BS: France

Subject: BS: France
From: GUEST,Freedom Toast With Vermont Maple Syrup
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 09:17 AM

France is the only country that ever lost two wars to Italians. The French have gotten the surrender business down to a science. To save time, they figured out a way to surrender even before a shot is fired. Nobody ever aimed even a bow and arrow at Paris but the Germans looked like they were going to do it and the French immediately gave up the city. The last French general who won any wars was Napoleon, but he was not a Frenchman, he was a Corsican. The first Muslims to ever defeat a western army since the Crusades were the Algerians, who kicked the French out of their country. The only war France ever won was the French Revolution and that's because they were fighting against themselves.

In the Second World War, when the Americans liberated Paris it was a culture shock to French women finally to be sleeping with men who didn't call them "Fraulein." We all remember that the French shaved the hair off women who had slept with the German occupiers, but they had to stop the hair cuts since the country was about to go into the history books as being the only nation of bald-headed women.

With or without the French, America will quickly conquer Iraq. The French are undoubtedly concerned that when the fighting is over, and all the missiles and all the other weapons that the Iraqis said do not exist show up, they probably will have "Made in France" stamped all over them.


Americans should boycott French products. The fact is, because of French cowardice the lives of American soldiers are now at greater risk. There are many items that we as Americans could do without because of their French origin. The reason the French invented perfume was that they stink, but other countries also make colognes. We all ought to walk by the counters selling Christian Dior, Chanel and Cartier. We should not take Club Med vacations nor go anywhere on Air France.

We have been indoctrinated into believing that anything with a French name has some special mystique. If you take the same garment and instead of the label saying Christian Dior, it says Hymie Lipschutz, nobody would buy it. In fact, they would probably cut off the label. Evian water is basically only as good as tap water. If you put bubbles in it, you would have seltzer, but nobody would drink it with that name. If it were called "Seltzier," seltzer would become a major hit.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 09:19 AM

you're a fucking idiot

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: GUEST,Big Mack Sennett
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 09:24 AM

Quick! Call the Keystone Kops, somebody stole Greg's sense of humor.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 09:26 AM

Apparently the people who were resonsible for stalling the diplomatic process have now said that if Saddam Hussein uses chemical or biological weapons against US and UK forces - they will join the coalition and send troops - That's big of them

I always said that if this issue goes live, the French will scramble around like crazy in an attempt to jump on the band-wagon. On this occasion they should be told in no uncertain terms to bugger off.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 09:31 AM

Greg, in this case, I have to disagree with you. I'm sorry, as we are in general agreement in most cases but here, no. I would say that this guy is a Complete ass and a total fucking idiot.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: GUEST,Inspector Clouseau
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 09:38 AM

I found Greg's sense of humor. It was in a mushroom patch outside of the city. Spaw's was there too.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Mark Clark
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 09:44 AM

I'm so proud of the French I ordered an expensive French wine with dinner in NYC last week just in their honor.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Kim C
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 09:45 AM

J'aime Francais.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Dead Horse
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 09:46 AM

I could say quite a lot in defence of the French, but I wont bother, as it will only be seen as an attack on other nations.
If the USA & UK believe they are justified, then they will go ahead on their own. They certainly are not being assisted by the bigotry shown by the vocal minority of jingoistic idiots that think their voice counts for anything in this world.
I hope that history will prove we did the right thing, whatever that may turn out to be.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: curmudgeon
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 10:18 AM

Prior to WWI, what we call'French toast" was known as "German toast."

Vermont is French for green mountain.

And rather than judge a people on the basis of bellicosity, consider Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, Descartes, Moliere, Dumas, Hugo, Verne, Zola, Lumiere, Melies, Monet, Manet, Gauguin, Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Gide, Renoir, Toulouse-Lautrec, Sartre, Camus, Truffaut, Deneuve, Bardot, Depardieu, et al.

And I do believe that Spaw and Greg are being to kind to the instigator of this thread. Had its guesticular polemic been directed toward members of a race or religion, it would not have seen the light of a monitor.

Vive la France -- Tom

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: KarlMarx
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 10:24 AM

Perhaps the 900,000 casualties at Verdun, in 1916 - counting both French and German youngsters - should give rest to the charge of French cowardice . . .

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 10:25 AM

And I do believe that Spaw and Greg are being to kind to the instigator of this thread. Had its guesticular polemic been directed toward members of a race or religion, it would not have seen the light of a monitor.

Obviously, you have a short memory about what sees the light of a monitor at Mudcat.

thread.cfm?threadid=33702

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 10:30 AM

Vive la France! Nobody else has the high moral ground now!

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Beccy
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 10:36 AM

curmudgeon- Rousseau was a boob. His major accomplishment was to send loads of noble folk sobbing into the woods and make people summon nervous afflictions on command. The rest of your list is pretty good, though...

Beccy

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 10:37 AM

Its even worse than that, Tom. This whole anti-France hysteria is etirely bogus and based on a BuShite Junta lie.

France never maintained, and does not now maintain, that it would unconditionally veto the use of force against Iraq, only that it would do so if a resolution was presented before the inspectors were allowed to complete their work and before peaceful options were exhausted.

Can we add the BuShites to the "lying sack of shit" thread?

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: KarlMarx
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 10:49 AM

I can't agree that France is on any high moral plateau for opposing an attack upon Iraq, though I do agree France was right in doing so, but for a different reason. Unfortunately, the French do have a poor track record in international affairs, as the terrible wars in Algeria and Indochina demonstrate. They also shared much of the blame for the outbreak of World War One, along with the other nations who engaged in that horrendous struggle, as well as for the harsh peace at Versailles, that allowed, in part, the Nazis to come to power in Germany. But I believe that it is precisely this track record that has given impetus to the people of France, as well as Germany, to oppose a war at this time in Iraq. Both France and Germany know what price unilateralism, projected on the point of military adventurism, brings . . .

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 10:52 AM

Dear Karl Marx;

It is not that I do not respect the French, I do. They have suffered greatly from war and perhaps may be credited with having an understanding of its horrors that Americans, fortunately, have been spared. However, you facts regarding Verdun are way off. The Majority of caualties were British(and her colonies, especially Canada).

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 10:54 AM

By gar, you guys get my dander up some good eh? Tabarnack, you Henglish always be wondrin' why we French Canadian trappers are always mad eh? Well, now you know!

Stop callin' us names like "Freedom" Canadians, and stop stealin' our delicacies like Poutine with "Freedom Fries"!

You want rid of dat Sadam feller? Just put him in a dogsled and send him up to me. I'll skin him like a beaver! (shut up Spaw)

Jaques Le RubberBoot

The Mad Trapper with the outdoor crapper

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 11:04 AM

And I do believe that Spaw and Greg are being to kind to the instigator of this thread. Had its guesticular polemic been directed toward members of a race or religion, it would not have seen the light of a monitor.

Hey Curmudgeon, I guess it's perfectly all right to bash America at Mudcat, but not sacred France. Check out this CURRENT thread if the Jewish jokes weren't enough for you.

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=57719

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 11:05 AM

thread.cfm?threadid=57719

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: KarlMarx
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 11:08 AM

Dear guest - the battle of Verdun was fought between the French and the Germans, beginning on 21 February, 1916, and ending in December, 1916, as the French poilu recaptured the last forts taken by the Germans in their earlier assaults. The French lost half a million men, the Germans, around 400,000. The French and German soldiers suffered constant bombardments - as many as 40 million artillery rounds had been fired - along with frequent attacks with poisonous gas. A frightful spectacle. Anyway, any good general history of The Great War will give you these facts. I, incidently, taught classes in the world wars in college . . .

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: curmudgeon
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 11:19 AM

Guest -- i checked out the two threads you posted; they were about JOKES!
There was not one iota of humor in the opening salvo of this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: GUEST,Lenin
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 11:21 AM

As usual, Marx plays loose with the facts and figures.

Not to belittle the losses on both sides, Marx greatly exagerates. The true figues are available here.

http://www.war1418.com/battleverdun/slachtoffers.htm

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: GUEST,Freedom fries with my Big Mac
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 11:28 AM

Guest -- i checked out the two threads you posted; they were about JOKES!

Oh yeah, Mudacatters have such a great and funny sense of humor about Americans or Jews. There are some great ones...

You can always tell when you're in a Jewish neighbourhood - padlocks on the dustbins, and toilet paper hung out to dry...

