Poem for the French

nmcglennon

Golden Member
Jul 19, 2002
1,170
0
0
Eleven thousand soldiers
   lay beneath the dirt and stone,
   all buried on a distant land
   so far away from home.

For just a strip of dismal beach
   they paid a hero's price,
   to save a foreign nation
   they all made the sacrifice.

And now the shores of Normandy
   are lined with blocks of white
   Americans who didn't turn
   from someone else's plight.

Eleven thousand reasons
   for the French to take our side,
   but in the moment of our need,
   they chose to run and hide.

Chirac said every war means loss,
   perhaps for France that's true,
   for they've lost every battle
   since the days of Waterloo.

Without a soldier worth a damn
   to be found in the region,
   the French became the only land
   to need a Foreign Legion.

You French all say we're arrogant.
   Well hell, we've earned the right--
   We saved your sorry nation
   when you lacked the guts to fight.

But now you've made a big mistake,
   and one that you'll regret;
   you took sides with our enemies,
   and that we won't forget.

It wasn't just our citizens
   you spit on when you turned,
   but every one of ours who fell
   the day the towers burned.

You spit upon our soldiers,
   on our pilots and Marines,
   and now you'll get a little sense
   of just what payback means.

So keep your Paris fashions
   and your wine and your champagne,
   and find some other market
   that will buy your aeroplanes.

And try to find somebody else
   to wear your French cologne,
   for you're about to find out
   what it means to stand alone.

You see, you need us far more
    than we ever needed you.
    America has better friends
    who know how to be true.

I'd rather stand with warriors
    who have the will and might,
    than huddle in the dark with those
    whose only flag is white.

I'll take the Brits, the Aussies,
    the Israelis and the rest,
    for when it comes to valor
    we have seen that they're the best.

We'll count on one another
    as we face a moment dire,
    while you sit on the sideline
    with a sign "friendship for hire."

We'll win this war without you
    and we'll total up the cost,
    and take it from your foreign aid,
    and then you'll feel the loss.

And when your nation starts to fall,
    well Frenchie, you can spare us,
    just call the Germans for a hand,
    they know the way to Paris.

 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
rolleye.gif
:disgust:
 

xirtam

Diamond Member
Aug 25, 2001
4,693
0
0
I think we're pretty darn close to owing the French our independence to begin with.
 

kleinesarschloch

Senior member
Jan 18, 2003
529
0
0
WOW... that showed them. i bet those chease eating surrender monkeys will think twice from now on when they want to disagree with the new world order.
 

Mean MrMustard

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2001
3,144
10
81
Originally posted by: kleinesarschloch
WOW... that showed them. i bet those chease eating surrender monkeys will think twice from now on when they want to disagree with the new world order.

I agree.

"you took sides with our enemies,"

Just because they didn't agree to go to war does not mean they are siding with the enemy. If that were the case Switzerland is one of our biggest enemies ever.
 

theNEOone

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2001
5,745
4
81
Originally posted by: ELP
Originally posted by: kleinesarschloch
WOW... that showed them. i bet those chease eating surrender monkeys will think twice from now on when they want to disagree with the new world order.

I agree.

"you took sides with our enemies,"

Just because they didn't agree to go to war does not mean they are siding with the enemy. If that were the case Switzerland is one of our biggest enemies ever.


"you took sides with the enemies" is just as much a reference to France not going to war, as it is to them selling military equipment to Saddam

btw, good post. i like that poem..........now if only AIM away messages were allowed to be longer
 

Mean MrMustard

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2001
3,144
10
81
Originally posted by: theNEOone
Originally posted by: ELP
Originally posted by: kleinesarschloch
WOW... that showed them. i bet those chease eating surrender monkeys will think twice from now on when they want to disagree with the new world order.

I agree.

"you took sides with our enemies,"

Just because they didn't agree to go to war does not mean they are siding with the enemy. If that were the case Switzerland is one of our biggest enemies ever.


