yeah - screw the frenchies!!!!

[Paradiddle]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...reedom_fries_2

[TObject]

Yah.

Remember who saved our ass during the Revolutionary War?

US and France signed an Alliance Treaty on February 6, 1778. France sent to the U.S. troops equal in number to the Continental Army and a naval squadron as large as the British fleet stationed here.

French loaned money that contributed to paying American troops and to purchasing local provisions for the American army. Sent gunpowder, cannon, muskets, uniforms, and other war materials. Sent experienced, professional army officers, especially engineers, to serve in the American army. Provided seaman for some privateer ships. Provided European-based ports to harbor US naval and privateer ships. Diverted British military and naval resources from North America by challenging English navy on the seas and attacking English overseas possessions. Assisted Dutch support of American effort. Encourage and supported Spanish participation in the war against England. Deployed the sizable military expedition and naval fleet that participated in the 1781 Yorktown Campaign.

And when France needed help shortly thereafter, US refused to stand to its site of the bargain.

We did help France during WWII, and that's a good thing.

But, now French fries are considered un-American?.. Woa! Woa, I say!

[speaceman]

Mabye we can just rename them like people renamed Sourkraut during WW II.

French fries can be renamed "Victory Potatoes" or something like that.

[TJRON]

Originally posted by TObject
Yah.

Remember who saved our ass during the Revolutionary War?

US and France signed an Alliance Treaty on February 6, 1778. France sent to the U.S. troops equal in number to the Continental Army and a naval squadron as large as the British fleet stationed here.

French loaned money that contributed to paying American troops and to purchasing local provisions for the American army. Sent gunpowder, cannon, muskets, uniforms, and other war materials. Sent experienced, professional army officers, especially engineers, to serve in the American army. Provided seaman for some privateer ships. Provided European-based ports to harbor US naval and privateer ships. Diverted British military and naval resources from North America by challenging English navy on the seas and attacking English overseas possessions. Assisted Dutch support of American effort. Encourage and supported Spanish participation in the war against England. Deployed the sizable military expedition and naval fleet that participated in the 1781 Yorktown Campaign.

And when France needed help shortly thereafter, US refused to stand to its site of the bargain.

We did help France during WWII, and that's a good thing.

Yeah. Big deal. What have they done for us lately?

[TObject]

Originally posted by TJRON
Yeah. Big deal. What have they done for us lately?

They gave us movies with Catherine Deneuve.

I just watched Belle De Jour on Saturday.

[Paradiddle]

Originally posted by TObject
They gave us movies with Catherine Deneuve.

I just watched Belle De Jour on Saturday.

Sergey - the help we got from France in the revolution was wonderful - but America more than paid with their sons during the liberation of their country in WWII. Have you seen a picture of that cemetary there in Normandy? It's about 70% American.

They can kiss my American butt now - they harbor criminals of the world, they smell bad, and their attitude sucks.

Not to mention that they have very few good drummers.

Jeff

[mbeshears]

Do you think the French would go against the US if Bush provided proof that Iraq is a true threat? France is just callking BS on Bush. I agree, Bush would not let the US suffer as it has at the UN if it had real proof. Whats the secret? Who cares if the Iraq's learn of our intelligence. Prove it, get approval, destroy them. Bush has no evidence, because there is no credible evidence. I applaude France for standing up for whats right. We do not blindly support violence in this country, and a preemptive attack is not in our interests. I say go after the real terrorists.

[Robert J. Yates]

The French have a big economic interest in Iraq. It serves them no purpose if we invade and run the country for God knows how many years, which basically will mean that we will control the economic output of Iraq.

The bottom line with this BS is that money, oil and political interests are what is driving this situation, not doing what is right. Iraq sucks and if we let them, they will use some sort of weapon on us, ie any one of the "western" nations, or sell one to somebody who will which requires that something be done.

You would think that a rational middle ground between all these competing interests could have been worked out. Somebody ****ed that all up and the French certainly didn't do anything to help solve the problem. If we were for it, they were automatically against it. "Uber Europe to stand as a checkmate against the Imperialist US" - that attitude is exactly what ****es me off about the French.