The opening post in this thread was satire. To create satire, you take a kernel of truth and create an exageration. Try Humor 101 at your local junior college.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: beadie
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 11:36 AM

The US has lined up this impressive list of allies to prosecute the war in Iraq:

Afghanistan,         Albania,
Australia,         Azerbaijan,
Colombia,         Czech Republic,
Denmark,         El Salvador,
Eritrea,         Estonia,
Ethiopia,         Georgia,
Hungary,         Iceland,
Italy,                Japan (post-conflict only),
South Korea,         Latvia,
Lithuania,         Macedonia,
Netherlands,         Nicaragua,
Philippines,         Poland,
Romania,         Slovakia,
Spain,                Turkey,
United Kingdom, Uzbekistan.

Aside from the Brits, the Aussies and the South Koreans, who among these have the reputation that our GUEST seems to be looking for? The Spanish, fer cryin out loud, haven't won anything since before theit armada met up with Sir Fracis Drake. Hell, they even needed help to win their own civil war!

Some of these nations were barely in existence at the time of the last Gulf Go Around. Others have a history of fearsome prowess in war, only that it was 3 and a half millennia ago (Macedonia).

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 11:38 AM

Isn't this sort of stuff called having an inferiority complex?

We might perhaps expect it from the USA, since it must be irritating for a hyperpower to have any kind of non-conmpiance - but the sickening thing is that now the politicians in tbe UK have now joined in, trying to use France as a scapegoat, because the French Government did what it had said it would do all along (unlike the UK government) - along it would appear with most of the rest of the Secutrity Council, refused to go along with stopping the inspections and with rushing into war to suit Washington's timetable.

When in trouble, play the xenophobic card, as so many times before.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 11:44 AM

Oh, it's satire....humor.......Geez, I completely missed it somehow...........Say, if it's humor, why not send it to maybe the Montreal Gazette or somebody like that? I'm sure they'd get it!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: KarlMarx
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 11:59 AM

My figures are from, in part, some reputable historians of The Great War: Churchill, Horne, Marshall, et al. As for playing loose with the figures, you do not know me well enough to make such a personal supposition. But I do find it interesting that people argue casualty figures, as if 337,000 odd here, as opposed to 500,000 there, is not so bad. What is the point? Does that make war more palatable, that there were only 337,000 odd dead, wounded, missing, as opposed to half a million . . . ?

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: artbrooks
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 12:06 PM

I agree with 'Spaw, and will add that the original poster, and his/her/its return with different names, is a troll. Don't feed the delusional bugger.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 01:26 PM

I've never particularly liked the french or at least most the ones I have known but I totally understand their not supporting the imminent conflict - most of this country don't support it either but Blair won't listen to us so why should we expect him to listen to the French!

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: X
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 01:41 PM

...The ladies in France don't wear any pants....

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 02:04 PM

That kind of stuff about casualty figures in the Great War is very reminsicent of the type of thing Holocaust deniers go in for.

Those who sneer at the French for being defeated in 1940 generally seem to forget that the Channel (and the Atlantic for that matter) come in very handy in those kinds of circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 02:48 PM

That kind of stuff about casualty figures in the Great War is very reminsicent of the type of thing Holocaust deniers go in for.

This is the second time I read this extremely unfair guilt-by-comparison argument from you, McGrath, though you thinly disguise it by a qualifier like 'reminiscent'.

You should be able to see a huge difference between a scholarly debate among historians about casualty numbers (in the holocaust debate, the numbers of Jews killed I have seen in serious debates vary between 4.5 and 6 million) and a total denial of casualties. The equivalent would be that someone tries to tell that no more people died in the battle of Verdun than can be expected among young people exercising a couple of months in fresh air.

If you don't like discussions about casualty numbers that's fine but please keep your arguments in proportion.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: DougR
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 03:22 PM

Greg F. I assume you mean "before the inspectors were finished" (according to when the French believed that to be the case)and before peaceful options were exhausted (again from the POV of the French).

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 03:33 PM

No guilt by comparison intended - just another way of making the point that Karl Marx made there - "But I do find it interesting that people argue casualty figures, as if 337,000 odd here, as opposed to 500,000 there, is not so bad. What is the point? Does that make war more palatable, that there were only 337,000 odd dead, wounded, missing, as opposed to half a million . . . ? "

Some of the people who try to play down the Holocaust are subtle enough not to try to deny that there were deaths, but rely instead on trying to whittle down the figures. And yes, there is a valid historical place for trying to get accurate figures, rather than treating a guesstimate as untoucheable, and that is somethimg very different.

The point is, the detailed figures in themselves are a secondary thing, and don't alter the horror of what happned. And that goes for catastrophes like Verdun as well.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 03:41 PM

No, Dougie, I meant precisely what I said, not your skewed re-interpretation of what you thought you'd like to pretend that I said.

But for the benefit of clearing up any possible (intentional?) misunderstanding: it is from the point of view of the United Nations and that of most of the rest of the nations and peoples of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 03:46 PM

You did use the words 'holocaust deniers' which I have yet seen only used for those (Zundel etc.) who claim that there wasn't a holocaust at all.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 03:54 PM

I'm pretty sure I've seen it for the ones who downsize the figures and imply that that makes all the difference. I think David Irving would come into that category.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Troll
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 04:46 PM

Beadie, I think that you will find that Lithuania once ruled a Grand Duchy that stretched from the Baltic to the Black Sea. The Netherlands had a fleet that ruled the sea and that once kicked the bejeezus out of the British fleet. Turkey is what is left of the Ottoman Empire that ruled from the Med to the Caspian. The Polish cavalry charged German tanks with lances during WWII. They knew that they would die but they had to try. The Polish Air Force flew with the RAF and racked up a pretty good score. The Hungarians faced the Russian tanks in "58 with rifles and Molotov Cocktails.
I could go on but I think you may be starting to get the idea. Our Allies are not the bunch of losers you seem to think they are.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 05:24 PM

The Hungarian Uprising was 1956, not 1958.

What does "Japan (post-conflict only)" - what's a post conflict ally? A new one on me.

One South American country, and two Central American...An impressive line-up of absentees in that list. Including almost all the Security Council, apart from the UK, the USA and Spain. No wonder they didn't risk putting that second resolution to the vote.

I'm puzzled why on Earth there should be all the onus against France? The suggestion appears to be that gratitude for World War II somehow come into it. I mean, if it was a question of helping America repel an attack, fair enough, it isn't.

The idea that gratitude should oblige you to help the person you are grateful to when they are engaged in attacking some third party seems highly questionable. You don't show your gratitude by helping your friends commit what you believe to be a terrible mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: KarlMarx
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 06:12 PM

Goodness gracious! From the battle casualties of Verdun to the numbers of victims of the Holocaust! These discussions certainly make interestng turns. McGrath makes a good point about casualty figures, though. Whether military or civilian deaths in war, or the victims of genocide, mortal statistics have their political and social uses. The 337,000 casualties attributed to the French Army during the Battle of Verdun was part of the official history of the war that was published in 1936. Churchill, in his "The World Crisis," set the number at 469,000. But 150,000 more bodies and body parts, as gruesome as it is to recount, were found after the battle, and indeed, up to the present day, causing historians to revise upwardly the numbers of dead and injured at Verdun towards the 500,000 mark. The bodies were interred in a vast Ossuaire at the site, as recounted in Horne, The Price of Glory. Horne suggests that the French High Command had it in its best interests, as well as that of the government to whom it served, to keep the reported casualties as low as possible during the war. Civilian and Poilu morale depended upon it. The French Army mutiny of 1917, brought on in part by the murderous Nivelle Offensive that cost France 120,000 casualties, demonstrated that the wasteful blood-letting of the war could spark active rebellion by the troops. The Germans, by the middle of the war a military dictatorship under the rule of Hindenburg and Ludendorff - with the Kaiser a useful figurehead - had somewhat similar concerns, though not to the degree of the French . . .

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: SINSULL
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 06:33 PM

I respect the French for having the courage to disagree with the US, or at least the President of the US. I do not believe that the American people support this war.

Now to more serious business: French Fries are now Liberty Fries. French Toast is Stars and Stripes Forever Toast. What is the politically correct name for the previously called French Kiss...or are we now patriotically to abstain? There is some urgency in getting an answer.
SINS

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: KarlMarx
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 06:36 PM

Baiser de Français . . .

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: gnu
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 07:05 PM

Let us remember that France is doing what the rest of the "allies" are doing, which is to wait until the US/Brits clean up what they sold to Saddy before they join in. As a matter of fact, France was the FIRST to pledge support if Saddy used WMD upon the "allies".

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: robomatic
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 09:12 PM

I am in support of the American actions in the Middle East and I hope she succeeds in getting Saddam out of there.