"you took sides with the enemies" is just as much a reference to France not going to war, as it is to them selling military equipment to Saddam

btw, good post. i like that poem..........now if only AIM away messages were allowed to be longer

Oh yes! Now I remember! If you aren't with us; you're against us....
rolleye.gif


BTW, who helped Saddam into power?

 

theNEOone

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2001
5,745
4
81
Originally posted by: ELP
Originally posted by: theNEOone
Originally posted by: ELP
Originally posted by: kleinesarschloch
WOW... that showed them. i bet those chease eating surrender monkeys will think twice from now on when they want to disagree with the new world order.

I agree.

"you took sides with our enemies,"

Just because they didn't agree to go to war does not mean they are siding with the enemy. If that were the case Switzerland is one of our biggest enemies ever.


"you took sides with the enemies" is just as much a reference to France not going to war, as it is to them selling military equipment to Saddam

btw, good post. i like that poem..........now if only AIM away messages were allowed to be longer

Oh yes! Now I remember! If you aren't with us; you're against us....
rolleye.gif


BTW, who helped Saddam into power?

oh god. not that stupid argument again. yay. go you.

 

Mean MrMustard

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2001
3,144
10
81
Originally posted by: theNEOone
Originally posted by: ELP
Originally posted by: theNEOone
Originally posted by: ELP
Originally posted by: kleinesarschloch
WOW... that showed them. i bet those chease eating surrender monkeys will think twice from now on when they want to disagree with the new world order.

I agree.

"you took sides with our enemies,"

Just because they didn't agree to go to war does not mean they are siding with the enemy. If that were the case Switzerland is one of our biggest enemies ever.


"you took sides with the enemies" is just as much a reference to France not going to war, as it is to them selling military equipment to Saddam

btw, good post. i like that poem..........now if only AIM away messages were allowed to be longer

Oh yes! Now I remember! If you aren't with us; you're against us....
rolleye.gif


BTW, who helped Saddam into power?

oh god. not that stupid argument again. yay. go you.

Yes, that argument counters yours, so it has to be stupid. Damn anyone who disagrees with the U.S.!

 

johnjohn320

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2001
7,572
2
76
Yeah, except the Germans were marching on France burning cities, etc. I don't see any Iraqis around here, do you? And don't tell me about the WTC, don't you dare to claim to know that Saddam was behind that.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: johnjohn320
Yeah, except the Germans were marching on France burning cities, etc. I don't see any Iraqis around here, do you? And don't tell me about the WTC, don't you dare to claim to know that Saddam was behind that.

Could you make a coherent post please. WTF are you trying to say? Moron.
 

numark

Golden Member
Sep 17, 2002
1,005
0
0
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: johnjohn320
Yeah, except the Germans were marching on France burning cities, etc. I don't see any Iraqis around here, do you? And don't tell me about the WTC, don't you dare to claim to know that Saddam was behind that.

Could you make a coherent post please. WTF are you trying to say? Moron.

Makes perfect sense to me. Saying that other wars the French were involved in actually were justified, because they were under immediate attack. The Iraqi war has no justification in that sense, since the French were under no direct imminent danger from Iraq (neither was Germany, England, or, dare I say it, even the US). It's easy to blind yourself to the opposing point of view and call them a moron, isn't it?
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: numark
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: johnjohn320
Yeah, except the Germans were marching on France burning cities, etc. I don't see any Iraqis around here, do you? And don't tell me about the WTC, don't you dare to claim to know that Saddam was behind that.

Could you make a coherent post please. WTF are you trying to say? Moron.

Makes perfect sense to me. Saying that other wars the French were involved in actually were justified, because they were under immediate attack. The Iraqi war has no justification in that sense, since the French were under no direct imminent danger from Iraq (neither was Germany, England, or, dare I say it, even the US). It's easy to blind yourself to the opposing point of view and call them a moron, isn't it?