My dad, and a lot of other folks dads were over there in WWII so I don't even want to hear about all they have done for us. The past is nice for reflecting on when you are living in peace off the fat of the land. Right now, there is no peace and either we impose our version of peace or have one imposed on us. Myself, I prefer to do the imposing.

[Dan-H]

There are French Army Rifles for sale on eBay.

- Never fired
- small scratches from being dropped on the ground.

[Paradiddle]

Originally posted by Dan-H
There are French Army Rifles for sale on eBay.

- Never fired
- small scratches from being dropped on the ground.

Dan - it's "Never fired, dropped once"

I agree with Robert, and while I'm not sure this thing over there is worth lives YET (I think we should wait until they attack someone so there is no political BS), Iraq will continue to be a problem.

I have to disagree with you mbeshears on one thing - if there was no threat I don't think Bush would send American boys to die. I'm not a Bush fan, but he is an American and responsible for the lives of anyone in the armed forces. He also has the rational views of Powell - a Vietnam vet - to let him know if this thing is BS or not. There is no way Powell - a career soldier - would send boys to die for no reason.

Personally, I'd think it rich with irony if Saddam put a scut into Paris. The French would come crying to the UN and the US would say - "well, that's not our problem now is it?"

The US is in a no win situation with the world right now - we are expected to be the world's policeman when "they" deem it appropriate, but not when we feel threatened - then we are imperialistic pigs.

We should call them SCUD SPUDS!!!!!

Jeff

[Jeff Weston]

WRT to the timing and it being a rush to war, there are two things to consider. First, either something has to happen fairly soon or else will have to wait until fall. The temperature is quickly rising over there and it is to much to undertake under the heat of late spring and summer, especially with the chemical warfare gear, etc.

Second, our economy is going in the tank with the threat of war hanging over our head. People are taking a wait and see with everything and consumer confidence is plummeting and gas prices are skyrocketing (along with the oil strike in Venezuela).

We are in a bad situation for sure. How long do you think you can keep 250,000+ soldiers deployed, away from their families, just waiting, without morale suffering?

Robert also hit the nail on the head. The Russians and the French have some very large contracts with the current Iraqi government. Russia is owed over $9 billion dollars for military sales. France rebuilt Iraq's telecommunications after the Gulf War and is slated to upgrade their entire network. I read an article last week that basically said that all this future money and work for these nations is predicated on their vetoes with the U.N. It is quite easy to say that the U.S.'s foreign policies are influenced by financial gain, but when hasn't it and what countries are not? Many of the same people who blame all this on oil are the same who ensure domestic production greatly restricted.

[ScottyY2K]

Originally posted by Jeff Weston
WRT to the timing and it being a rush to war, there are two things to consider. First, either something has to happen fairly soon or else will have to wait until fall. The temperature is quickly rising over there and it is to much to undertake under the heat of late spring and summer, especially with the chemical warfare gear, etc.

Second, our economy is going in the tank with the threat of war hanging over our head. People are taking a wait and see with everything and consumer confidence is plummeting and gas prices are skyrocketing (along with the oil strike in Venezuela).

We are in a bad situation for sure. How long do you think you can keep 250,000+ soldiers deployed, away from their families, just waiting, without morale suffering?

Robert also hit the nail on the head. The Russians and the French have some very large contracts with the current Iraqi government. Russia is owed over $9 billion dollars for military sales. France rebuilt Iraq's telecommunications after the Gulf War and is slated to upgrade their entire network. I read an article last week that basically said that all this future money and work for these nations is predicated on their vetoes with the U.N. It is quite easy to say that the U.S.'s foreign policies are influenced by financial gain, but when hasn't it and what countries are not? Many of the same people who blame all this on oil are the same who ensure domestic production greatly restricted.