I am also in support of French humor, music, science, her great culture. I think her government is making some serious policy errors, but it's her government.

The U.S. wouldn't be here without the French, and it was not for nothing that one of the WW I Yankee shouts was: "Lafayette we are Here!"

The U.S. and France and Iraq's people will survive the coming strife. A shitty dictator will not.

a bientot

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 09:43 PM

From McGrath: "What does "Japan (post-conflict only)" - what's a post conflict ally? A new one on me.

I believe that, under the terms of the treaty that ended World War Two, the Japanese are prohibited from taking part in any armed conflict except to defend Japan itself from invasion. They are allowed to participate in post-conflict peace-keeping efforts, but not the war itself.

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: DougR
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 01:43 AM

Greg: I do believe, based on what Colin Powell has stated on several occasions on TV that you are misrepresenting the French position. According to Powell, the French made it clear that they would veto ANY U. N. Resolution that called for an armed force to enforce the Resolution in the event Iraq did not comply. That being the case, why offer the Resolution?

I think once the conflict is over, we will see the French dashing in to participate, on some basis, so that they are not left out when it comes to designing Iraq's future. They have too much at stake financially to stay away after all of the other countries involved have fought the battle to free Iraq. I think they should be told to f--k off!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 02:45 AM

KarlMarx,

The casualty figures given by Churchill in The World Crisis were the total allied losses on the Western Front - not solely those lost by the French at Verdun.

In the web sites visited regarding Verdun figures used to describe French or German losses include - those taken prisoner, those wounded, those missing and those killed.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: JudyR
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 03:02 AM

From a French antiwar site: in honor of the Americans, the French are now calling the film "American Pie," and "American Beauty" "Pie," and "Beauty." When asked what they would rename American cheese, they all replied at once, "What cheese?"

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 04:23 AM

I'm not sure if this link will work, but there was a good 'French' cartoon in Sunday's Telegraph. Matt Cartoon 16/3/03
Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 05:48 AM

McGrath:

David Irving is another league. It is not libel to call him Holocaust denier a British court has ruled (very rightly so in my eyes). The 'whittling down' Irving makes is a completely different proportion. Irving's opinion is that only one tenth of the Jews other historians think have been killed in the holocaust. And, in addition to that, that Hitler was not informed about this.

If the difference between 6 millions and 4.5 Millions and the difference between 6 Millions and 500,000-600,000 (Irving) for you both comes under the category 'whittling down' may I remind you your words from another thread: Holocaust deniers, for example,
      aren't doing history, they are doing propaganda.

I'd appreciate if you would leave the words 'holocaust deniers' out of these discussions here about figures, for these words (even if only used in comparison) grossly misstate, on the quantitative side, the amount of difference between the figures under discussion, and, on the qualitative side, the motives of those questioning figures posted here.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 08:36 AM

Dougie, if you would read what the FRENCH said, instead of Colon's bastardized version of what he wants you to THINK they said, you would see that Powell is full of shit.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Stephen L. Rich
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 11:14 AM

France. Wasn't that where the Coneheads came from? *G*

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: GUEST,Sami
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 11:24 AM

The thread title "Xenophobia on Mudcat" went on the wrong thread, it seems

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: GUEST,noddy
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 12:44 PM

Been there, Ate the Cheese, Drank the wine, Filled the car with cheap Diesel, Went to the Hyper market filled the boot with as much as it could take then went home. Is there anything else worth doing... Oh yes forgot the women..

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 12:54 PM

Troll, it's funny that you should mention the Hungarian uprising of 1956.

I was only 8 years old at the time, but it's one of my earliest significant childhood recollections of awareness of world affairs. I can still remember the burning sense of outrage that I felt at the time that the supposedly "free world" and particularly the Americans with whom I already associated the term didn't lift a finger to help the Hungarians.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: DougR
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 04:27 PM

Greg F: you take the word of "France" over Colin Powell's? Surprise, surprise.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 04:45 PM

Dougie, if you're as comfortable letting other people do your thinking for you, allowing politicians to make up your mind for you, and getting all your information third hand and adulterated as you seem to be, when with a very little effort you could inform yourself from primary source material and make up your own mind, well then,
as you are so fond of reminding all and sundry ad nauseum, "That's Certainly Your Right".

However, it certainly isn't the virtue to seem to think it is.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 05:10 PM

While thge Hungarians were uprising Britain, France and Israel were busy attacking Egypt if course. And America objected strongly and forced a ceasefire pretty sharply.

And if there were any people who objected to that, and thought it was an unfriendly way for an ally to behave, they were bloody fools. Real friends help you to avoid mistakes, they don't help you to make them.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 05:21 PM

Re: what the French said... original quotes always trump second hand interpretations of quotes. Has anyone got a good source for what was actually said by the French in the first place?

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Hrothgar
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 01:54 AM

Rmember, APC, the Hungarians didn't have any oil.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: alanabit
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 03:55 AM

To correct Doug R, the French position was that they would veto any resolution which authorised the use of force BEFORE THE INSPECTORS HAD FINISHED THEIR JOB. (Excuse my rudeness in using those block capitals, but I can't use HTML when I'm on the Mudcat). I do believe, however, that those seven words make all the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Gareth
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 08:05 AM

And since when did the French interfere in the American rebellion for altruistic motives ? They chose the moment to attempt grab Britains West Indian colonies. Mmmmm! "No blood for sugar ???"

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 12:14 PM

Ha! Ha! Ha! I sure got a kick out of reading the post by the fool who started this thread. Man, Freedom Toast, you gotta visit the seedy bars in little cruddy Ontario towns like Blind River! You will find kindred souls who agree with your every idiotic, bigoted opinion. Yeah...BABY!!! Blow up them towlheads now!!! Oooo! Oooo! Oooo!

Here's my comment: Vive la France!!! Vive la Difference!!!

And go to hell, you fascist blitzkrieg artists.

A side note to your slander of French fighting ability: A few severely outnumbered French mountain divisions utterly stopped Mussonlini's legions dead in their tracks and threw them into retreat in 1940...so your history lesson is leaving out some important parts. And...the French under Napoleon damn near conquered the entire European continent. Napoleon failed in the end because he, like Hitler, made way too many enemies. That is how the USA will fail in the end too.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 09:25 PM

What, no more defenders of La Belle France? Tabernac!

The fact is, most nations (if not all of them) have had a glorious and courageous period of military prowess or several such in their history, Spain definitely included. The Spanish army was considered virtually unbeatable in Europe prior to around 1588, when they began to experience some notable reverses while trying to subdue Holland, and failing to invade England. They were the great military machine of the 1500's. The British took over from them with great panache, and the Dutch had a go at the brass ring too. The Swedes were once considered deadly on the battlefield (under Gustavus Adolphus). So were the Swiss. Everybody knows the Germans are good fighters. The Norwegians wreaked havoc when the Vikings were at their peak. It goes on and on...

In World War II, the battles were won in the end by those nations who were able to control the seas and the air and deliver the most men and weapons to the battlefield.

Even the much-slandered Italians fought very bravely on several occasions, but they were woefully short of modern equipment and industrial strength in just about every area that counted, so they never really had a chance. This becomes plainly obvious if you play some of the very good historical wargames of the period. The italians lacked competitive tanks, they lacked naval airpower, their navy had no radar for nightfighting, their airforce was equipped with underarmed aircraft and many outmoded designs, and their gross national product could barely even be called that of a major power at the time. They should never have fought at all, but Mussolini was greedy and opportunistic (and jealous of Hitler's conquests), so he took them down the road to disaster in 1940. I actually think the Germans would have been better off with Italy not in the war...their forces would not have gotten spread so thin, and they might have beaten Russia.

Accordingly, everybody give Mussolini a big "thank you" for blundering into the war, thus drawing the Germans into the Balkans and the Mediterranean theatre to rescue him.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 04:47 AM

Call me old fasioned but did the first world war not break out in Sarijavo by some one killing Arch Duke Ferdinand. Now He wassnt french was he No. The Kaisser of Germany also had a great part to play in this war due to his inferioroty complex about the rest of the Victorian seed being spread through Europe at the time and guess what He wasnt french either so someone saying that the french were partly responsible for the First world war and surrendering to easily to the italians are totally wrong and if you check your history you will also find that the Italians never actually invaded france but the germans did.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 10:41 AM

Well, the Italians did try to invade France in 1940, at the tail end of the successful German blitzkrieg campaign. They failed miserably. The outnumbered French clobbered them. Mussolini was humiliated. End of story.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Peg
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 11:37 AM

Greg F., I do not often laugh out loud at my computer monitor, but after reading the first post to this thread and then your brief response, I lost it!

