SEARCH FOR WMD), we are going to be coming in to search your facilities...Let us take care of al qaeda while we are here. Now lets think about his options. 1. Agree and be seen as a cooperting country on the world scale or 2. Not allow this, and Bush could simply consider him as being a world terrorism supporter. At least he would have been telling everyone the truth about why we were in there to begin with. It just pisses me off that he can use a reason so stupid as "To protect our liberty and freedom." If you ask me, he needs to get a new speech writer. (Sorry if i offended anyone)

[YogsVR4]

Bloke, thats why perspective plays such a big role. I do not think going into Iraq was a mistake at all.

If the topic is a list of mistakes made by the politician of the US the list will be long enough to down the server. But going into Iraq (which is where this thread headed even though it wasn't the subject line) isn't one of them.