I could not agree more. Screw the frogs and the russions! They sit there so pious and preach, "Give inspections and peace a chance!" They make me want to puke. Along with supplying arms to Iraq they have buillions of dollars, francs and rubles invested in commercial enterprises in Iraq. That is the only reason they are so vocally opposed to dismantling of the Saddam regime. Then someone else will be making mucho $,$$$,$$$,$$$ in building and supplying Iraq.

[rock*crawler]

Originally posted by mbeshears
Do you think the French would go against the US if Bush provided proof that Iraq is a true threat? France is just callking BS on Bush. I agree, Bush would not let the US suffer as it has at the UN if it had real proof. Whats the secret? Who cares if the Iraq's learn of our intelligence. Prove it, get approval, destroy them. Bush has no evidence, because there is no credible evidence. I applaude France for standing up for whats right. We do not blindly support violence in this country, and a preemptive attack is not in our interests. I say go after the real terrorists.

French will go against Iraq no matter how much evidence US presents. They have very nice cheap oil from Saddam, they get under food for oil UN programs.

UN should have gone after Iraq in 1998 after they kicked out the inspectors in violation of how many UN resolutions?

World War II is not the only case where US protected France.
Germany threatened France during WWI and US was there to protect them.
France was one of the greatest beneficiaries of the Marshall Plan after WWII.
US nuclear shield during Cold War was keeping the Soviets from threatening West Europe.


Here's a list of french products to boycot :

- Bic (razors, pens and lighters)
- Club Med (vacations)
- Yoplait yogurt
- Vivendi and its subsidiary Universal Studios (music, movies and amusement parks)
- Christian Dior
- Michelin (tires and auto parts)
- Marie Claire
- Air Liquide
- Veritas Group
- M?phisto (shoes and clothes)
- Moet (champagne)
- Perrier (water; and who can forget that benzene scandal?)
- Evian (which we found out is owned by huge food company Danone, which boasts of being No. 1 in water, No. 1 in fresh dairy products and No. 2 in cereal biscuits and snack crackers; brands include Aqua, Wahaha and Volvic waters, Dannon yogurt and LU biscuits and crackers)
- Biotherm (cosmetics)
- DKNY - LVMH acquired 100 percent of Gabrielle Studio Inc., the privately owned licenser of Donna Karan trademarks.
- Jacobs Creek
- Givenchy
- Allegra (allergy medication, produced by the Strasbourg company Aventis Pharmaceuticals
- Pierre Cardin
- International Herald Tribune
- Air France
- Peugeot (wee automobiles)
- Alcatel
- Renault (automobiles - "I used that word loosely")
- Bollinger (champagne)
- Louis Vuitton
- Hennessy
- L'Oreal (health and beauty products)
- Lancome

- Motel 6 and Red Roof Inns are owned by Accor Hotels.
- And don't forget to avoid the Total and Fina gas stations owned by the oil-greedy Frenchies.

[Robert J. Yates]

Originally posted by rock*crawler
Here's a list of french products to boycot :

- Bic (razors, pens and lighters)
- Club Med (vacations)
- Yoplait yogurt
- Vivendi and its subsidiary Universal Studios (music, movies and amusement parks)
- Christian Dior
- Michelin (tires and auto parts)
- Marie Claire
- Air Liquide
- Veritas Group
- M?phisto (shoes and clothes)
- Moet (champagne)
- Perrier (water; and who can forget that benzene scandal?)
- Evian (which we found out is owned by huge food company Danone, which boasts of being No. 1 in water, No. 1 in fresh dairy products and No. 2 in cereal biscuits and snack crackers; brands include Aqua, Wahaha and Volvic waters, Dannon yogurt and LU biscuits and crackers)
- Biotherm (cosmetics)
- DKNY - LVMH acquired 100 percent of Gabrielle Studio Inc., the privately owned licenser of Donna Karan trademarks.
- Jacobs Creek
- Givenchy
- Allegra (allergy medication, produced by the Strasbourg company Aventis Pharmaceuticals
- Pierre Cardin
- International Herald Tribune
- Air France
- Peugeot (wee automobiles)
- Alcatel
- Renault (automobiles - "I used that word loosely")
- Bollinger (champagne)
- Louis Vuitton
- Hennessy
- L'Oreal (health and beauty products)
- Lancome

- Motel 6 and Red Roof Inns are owned by Accor Hotels.
- And don't forget to avoid the Total and Fina gas stations owned by the oil-greedy Frenchies.