Here's a comment from our fearless leader who in his inimitable way of utilizing the English langauge had this to say not long ago:

"The trouble with the French is they don't have a word for entrepreneur."
--George W. Bush

I am actually overjoyed that some of our allies think it necessary to point out how pig-headed and nihilistic and power-hungry our administration is being. Good for them. I personally will make it a point to boycott any business that joins in with this "freedom fries" nonsense, and encourage my friends to do the same.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 11:44 AM

Peg: ""The trouble with the French is they don't have a word for entrepreneur."--George W. Bush"
'Dubya' was obviously quoting conventional wisdom. This comment was made in the British parliament years ago, when George Thomas (at one time "Speaker of The House", and proudly Welsh) was present. The comment was made:
"The Welsh have no word for entrepreneur!"
George Thomas asked:
"So what's the English word? "


Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Peg
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 12:36 PM

Nige,l I think the salient point is that Dubya did nto know it was a French word...I mean, the man had never even been to Europe before he got elected president...to have such a sheltered xenophobic hayseed in command of our foreign policy is truly frightening.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Metchosin
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 01:13 PM

Peg, I am rolling on the floor incontinent!!!!! this guy if funnier than Robin Williams.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: DougR
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 12:44 PM

Alanabit: and WHO was to determine when the inspection process was complete? France?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 12:53 PM

A majority of the inspectors and of the nations who sent them there was to determine it, Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 02:47 PM

He's probably only pouting, LH. I can't believe he's that stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 03:43 PM

I think the assumption that Hans Blix and his coilleagues had was that they would report back to the Security Council. At some point they would say, either that their immediate work was successfully completed and that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, or that they were being obstructed and couldn't complete their work. At which point it would be the job of the Security Council to decide what to do next.

Hans Blix several times indicated that he envisaged that, once the inspectors would have determined that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, an open ended monitoring process would be set up to keep an eye on things in Iraq, and make sure that things stayed that way.

Sounds a very sensible way of going about it, and an excellent precedent for similar operations in other countries as and when needed.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 06:58 PM

Say, has anyone answered Sinsull's question about what we are going to cal a French kiss? I dunno', but we better get to working on it. And what about French Ticklers? Maybe we could blame that one on the democrats and call them Clinton Ticklers........I mean, we just gotta' get rid of all this French stuff..........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 07:30 PM

Or "Bush Ticklers" maybe?

Do American actually say - or did they actually say, in the case of the ones who are freeking out about the thought that anyone might publicly disagree with Washington - "French Fries"? I thought the normal expression was just "Fries".

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 08:00 PM

We use both Kevin.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 10:42 PM

Clinton ticklers is an inspired notion! I believe they would sell like hotcakes. What Bill does not know about such matters is not worth knowing. He was in the wrong job. He should've been the chief editor of Penthouse or something along that line.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Armen Tanzerian
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 01:10 AM

1914 - 1918: America sits out 3/4 of the Great War while a quarter of France's draft-age men are killed defending their country. Finally, when it is realized that an allied loss might mean the default on huge JP Morgan loans, the U.S. enters the war.

1940: France surrenders to a vastly superior Nazi force after losing "only" 10,000 men. (I wonder how many Americans would casually dismiss the loss of 10,000 troops in Iraq as if it were nothing, or cowardice.)

1942: Roosevelt tries to undermine de Gaulle in favor of the traitor Pétain, "leader" of Vichy France, rounder-up of Jewish children, deporter of French Jews to the death camps.

The present: France, aided in her post-war recovery by the U.S., now enjoys the best health-care system, the best public transportation system, a meaningful retirement for every worker, important roles in medicine, pharmaceuticals, aerospace, fashion and design while the U.S. has let its infrastrucure, health-care system and social security rot.

And they have the nerve to disagree with us??

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: DougR
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 01:31 AM

So Hans Blix and his merry inspectors were to determine when the job was done? Well, in about twenty-five years, assuming Hans is still around, perhaps they would have completed inspecting the area around Baghad. Inspectors could have made a career of playing hide and seek with the Iraqis.

Greg F: It doesn't take a stupid person to recognize that Saddam has the weapons. It takes a stupid person not to recognize that he has them!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 11:36 AM

I know you prefer the surmise, blind faith, and wishful thinking, Doug, that permit you to 'recognize' things that support your pre-conceived notions. That's Certainly Your Right.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 12:12 PM

alanabit,

Where those seven words make all the difference - is that they afford Saddam more than ample scope to play the same game he has played with UN weapons inspectors for the last 12 years.

The swift change in events in Iraq, may also explain the non-use of chemical or biological weapons to date. US and UK forces were in place so there was no delay, whatever Saddam has was hidden - he ain't had time or the freedom of movement to deploy it.

Armen T - I thought the alternative candidate to de Gaulle was Admiral Darlan - not Petain. In 1940 the French and British were defeated by tactics, not by a vastly superior force. Where the Germans were vastly superior was in their command and control of the forces at their disposal. In numbers the British and French were superior in armour, both Britain and France had tanks that German anti-tank guns could not touch - unfortunately the Allied General Staff of the time did not know how to fight a mechanised war. The only occasion British armour was used correctly (Arras) it gave one particular German commander (Erwin Rommel) the biggest fright of his life. During the British armoured counter-attack in utter desperation Rommel ordered his anti-aircraft batteries to engage - that was when Rommel found that in his 88mm anti-aircraft gun he had one of the best tank killers of the war.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 01:56 PM

Hans Blix is 74 Doug. Do you really think a man of 74 has aspirations to spend the next quarter century playing silly buggers. You've said saomething like that about him wanting to keep his job going, and I pointed out that this didn't seem too likely, in view of when he was born.

"Hans Blix and his merry inspectors" - that's just cheap. He was engaged by the United Nations, with the USA playing a central role, to do a job, and he was doing that job pretty well. He said it needed a few more months to complete it. And he said that he thought that when it was completed it would be a good idea to make sure it stayed completed.

If the USA didn't think he was up to the job, or that the job description wasn't adequate, they had every opportunity to stop the appointment of the inspection team. You give someone a responsible job, you owe them some loyalty.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 02:05 PM

Very well said Kevin, particularly the last bit:

"You give someone a responsible job, you owe them some loyalty."


"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States."

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 02:16 PM

teribus - Excellent summation of the Battle of France. We may disagree on contemporary politics, but we seldom do when it comes to military history. The battle at Arras was a pretty touch and go affair for the Germans, and without their 88's they would have been cooked. Only the 88 could knock out the British Matilda tanks. The French also had a tremendously formidable tank in 1940 (the Char I bis) which German tanks were not up to dealing with, but the French High Command did not employ them wisely. They were still trying to fight the last war.

Even in Russia, the German tanks were badly outclassed by the Russian T-34 and KV tanks, but the Germans used far better tactics (specially in cooperation between the Luftwaffe and the Wermacht)...and, if course, they did have the 88 mm Flak gun...which could kill any tank, right up to the final days of the war.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 02:34 PM

Spaw, Sins, the French kiss will now be known as the Shrub Ass-Kiss. To execute this new version, bend over, crack a smile, pucker up and kiss yer ass, just like the shrub!

Vive la France, including my own Monsieur de LaFrance of 23 years!!

kat

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: DougR
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 04:32 PM

Kevin: you evidently believe Blix did a good job. I disagree. I think he did a lousy job, and would have kept that job as long as he can breathe a breath. As to how good a job he did, I guess we will know more about that after the war is over.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 04:55 PM

Yes, I think every inducation is that Hans Blix is not a fool and not a crook, and I wouldn't say that of all the characters in this extraordinary soap opera. (For example, Bush and Chirac, for a start.)

And I think he did a pretty good job, and that if he had had the full cooperation of the USA and the UK he could have done an even better one. However I believe that would not have suited the people whose priority was not getting rid of weaponry, but achieving a cooperative government in Iraq, and moving on to do the same elsewhere.

But then we're inside the loop, and it's all speculation on our part, either way. Whatever actual evidence we are shown so far has appeared pretty flawed and insubstantial. It comes down largely to who it is you trust, and we don't trust the same people.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Gareth
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 07:35 PM

Kevin - If Blix had had the full co-operation of the Iraqui regime he would have done a succesful job, not an even better one.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 07:58 PM

I'm sure that's true, Gareth. Whether that would have stopped Bush is something we will never know.