Oh it was one of those. You know those posts where you have to ASSUME what someone is trying to say. The funny thing is, there was evidence to suggest danger from Iraq. Comparing WWII to the current war is nothing more than an apples to oranges tripe comparison. I am not blind to the opposing view, but I do know it is not well thought out nor rational. You are not going to convince me to change my mind, nor will you convince me you have the moral highground.

Actually I was wrong. WWII and the current war have one thing in common: the speed at which the opposition surrendered to an occupying military.
 

johnjohn320

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2001
7,572
2
76
Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: johnjohn320
Yeah, except the Germans were marching on France burning cities, etc. I don't see any Iraqis around here, do you? And don't tell me about the WTC, don't you dare to claim to know that Saddam was behind that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Could you make a coherent post please. WTF are you trying to say? Moron.

Ah, the irony. You don't punctuate properly, use internet abbreviations, and sentence fragments, and I'm the incoherent one. Anyway, seeing as someone else clarified for you, I don't need to re-explain.

Actually I was wrong. WWII and the current war have one thing in common: the speed at which the opposition surrendered to an occupying military

Huh? You call me a moron, and then tell me that Germany surrendered quickly in WWII? Wow. I can't even touch this. You need to re-think this, man. Read a book.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: johnjohn320
Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: johnjohn320
Yeah, except the Germans were marching on France burning cities, etc. I don't see any Iraqis around here, do you? And don't tell me about the WTC, don't you dare to claim to know that Saddam was behind that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Could you make a coherent post please. WTF are you trying to say? Moron.

Ah, the irony. You don't punctuate properly, use internet abbreviations, and sentence fragments, and I'm the incoherent one. Anyway, seeing as someone else clarified for you, I don't need to re-explain.

Actually I was wrong. WWII and the current war have one thing in common: the speed at which the opposition surrendered to an occupying military

Huh? You call me a moron, and then tell me that Germany surrendered quickly in WWII? Wow. I can't even touch this. You need to re-think this, man. Read a book.

You fvcktard France was the opposition to Germany's military advance. Go back to your limp wristed piano playing parties.
 

This whole thing reminds me of a second grade playground spat.

"Fine! You don't want to help me steal Billy's hat, Tom? I have better friends that will do bad stuff with me!"
 

numark

Golden Member
Sep 17, 2002
1,005
0
0
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: numark
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: johnjohn320
Yeah, except the Germans were marching on France burning cities, etc. I don't see any Iraqis around here, do you? And don't tell me about the WTC, don't you dare to claim to know that Saddam was behind that.

Could you make a coherent post please. WTF are you trying to say? Moron.

Makes perfect sense to me. Saying that other wars the French were involved in actually were justified, because they were under immediate attack. The Iraqi war has no justification in that sense, since the French were under no direct imminent danger from Iraq (neither was Germany, England, or, dare I say it, even the US). It's easy to blind yourself to the opposing point of view and call them a moron, isn't it?

Oh it was one of those. You know those posts where you have to ASSUME what someone is trying to say. The funny thing is, there was evidence to suggest danger from Iraq. Comparing WWII to the current war is nothing more than an apples to oranges tripe comparison. I am not blind to the opposing view, but I do know it is not well thought out nor rational. You are not going to convince me to change my mind, nor will you convince me you have the moral highground.

Actually I was wrong. WWII and the current war have one thing in common: the speed at which the opposition surrendered to an occupying military.

Evidence to *suggest* danger is not enough in my eyes. I would have preferred to see evidence that conclusively shows that Hussein was directly a threat to us. I'm glad that Saddam is out as much as the next guy, but to go on a "suggestion" of evidence that some country is a possible threat is a dangerous precedent to set. It redefines warfare in a way that was never meant to happen.

I know I'll never convince you of my views, and I imply in no way that I am morally superior to you. However, you will notice that I have also not called you a "moron" or insulted you in any way or form. I believe that the original poster was coherent and had a post that was very definitely implying something that was fairly obvious. It was, in fact, your post that was relatively incoherent, making no sense except to perpetuate an insult. That was what I was trying to get at.