Hell, I'm boycotting most of that crap already seeing how I'm a Jeeper and all - after expenses for parts, gas and trips, I don't have the disposal income left over to wear DKNY or Dior, much less pack it all up in Louis Vitton luggage and drink Moet and Evian whilst riding 1st class on an Air France AB300 Jet

[TObject]

He he he. I am going to play a role of an official France advocate on jeepbbs.

When in February 1793 the final in the series of wars between the English and the French had begun, instead of supporting the French, per treaty of mutual support signed in 1778, US declared neutrality instead.

How is that different from what France is doing now?

[BrackneyC]

Originally posted by mbeshears
Do you think the French would go against the US if Bush provided proof that Iraq is a true threat? France is just callking BS on Bush. I agree, Bush would not let the US suffer as it has at the UN if it had real proof. Whats the secret? Who cares if the Iraq's learn of our intelligence. Prove it, get approval, destroy them. Bush has no evidence, because there is no credible evidence. I applaude France for standing up for whats right. We do not blindly support violence in this country, and a preemptive attack is not in our interests. I say go after the real terrorists.

Is it possible that Bush and company may be holding back "some" info from you that may be considered dangerous to our troops if it were released? As a former military man, I am disgusted by the info that the common civilian is seeing as it is.

To answer your question: Do I think France would go against Bush if Iraq were proven to be a threat? In a minute they would. Of all of the EU, France is the weakest, with the least to offer in any capacity, be it militarily, or politically.

Ask Kuwait if Saddam is a threat. Ask the Kurds of Saddam is a threat. Ask the women (whoops, they're dead) Saddam has had beheaded in front of their families if Saddam is a threat.

You can say whatever you want, just remember that good men died (in France even) so you could say that France is right in their refusal to admit the obvious. Don't forget where you came from.

Appeasement is not the answer.

[Jeff Weston]

Originally posted by TObject
He he he. I am going to play a role of an official France advocate on jeepbbs.

When in February 1793 the final in the series of wars between the English and the French had begun, instead of supporting the French, per treaty of mutual support signed in 1778, US declared neutrality instead.

How is that different from what France is doing now?

I almost hate to reply for fear of sounding like a war monger, which I'm not. However, if France were to claim neutrality, they would abstain when voting on a UN resolution. By vetoing, they are, in effect, choosing the other position.

This whole thing is a mess.

[mbeshears]

I know where I'm from, and appreciate what has been done for this country by our servicemen. I have considered that Bush is holding back information that would be vital to protecting our personnel. However, I do not think that the Bush administration would allow the US to suffer as it has in the court of world opinion. If Bush has some valid evidence, surely he could share it with allies who have fought with us many times in the past. If his claims were true, I think they would join us in disarming Iraq.
I think that the lack of support we have received is directly related to a lack of credibility on the part of our president. I for one am not interested in rallying behind our president to initiate an attack on another country that poses no immediate threat. I say let the UN keep searching. Iraq is contained, they can not lift a finger without being pounced on. Tighten the noose and keep looking.
Sure, we bag on France, but they are not alone in standing against us. Yes, they also have oil contracts with Iraq, that is a result of a business agreement. I'm sure we will take that oil for ourselves after we "liberate" Iraq, and won't that be great for us!

[TObject]

Originally posted by Jeff Weston
By vetoing, they are, in effect, choosing the other position.

Jeff.

Let's hypothetically say that the war with Iraq starts tomorrow (I hope it doesn't), which of the following three options you think France is most likely to choose:

1) Support US in the war effort, and send troops to fight Iraq
2) Do nothing
3) Send troops to defend Iraq

[Art Welch]

Originally posted by TObject
Jeff.