I strongly suspect that it may have been the fear that, under pressure, Saddam might actually start cooperating fully, which was a major reason for the urgency in getting the war under way.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Mar 03 - 03:25 AM

Kevin,

I know that it is all fairly acedemic now but when you say:

"I strongly suspect that it may have been the fear that, under pressure, Saddam might actually start cooperating fully, which was a major reason for the urgency in getting the war under way."

I think that you are ignoring a couple of things.

1... It has only been the US and UK that have been applying the pressure that got inspectors back in in the first place and the only parties that applied the pressure that resulted in the few concessions the Iraqi regime made to assist that inspection programme.

2... Going back to last autumn and the US & UK requirement for a new resolution - This was vehemently opposed by both France and Russia at the time - the US & UK in their original draft wanted the "automaticity" (terrible word) that would convey the message to Saddam Hussein that unless the IAEA and UNMOVIC teams got full co-operation from day 1, military intervention would be used to enforce compliance. After a further eight weeks preparation time won for Saddam by UN inertia the new resolution (1441) arrived in such a form that allowed Saddam a good measure of leeway to continue his games of obfuscation and deceipt. Under the terms of 1441, Iraq was in material breach - from the UN there was absolutely no lead or desire to implement the serious consequences mentioned in that resolution - In this respect France was the main culprit - The message they passed to Saddam Hussein was that, you can just keep the game rolling, we will ensure that you will not be attacked. In that approach, the resolve of both the USA and the UK was seriously underestimated, with France, Russia and China threatening to use their veto powers to maintain Saddam in power, both the US and UK realised the diplomatic route had been brought to the end of the cul-de-sac. With 20 x 20 hindsight it would have been far better to allow the original draft resolution to go through - co-operation would have been complete from day 1.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: DougR
Date: 25 Mar 03 - 05:30 PM

Teribus: do you ever get tired of writing replies (backed up by facts)in reply to skewed statements made in post after post? I will be curious to see how many more times it will be necessary to write, in reply to a similar statement, "Bush was not authorized to take Saddam down in 1991", or "If the U. S. wanted the oil, why didn't we keep the oil in 1991?" And on, and on.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Mar 03 - 07:10 PM

Of course the preparations for war applied pressure on Saddam, and achieved results which wouldn't have been achieved otherwise. But the clear signs that war was intended regardless must surely have worked in the other direction - if you think it's pretty certain that you are going to be invaded anyway, that doesn't exactly encourage full hearted cooperation.

As for resistance to passing a resolution that would have given the USA what woudl have been claimed as legal sanction for going to war, regardless of anything that the inspectors might report - well,it would have been an enormous act of faith to vote for anything like that. And the sequel, which has had the USA and the UKL going to war unilaterally, regardless of the development of inspections and disarmament, and as soon as war preparations had been completed, demonstrates that any such act of faith would have been quite unjustified.

It all depends whether you believe the intention was in fact to achieve WMD disarmamment, or to invade Iraq in any case.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Mar 03 - 08:16 PM

teribus is just a well educated, wordy guy who likes keeping his mind active and enjoys having the last word, Doug. Don't cramp his style! :-)

I guarantee that there is nothing so brilliant or so true that anyone can come up with which teribus cannot find a lengthy rebuttal to. I would do the same, if I were still willing to waste several hours a day of my valuable life on Mudcat...fighting with people who have such radically different views of political reality than I...that the chances of our reaching agreement on such matters are nil.

Why not just go out and do something positive instead? I think I'm gonna do that right now! See ya.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Mar 03 - 07:05 AM

Kevin,

What the original draft resolution 1441 offered Saddam Hussein was a stark choice - comply fully and immediately or face enforced disarmament fully sanctioned by the United Nations. With that resolution in place I do not believe that there would have been any military build up on Iraq's door-step - there would be no need.

What the fudged final resolution 1441 offered Saddam Hussein was room for manoeuvre, and the ability to continue his deception. That did call for a credible military presence in the area and continued pressure from the US and UK regarding their willingness to use it. Under the terms of the final resolution (1441) it was this military presence and the language coming out of Washington that wrung from the Iraqi Regime the only concessions they ever made in this 12 year long UN farce.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Mar 03 - 08:46 AM

As I said, it's a choice as to whether to believe Bush's people were sincere or faking, and I can't envisage any way of settling that one way or the other. It seems pretty evident to me, as it did to the Governments of countries which dug their heels in on this point, that, if 1441 had included an automatic move to war if Saddam was not complying (in the view of individual member states), that would have been taken as authorisation for war, whatever happened, short of Saddam packing his bags and departing with all his mates.

So instead there was a resolution which left it up to the Security Council to decide whether and when to move to war. In the light of the evidence, as presented to them by Hans Blix and Co, the Security Council was not in agreement with doing that.

It wasn't just France, nor just France and Russia and Germany. It appears that the USA and the UK couldn't manage to drum up a majority of the members - otherwise why wasn't the resolution put to a vote? (The other suggested explanation for that not happening is that there was legal advice that, if it was put and failed to pass, than the legal figleaf of 1441 would have been removed. This would have meant that it would have been impossible for even the British Attorney General to find a way of avoiding telling Tony Blair that the war was illegal.)

I don't think any of this amde any significant difference to the war starting, or to the date on which it started.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Mar 03 - 09:12 AM

Kevin,

"..if 1441 had included an automatic move to war if Saddam was not complying (in the view of individual member states), that would have been taken as authorisation for war, whatever happened, short of Saddam packing his bags and departing with all his mates."

That would have been a bad thing??

The reason the second resolution was not put to the vote was because France said that they would veto it.

France and Russia's vested interest is in keeping Saddam Hussein in power - pure and simple, no matter how others try to dress it up.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Mar 03 - 03:54 PM

It would be a very good thing indeed if Saddam were to pack his bags and leave with all his entourage. But that wasn't going to happen.

However there was a possibility of him getting rid of whatever Weapons of Mass Destruction he had, and making sure he did this was what it was all supposed to be about, not about removing him from power. The inspection and disarmament process was not allowed to run its course.

It's all a case of deciding which is the better of two bad options. I think the choice which was made was the wrong one, the one which overall is likely to have the worse outcome. However, since we can't observe two versions of history, we can never tell for sure which is right. People are still arguing about whether going to war against the Kaiser in 1914 was the right or the wrong thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Nerd
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 02:17 AM

Hey, just to get in on the serious war history: every country in Europe lost many wars to Italians. Italians, you may remember, conquered the world from Asia Minor to England. Italian dominance of the world for a prolonged period of time is the reason why Christianity could spread from Palestine to Ireland in 400 years. Indeed, one of the longest-lasting empires the world has ever known was headquartered in Italy and Turkey, which goes to show how little our modern impressions of a country's importance may mean historically.

After Italy, what European country's army occupied the largest swath of European territory? Why, the French, under Napoleon. But only briefly, of course...occupying Europe from Spain to Russia was too great a strain.

Don't fuck with the French. Their government is beholden to the will of their people; they are a democracy. If French people don't want to go fight Saddam Hussein, then the French government is entirely right to oppose it. I always find it weird when Americans get mad at other countries for not doing what our administration wants. Why should they? They have their own electorate...

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: DougR
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 02:27 AM

Kevin: So? Are you saying that Saddam should continue to rule Iraq?

Also, as I recall, Resolution 1441 said that if he did not comply there would be "dire consequences" or something to that effect. What does that mean to you? We are not going to invite you to the next Embassy cocktail party?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Nerd
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 03:03 AM

Teribus,

The reason the second resolution was not put to the vote was because France said that they would veto it.

You're wrong. Even without France's veto, Bush did not have enough votes. Even if France had done a 180 and voted FOR it, it would have lost. If France's veto had been the issue Bush would have gone ahead with the vote to show that he had support of a majority of the council and that France was just being difficult. The fact is, we had a so-called "Summit" meeting of the major allies: US, UK, Spain (It reminds me of Safire's quip "nowadays it is possible to have a summit of nobodies in a basement.") at which is was decided that they could not drum up support for a resolution, so they'd have to go it alone.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 03:41 AM

Nerd,

"Even without France's veto, Bush did not have enough votes."

Pure conjecture.

"Even if France had done a 180 and voted FOR it, it would have lost."

Pure conjecture - Your contention begs the question that if France had changed its mind and voted for it, why would the countries France had persuaded to oppose the resolution maintained their stance?

"If France's veto had been the issue Bush would have gone ahead with the vote to show that he had support of a majority of the council and that France was just being difficult."

I disagree, the veto would have stood, and the resolution would not have been passed. Going that route would only have succeeded in prolonging the issue, in effect giving Saddam Hussein more time, it would not have affected the outcome of the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Gareth
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 05:34 AM

Far be it for me to point out that the French electorate voted very significantly for Le Pen last year, a man who has similar views on democracy and human rights as Saddam Hussain.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Ringer
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 07:14 AM

Yes, thank you for not pointing that out, Gareth.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 07:30 AM

Aye Gareth,

Chirac picked up votes he otherwise could not have depended upon in response to the banners advising:

"Vote for the Crook, Not the Fascist"

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Nerd
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 11:51 AM

Teribus,

Granted what I'm saying is an educated guess. Not even the most conservative news outlets predicted that Bush would have gotten enough votes, regardless of the French veto. That's what my "pure conjecture" is based on.

What about your assertion that it was specifically the French Veto threat that sent Bush packing? Did you have a conversation with President Bush, or was your statement also "pure conjecture" based on what you heard or read in the news? Just curious...

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 11:51 AM

Le Pen sneaked through the middle and came second because there were a fair number of candidates. Then they had the run off, and pretty well everyone voted for Chirac, even though he is pretty rightwing. Fortunately they don't have a system in France which allows the person who gets fewer votes to become President.

"Kevin: So? Are you saying that Saddam should continue to rule Iraq?"
I'd love it if Saddam were out of the picture. Of course, he's by no mean the only ruler whom I'd love to see the last of, but he's up towards the top of the list. If I could snap my finger, and each time one vanished, I'd be busy snapping fingers for quite some time. Unfortunately it doesn't work like that. And the rules everyone has signed up to don't allow countries to make war on other countries, just in order to get rid of the bastards.

If those are bad rules perhaps there should be some way of changing them, but they are still there, and all countries are bound by them, and are acting illegally if they break them. Which I suppose means that the troops involved in the illegal war could reasonably be described as "illegal combatants. Fortunately I don't think anyone recognises that bizarre way of trying to evade the Geneva Accords, apart from Washington.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 12:19 PM

Nerd,

If memory serves me correctly in the run up to the UK tabling the second resolution, Russia and China said they might use their right of Veto - France on the other hand stated that they were going to use it.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Metchosin
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 12:52 PM

I sort of like the French words "detente" and "diplomacy" ( diplomatie - "tie" pronounced "cie"). Seems to me it took a long time by today's standards and need for instant gratification, but during the "Cold War" where the threat of the use of the weapons of mass distruction was undeniable and the whole world at risk of becoming "freedom toast", the end result didn't suck. Too bad those two French words don't seem to be in Britain's and America's vocabulary now.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Alasdair
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 12:53 PM

You people need to chill out big time. Everyone knows that the French are arrogant cowards; that Americans are majestically ignorant; that French Canadians are lazy; anglophone Canadians are up-tight; the English are cold snobs; the Scots are truculent; the Welsh have an unhealthy fondness for sheep; and the Irish are generally drunk.

who gives a shit?

Al

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 01:57 PM

I'm still puzzled why so many Americans appear to take as a mortal affront the fact that France refused to fall in line with the wishes of the regime in Washington.

It's not as if they suddenly did a u-turn - all along they said that war could only be a last resort when all other avenues had been exhausted. Which is essentially what Tony Blair had told everyone, except that he didn't mean it.

"Serious consequences" did not imply going to war, and it is not honest to claim that it did. Country after country voting form it made it quire clear at the time that it was not a tripwire for automatic war, without the Security Council having teh final say.

Essentially it was a warning that military force could be one of the options to be considered and voted on, if there was insufficient compliance by Iraq. The resolution left the decision in the hands of the Security Council. And the majority of Security Council members, including three of the five permanent members, were not satisfied that all other avenues had been exhausted, when the USA and the UK went to war.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 02:08 PM

Kevin, some people just can't deal with reality and need to find a scapegoat- it's France's turn in the barrel. Blaming France alone also distracts from the fact that the BuShites failed miserably in getting support for their pre-determined agenda in the UN and from most of the rest of the world. Sort of an updated version of "The Big Lie".

Similarly, the claim that Iraq was responsible for Sept. 11- a majority of the U.S. population apparently believes that fabrication.

Unfortunately, the big lie seems to work a treat!

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 03:23 PM

Well, France is off the hook big time. The American ambassador ripped the shit out of Canada big time yesterday. The Premier of Ontario (a Reagan type Conservative) grovelled a bit and said, (or words to this effect) It wasn't US....it's that nasty FRENCH Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien! The one that President Bush thinks is named John Crouton.

Rick, reporting from Soviet Canuckistan.

Cheers

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 05:28 PM

Well French is an official language there, so I imagine some people think that's pretty dodgy. How are the Cajuns coping in this situation?

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Metchosin
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 07:24 PM

Most of us just fine McGrath, although some in the business community have their shirts in a knot.

I would think the Americans would be relieved that Canada isn't in. You never can tell when they might need one our ambassadors to dress 'em up as Canadians and smuggle a bunch of them out through our embassy in some country where the locals have become a bit testy with them.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 08:45 PM

That's a bloody lie, Alasdair!!! It's the fecking Scots who are always assaulting sheep, the filthy sods! The Welsh are into necrophilia and dissecting amphibians without official clearance.

If you were here, I would smack some sense into you.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Alasdair
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 04:41 AM

LOL!!! COngrats Little Hawk - the first msg I've read on here that made me actually laugh out loud. My question is, would I have to pay or not?

Al

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 05:49 AM

I have yet to hear what "serious consequences" means, given the situation at the time that wording was adopted. UN having sat on it's collective arse doing absolutely nothing, apart from talk, for the best part of 12 years, while Saddam Hussein thumbed his nose at them.

The wording of a previous resolution was good enough for the UN to permit "Desert Fox" under the Clinton administration - but not good enough apparently for any action under the Bush administration. The difference, post 11th September 2001, they knew that Bush would treat the matter a great deal more seriously.

And before I get the call that 911 had nothing to do with Iraq - I know and fully appreciate that point. However, none of you, who argue against the American governments stance on Iraq, can offer any form of guarantee whatsoever, that a regime with a history of supporting terrorist groups, that are becoming more and more international, a regime with a history of actively pursuing weapons programmes to acquire weapons of mass destruction, would not at some time in the future pass that knowledge, technology and material on to such a terrorist group. The evaluation of that threat says that it is possible.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Alasdair
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 06:30 AM

I would really like to see someone writing on "Saddam Hussein is a fair and just ruler of his people whose coninued governance should be both permitted and supported by the UN because..."

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: mkebenn
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 08:13 AM

Canuckistan? Oh my Lord...Mike

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 08:52 AM

Teribus-How does Saddam have a history of supporting terrorist groups? As far as I know no credible evidence exists to show that.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 08:52 AM

"...a regime with a history of supporting terrorist groups, that are becoming more and more international, a regime with a history of actively pursuing weapons programmes to acquire weapons of mass destruction..." -

That sounds like a description of quite a number of governments. Including the United States.

For some peculiar reason the Security Council seems to go in for coded wording rather than directly saying what is meant. As understand it the code for going to war is supposed to be "all necessary means" or similar. "Serious consequences" is taken to mean that military action will be on the agenda next time round, and can be stretched to cover violence short of war. Who decides these things is a mystery.

One good thing that should come out of all this would be that they could cut out this kind of crap and use straightforward language, the sort that ultimatums always used to contain in the days when countries actually declared war instead of following the Japanese Pearl Harbour approach to starting conflicts. "Unless such and such happens by such and such a date and time, a state of war will exist between our two countries."

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 09:26 AM

Forum Lurker,

The Ba'ath Regime supports or has supported:

Mujahedeen-e-Khalq
PKK
ANO
Hamas
PLF

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 09:47 AM

The US supported the Mujahedeen too! We've been supporting known terrorist groups for decades.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Alasdair
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 09:49 AM

Let's not even START talking about the US government permitting corporate sponsorship of the IRA...

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 10:21 AM

No arguement there Carol - I never contended that America had never supported terrorist groups, my reply was to a direct question put to me by Forum Lurker.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: GUEST,Peace
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 10:34 AM

Ok then Teribus, given that you dont deny that the US has supported terrorist groups and given that they have weapons of mass destruction, would you agree that it would be right for a foreign country who may be worried about the US supplying terrorists with weapons that may be used against them, to launch an attack on the US on that basis, and which side would you have fought for?

Peace

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 11:00 AM

Guest Peace,

1. The US has done more to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction than any other nation - India and Pakistan, and recently North Korea threw the spanner in the works there.