Let's hypothetically say that the war with Iraq starts tomorrow (I hope it doesn't), which of the following three options you think France is most likely to choose:

1) Support US in the war effort, and send troops to fight Iraq
2) Do nothing
3) Send troops to defend Iraq

Clearly option 2 however not because they are neutral but because they are French.

Yes, I know I'm not Jeff.

[rock*crawler]

Originally posted by mbeshears
However, I do not think that the Bush administration would allow the US to suffer as it has in the court of world opinion.

USA is a sovereign nation (last time i checked), Bush is not accountable to the "court of world opinion", but he is accountable to people of USA.

[Paradiddle]

Originally posted by Art Welch
Clearly option 2 however not because they are neutral but because they are French.

Yes, I know I'm not Jeff.

Art - I just spit coke all over my desk....classic

A Different Jeff

[TObject]

Originally posted by Art Welch
not because they are neutral but because they are French

Well, it's not like US hasn't done something like that in the past, ether. US managed to stay out of World War I at first, and it was considered a good thing, then. Woodrow Wilson's campaign slogan that got him reelected was, "He kept us out of war".

[Art Welch]

Originally posted by TObject
Well, it's not like US hasn't done something like that in the past, ether. US managed to stay out of World War I at first, and it was considered a good thing, then. Woodrow Wilson's campaign slogan that got him reelected was, "He kept us out of war".

Yes, that's a true statement as far as I'm aware.

My take on the French in the current situation is that they are irrelevent. I'm not interested in what they think or what they want nor am I interested in if they approve of what we think or want. I'm not mad at them because they just don't matter to me.

I did enjoy this when it made it's way around a few weeks ago though:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...3/162810.shtml

[BrackneyC]

Originally posted by mbeshears
I'm sure we will take that oil for ourselves after we "liberate" Iraq, and won't that be great for us! [/B]

Not going to happen. It didn't happen when we liberated Kuwait, and we could have waltzed right into Iraq and taken it when we were there the first time. America does not liberate nations so that we may take their resources for ourselves. I know you know that, and to say anything to the contrary would be disingenous.

I have heard the oil argument offered up by the left on too many occasions, and it is just a flat out fantasy. George Bush may not be as smart as some others, but there is no way in hell he could, or would take the oil "for himself."

[TJRON]

Originally posted by TObject
Well, it's not like US hasn't done something like that in the past, ether. US managed to stay out of World War I at first, and it was considered a good thing, then. Woodrow Wilson's campaign slogan that got him reelected was, "He kept us out of war".

Sergey, I have to wonder how you feel about Germany, Italy and Japan. They were not very nice many years ago.
My point? Who cares about that old stuff. Now is now? Then was then.

[TObject]

It's irrelevant how I feel.

The old stuff is called history. We can analyze old stuff much better than what is happening now, since we know what events in our past were important. We just leave the events that were meaningless in the retrospective, out of the picture.

What about now? I have no idea how what we are discussing will project into the future. Maybe it will be forgotten in six months; maybe it will turn out to be the key point of the twenty first century. Who knows?

"History is a vast early warning system."
-Norman Cousins

[sethmark]

I would say that those sick ****ing assholes that flew 2 jet liners into 2 of the tallest buildings in the world and killed thousands of international business people MIGHT have established the first 'key point' of the 21st century.

[TJRON]

Yeah Sergey. I understand history repeats itself and it teaches and all that but some times it doesn't apply.

I get a kick out of sports odd makers giving the twenty year history of some team as if it's relevent to tomarrow's game. I think Fance's history 50 years ago is not relevent to what's going on now. It will be new history soon though!

[TObject]

Ok. Forget about history. Tell me this then, how does boycotting French products help to convince the French to join the US effort to fight Iraq?

Is that some advanced kind of diplomacy? Listen France; we have a great deal for you: You stop voicing your opinion against war in Iraq, and we'll stop buying your products ? you'll have more Evan water for yourself ? everyone is happy. And then we'll all go out and have frosty chocolate milkshakes. Yea, frosty chocolate milkshakes...