2. I firmly believe that the US would not under any circumstances deliver weapons of mass destruction into the hands of terrorist groups.

3. The track record of the United States going back damn near 90 years, has established its place among the nations of the world as one of the foremost champions and defenders of freedom and democracy.

4. To make any sort of inference that the US in any way is comparable to Iraq, in fact or by perception is ludicrous, odious and objectionable.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Metchosin
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 12:04 PM

Teribus, if you are referring to nuclear weapons of mass distruction in #1 of your listed points, to be fair, I think you might include Israel in your list.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Nerd
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 02:15 PM

Teribus,

your claim that France stated it would use its veto is in itself debatable; they made several different claims at several different times, and whether they would indeed have vetoed is not at all clear.

But what I was asking was not how you knew the French were planning to veto. It was, rather, what evidence you had that it was the French threat of a veto that was the decisive factor in Bush's decision to avoid seeking a Security Council resolution. That was your original claim:

The reason the second resolution was not put to the vote was because France said that they would veto it.


There is no evidence I know of that will support this. Bush never stated this publicly, nor were the French blamed officially by the US Government, freedom f-cking fries notwithstanding. The fact was that Bush did not have enough votes to carry the resolution, regardless of the French. (This is, as I have said, an educated guess, in that no-one can predict the future with accuracy, but it was the projection of every media outlet based on statements from the various governments on the council, and no doubt of Bush's people as well.) That's why I said you were wrong, and you have so far supplied no evidence to change my mind.

The fact is, if Bush had had enough votes on the table barring a French veto it would have made sense to go ahead with the vote, for two reasons:

1) it wasn't clear, as I said, that the French would in fact veto

and

2) even if they did veto, this war in which we are now engaged would still have been seen as carrying the votes of the majority of the Security Council nations, making France the isolated naysayers that Washington is trying to claim they are. In fact, France was in the majority and the United States and Britain are the isolated ones.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 04:36 PM

Surely we all knew that George Bush's way of dealing with votes thta are going wrong is to stop the count, declare victory, and say the other side are cheats.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 08:58 PM

You are a dick aren't you?

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 09:32 PM

I'm not sure about the general council, though I recall that the Middle Eastern nations hold a strong power block and are almost universally opposed to war, Kuwait excepted. Of the Security Council, though, it would have been a clear 2 out of 5 loss for Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 10:42 PM

The Council has 15 members - five permanent members (with vetoes) and 10 elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms. Each member takes it in turn to be in the chair for one month.

That means to get a majority the UK and the USA would have needed to get another five countries voting with them. Legally speaking that wouldn't have meant anything, since to pass a motion the support of abstention of all the permanent members would have been needed - moreover the resolution was in fact meaningless, since its text contained nothing whatsoever to authorise military action. However getting majority in support would have been politically very useful especially for Tony Blair.

The Sony plausible explanations for deciding not to go for the resolution are either that it was clear there was no majority to be had, in spite of threats and bribes; or on the other hand, legal advice was that a defeated resolution would make it impossible to even argue that Resolution 1441 authorised war. Quite possibly both explanations combined to decide to withdraw the "second resolution.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 11:18 AM

Right. I keep forgetting about the cycling members.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Barry Finn
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 04:59 PM

Weapons of mass destruction. Ask any who grew up in Japan. If I've got the biggest gun in the neighborhood no one will like me but they sure will fear & hate me & do as I want & maybe some day kill me. Then again if I'm loving, generous, caring & helpful, I don't even need to be smart, I would be the neighorhood sweet heart & gain back more than just the respect & love of all around me & would live forever in the hearts of those that knew me. It works on the individual level it could work on high provided there were people on high that cared. We could've been a contender. Now we're less than dirt in the eyes of most the world & we will reap & pay dearly for it. Barry

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Troll
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 08:34 PM

Saw a neat T-shirt on CNN today. It said," War Never Solved Anything.
Except Slavery and Nazism and Fascism.
You all need to lighten up a bit. The following was sent to me in an E-mail.

                        _________________________________

                      THE COW THEORY OF GOVERNMENT

                      DEMOCRAT
                      You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being
                      successful. You vote people into office that put a tax on your cows,
                      forcing you to sell one to raise money to pay the tax. The people you
                      voted for then take the tax money, buy a cow and give it to your
                      neighbor. You feel righteous. Barbara Streisand sings for you.

                      SOCIALIST
                      You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your
                      neighbor. You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.

                      REPUBLICAN
                      You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So, what's your point?

                      COMMUNIST
                      You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with
                      milk. You wait in line for hours to get it. It is expensive and sour.

                      CAPITALISM - AMERICAN STYLE
                      You have two cows. You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.

                      DEMOCRACY - AMERICAN STYLE
                      You have two cows. The government taxes you to the point you have to
                      sell both to support a man in a foreign country who has only one cow,
                      which was a gift from your government.

                      BUREAUCRACY - AMERICAN STYLE
                      You have two cows. The government takes them both, shoots one, milks
                      the other, pays you for the milk, and then pours the milk down the drain.

                      AMERICAN CORPORATION
                      You have two cows. You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an
                      IPO on the second one. You force the two cows to produce the milk of
                      four cows. You are surprised when one cow drops dead. You spin an
                      announcement to the analysts you have downsized and are reducing
                      expenses. Your stock goes up.

                      FRENCH CORPORATION
                      You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows. You
                      go to lunch. Life is good.

                      JAPANESE CORPORATION
                      You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size
                      of am ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. They learn to
                      travel on unbelievably crowded trains. Most are at the top of their
                      class at cow school.

                      GERMAN CORPORATION
                      You have two cows. You engineer them so they are all blond, drink
                      lots of beer, give excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles an
                      hour. Unfortunately, they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.

                      ITALIAN CORPORATION
                      You have two cows but you don't know where they are. While ambling
                      around, you see a beautiful woman. You break for lunch. Life is good.

                      RUSSIAN CORPORATION
                      You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You
                      have some more vodka. You count them again and learn you have 42
                      cows. You count them again and learn you have 12 cows. You stop
                      counting cows and open another bottle of vodka. You produce your 10th
                      5-year plan in the last 3 months. The Mafia shows up and takes over
                      however many cows you really have.

                      FLORIDA CORPORATION
                      You have a black cow and a brown cow. Everyone votes for the best
                      looking one. Some of the people, who like the brown one best, vote
                      for the black one. Some people vote for both. Some vote for neither.
                      Some people can't figure out how to vote at all. Finally, a bunch of
                      guys from out-of-state tell you which is the best looking one.

                      NEW YORK CORPORATION
                      You have fifteen million cows. You have to choose which one will be
                      the leader of the herd, so you pick some cow from Arkansas.
                      ______________________________________________________________

                  

                     
                     
                      ____________________________________________________________________

                      THE 12 RULES OF LIFE

                      Sometimes we just need to remember what The 12 Rules of Life really are:

                      01) Never give yourself a haircut after three margaritas.

                      02) You need only two tools: WD-40 and duct tape. If it doesn't move
                      and it should, use WD-40. If it moves and shouldn't, use the tape.

                      03) The five most essential words for a healthy, vital relationship are "I
                      apologize" and "you are right."

                      04) Everyone seems normal until you get to know them.

                      05) Never pass up an opportunity to pee.

                      06) If he/she says that you are too good for him/her -- believe them.

                      07) Learn to pick your battles; ask yourself, "Will this matter one
                      year from now? How about one month? One week? One day?"

                      08) When you make a mistake, make amends immediately. It's easier to
                      eat crow while it's still warm.

                      09) If you woke up breathing, congratulations! You have another chance!

                      10) Living well really is the best revenge. Being miserable because of a
                      bad or former relationship just might mean that the other person was
                      right about you.

                      11) Work is good, but it's not that important. Money is nice, but you can't
                      take it with you. Statistics show most people don't live to spend all they
                      saved; some die even before they retire. Anything we have isn't really ours;
                      it was given to us by God He just let's us borrow it while we're here...even our kids.

                      12) And finally... Be really good to your family and friends. You never
                      know when you are going to need them to empty your bedpan. Being happy
                      doesn't mean everything's perfect. It means you've decided to see beyond the imperfections.
                      _________________________________________________________________

                      THE FRENCH

                      "As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure"
                      ---Jacques Chirac, President of France

                      In response:Â "As far as France is concerned, you are right."
                      ---Rush Limbaugh
                      Â
                      "France has neither winter nor summer nor morals. Apart from these drawbacks
                      it is a fine country. France has usually been governed by prostitutes."
                      ---Mark Twain
                      Â
                      "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me."
                      --- General George S. Patton
                      Â
                      "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your cello."Â
                      --Norman Schwartzkopf
                      Â
                      "We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it."
                      ---- Marge Simpson
                      Â
                      "The only time France wants us to go to war is when the German Army is
                      sitting in Paris sipping coffee."
                      Â --- Regis Philbin
                      Â
                      "The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any
                      better, on average, than the citizens of Baltimore. True, you can sit
                      outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more
                      stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of bourbon I don't
                      know."
                      --- P. J O'Rourke
                      Â
                      "You know, the French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the
                      1940s who was still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the
                      face for it."
                      ---John McCain, US Senator from Arizona
                      Â
                      "You know why the French don't want to bomb Saddam Hussein? Because he
                      hates America, he loves mistresses and wears a beret. He is French, people."
                      --Conan O'Brien
                      Â
                      "I don't know why people are surprised that France won't help us get
                      Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn't help us get the Germans
                      out of France
                      ---Jay Leno

                      "The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into
                      Paris under a German flag."
                      --David Letterman
                      Â
                      How many Frenchmen does it take to change a light bulb? Just one.
                      Jacques Chirac holds the bulb and all of Europe must revolve around him.
                      Â Â
                      I believe eBay was auctioning a French military firearm. The description
                      was, "Never fired, dropped once."

                      One final French dilemma. George W. Bush is sitting in the Oval Office. Scientists tell him that they
                      have discovered a meteor that is headed towards the earth. They calculate that it will strike France in
                      two days, at approximately 2:30 A.M. The meteor is large enough to completely wipe France from the
                      face of the earth forever.

                      France and the United Nations request that President Bushy send all available ships and aircraft to
                      help evacuate the country. Many of the ships and planes he could send are being used to fight the war
                      on terror overseas.

                      Dubya must decide. Does he stay up late on the night of the impact to watch the coverage live, or
                      does he tape it and watch it in the morning?

                      Thought for the day: You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best
                      golfer is a black guy, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the US of arrogance, and
                      Germany does not want to go to war with anybody.

                     
       troll

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Peg
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 12:13 PM

I marched with over 25,000 people in an anti-war protest in Boston yesterday. The sign I chose to carry (made by frieds the night before) had a French flag and the Statue of Liberty and said "Vive la France!" as well as "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite."

Very interesting the sorts of responses I got.

MOST of the time when people responded to it, they looked with interest and usually smiled, or gave some sign of encouragement (thumbs up, or saying they liked my sign). I also had a bit of silly patter to go with it; in an outrageously fake French accent, I said "Vive la France! Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite, cafe au lait, Vive La france!" When I got to "cafe au lait" people laughed. Some people carred baguettes and wore berets; one sign said "Make French Fries, Not War."
When I ran into one of the other French supporters, a tall guy (also wearing a French sailor's shirt) we chanted together in call and response style: he said "Vive la France!" and I repeated the other four French words. Whe we parted he'd adopted the "cafe au lait" for his own.

Along the route some people hung French flags out their windows (though the Boston police were telling people not to hang out of their windows and threatened to fine those who did), and some folks standing on balconies waving tiny French flags seemed delighted when I shouted up at them and showed my sign. During the march my friends and I, amidst other chants and a few harmonized choruses of "Dona Nobis Pacem" picked up by other marchers, also made up other pro-France chants, like "Baguettes Not Bombs" and "Brioche Not Bombs" and "Make French Toast not War."

On the negative side, one student standing with some others (not sure what college but they seemed to be standing in front of one of it's buidings) challenged me with some sort of statement about breaking some contract with Saddam; it sounded like horse hockey so after suggesting he march with us and make his feelings known ("Why would I march with you?" he sneered) I told him to have a nice day and moved on. We passed several enclaves of pro-war protestors, most of them seeming to be working class men between their 20s and 40s. (Carrying clever signs that said things like "Hey Professional Protestors: Take a shower and get a real job!" or "Flag Burners Go Home!")Several of them saw my sign and said "go back to your own country!" I continued chanting in my ridiculously theatrical fake French accent and they STILL thought I was French! Which I found unbelievable.
At one point some French students tried talking to me in French when they saw my sign and I had to admit "Ma francais est terrible." They laughed when I tried to converse with them in nonsense phrases like "cafe au lait" and "omelette du fromage." One older Veteran (must have been in his 70s at least) who stood along the route covered in buttons and medals, waving an American flag and a sign stating he opposed the war, said "Vive la France!" when I walked by. I went over and kissed him on the cheek, and thanked him for being there.


All in all an amazing day, and even the weather cooperated. Sunny and windy but warm, with just a few momentary bouts of light drizzle. The numbers were just short of the expected 30-50,000 but I imagine these marches will just keep growing. The next one in Washington is expected to top a million.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 01:23 PM

I get irritated by constant cracks about the French losing wars, coming from people in countries protected. in the case of Britain, by a channel, and in the case of America by wide oceans. And it might be as well for Americans to remember that the last time they had a war with a country that wasn't much smaller than themselves was in 1812.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Troll
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 09:56 PM

Do you believe, therefore, that we should have stayed out of WWI and out of WWII as well? As for the British, the one time they attacked a country with a technology on a par with their own ( The US) they got handed their heads.
I'd leave well enough alone if I were you. Oh, and it isn't that the French lost, it's the way they lost.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 10:05 PM

Troll-If you're talking about the War of 1812, I don't recall it being quite so one-sided as that. Something about them burning our capitol city to the ground?

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 10:46 PM

Yessiree, Bob! We repulsed every American invasion attempt in 1812-1814, captured the frigate "Chesapeake", swept the sea of most of your merchant marine, burned Washington and the White House, and mooned your guys across the Niagara River, to add insult to injury. Not bad, considering we were badly outnumbered in available manpower on the North American continent.

Here's my version of the cow theory of government:

I have 2 cows. Joe doesn't have a cow. Joe and I and a number of other people live in our community. The basis of our community is that we all share with one another equally. Joe may not have a cow, but he does have an ax, and he's good with that ax. I contribute to the community by providing all of us with milk from my 2 cows. Joe provides firewood on behalf of all of us. One day Joe helps teach me how to use the ax, and I teach him how to milk the cow. Now both of us are more capable, and each can fill in for the other when the other is not available. This further benefits everybody. Those of us who can sing and play instruments do so, which again benefits the whole community. We teach others if they are interested. Those who are good at anything share it with others, and help those others to become good at it too, if they are interested.

We are all for one, and one for all. We are all unique, and that enriches the community. We are all secure in the knowledge that others will not abandon us if we are in need.

It simply doesn't matter who has 2 cows in such a community. Money is not necessary in such a community, unless it must deal with outside people who are not familiar with the concept of community, and are just out for themselves. Such a community must remain fairly small these days...cos the larger system is based on people NOT sharing with one another, and will take measures against sharing people if they become too noticeable.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 11:11 PM

Little Hawk-unfortunately, human greed almost always causes such systems to break down, even without outside intervention, once they are large enough that mere sense of community cannot provide all necessary moral guidance.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: Gareth
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 01:24 AM

Historical lesson.

Which infant nation had it's capital burnt by the British, suffered close and effective blockade of it's ports, and whose Navy did not dare to leave harbour in the end. ?

The magnaminity of the terms offered by Britain in the Treaty of Paris should be well remembered.

Finally it is proper that the dying words of Captain Laurence of the USS Cheasepeake " Don't give up the ship " should be remembered - It is also proper that the words of Captain Phillip Broke of HMS "Shannon" should be remembered "Follow me who can"

An unrepentant,

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 06:12 AM

The point I was making was that the sneers we've been hearing about France's defeat in 1940 are unworthy and essentially dishonest.

Noone can say whether, in the absence of the Channel, Britain wouldn't have gone the way, while the United States has found itself in the happy situation of never (since 1812) having to fight a war against a country of comparable size and strength to itself, and therefore has no way of knowing how it would cope in such circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: toadfrog
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 11:23 PM

When you go to heaven, babe, gonna stop by france
Hey lawdy mama mama, hey lawdy papa papa, hollerin' 'bout stop by france.
Gonna stop by there just to give these girls a chance.

Baby, when I die, don't bury daddy at all.
Hey lawdy mama mama, hey lawdy papa papa, hollerin' 'bout buryin' daddy at all.
Well pickle daddy's bones, baby, in alcohol.

Subject: RE: BS: France
From: DougR
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 11:51 PM

Forum Lurker: you were AROUND for the War of 1812? Amazing!

DougR