So whats up with this anti-french sentiment lately?

[halik]

I don't get it...every country acts with their own interest and chances are its money,
in the case of french (as well as the US,russia etc.) its all about oil. They had a deal with iraq, one french nationalized oil company will pump some 60% off iraqs oil, pending their disament. Russia had a similiar deal, but i pelieve it fell thru.

Now what do you think its gonna happen when us forces clean that place out...the oil is gonna go to our Excusions and Escalades, rather than peugeots and citroens. People should open eyes and see that macroeconomics is behind everything, and its not as simple as "thems french dunt like us"

 

[jahawkin]

There needs to be a scapegoat for Bush's diplomatic failures.

 

[Heisenberg]

They put their oil deals ahead of people's lives and safety (not just American's, but Iraqi citizens as well).

 

[Stark]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
There needs to be a scapegoat for Bush's diplomatic failures.

ya, bush is the failure and chiraq is the victor... we'll see in about a month.

 

[chiwawa626]

French is old now, we are now anti canada.

 

[kleinesarschloch]

Originally posted by: Heisenberg
They put their oil deals ahead of people's lives and safety (not just American's, but Iraqi citizens as well).

oh the irony.

 

[GasX]

Because they say they love peace when peace is the last thing on their mind.

And they smell...

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Stark

Originally posted by: jahawkin
There needs to be a scapegoat for Bush's diplomatic failures.

ya, bush is the failure and chiraq is the victor... we'll see in about a month.

How many countries support this war? How many oppose this war??
Bush failed to convince the world this war is a good idea. Hell, he couldn't even convince Turkey with billions of dollars in bribes.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Heisenberg
They put their oil deals ahead of people's lives and safety (not just American's, but Iraqi citizens as well).

Oh comon, why do you think bush is going to iraq (that might have WMDs...we dont know) rather than going to North korea (proven to have WMDs, violating the same threaty and with similar human rights record. )

The "its for our own security" argument is the biggest failure of Bushes plan - every country has their own security problems (NK vs SK, India vs pakistan and the list goes on). This pre emptive strike deal is something he should not be mentioning at all, it makes no sense at all and appears texan-style-arrogant.

Bush just should've gone all out, saying that saddam is bad and that his oil would fix the situation of the global economy (global unempoyment, consumer confidence etc.), rahter than filing us with this pseudo-partiotic crap

 

[lupy]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Heisenberg
They put their oil deals ahead of people's lives and safety (not just American's, but Iraqi citizens as well).

Oh comon, why do you think bush is going to iraq (that might have WMDs...we dont know) rather than going to North korea (proven to have WMDs, violating the same threaty and with similar human rights record. )

The "its for our own security" argument is the biggest failure of Bushes plan - every country has their own security problems (NK vs SK, India vs pakistan and the list goes on). This pre emptive strike deal is something he should not be mentioning at all, it makes no sense at all and appears texan-style-arrogant.

Bush just should've gone all out, saying that saddam is bad and that his oil would fix the situation of the global economy (global unempoyment, consumer confidence etc.), rahter than filing us with this pseudo-partiotic crap

What do you expect? It is human nature to be hypocritical.

 

[shiner]

It isn't a new thing for me....I've disliked the French since I went to Europe in 1993 and spent some time in France.

 

[Mrburns2007]

The French leadership is using the anti-war movement cause they have billion dollar deals with Iraq and you know money is the root of all evil.

 

[Heisenberg]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Heisenberg
They put their oil deals ahead of people's lives and safety (not just American's, but Iraqi citizens as well).

Oh comon, why do you think bush is going to iraq (that might have WMDs...we dont know) rather than going to North korea (proven to have WMDs, violating the same threaty and with similar human rights record. )

The "its for our own security" argument is the biggest failure of Bushes plan - every country has their own security problems (NK vs SK, India vs pakistan and the list goes on). This pre emptive strike deal is something he should not be mentioning at all, it makes no sense at all and appears texan-style-arrogant.

Bush just should've gone all out, saying that saddam is bad and that his oil would fix the situation of the global economy (global unempoyment, consumer confidence etc.), rahter than filing us with this pseudo-partiotic crap

Yes, because everything Bush does is motivated by oil.

He couldn't possibly be concerned about protecting people's lives. We'll wait and see, but I would bet that Bush will go out of his way to make sure that we don't exploit Iraqi oil unfairly. And BTW, a free Iraq doing business with the west is not an inherently bad thing. They get money to rebuild their country and we have a supply of oil. It's a win-win situation.

 

[kleinesarschloch]

Originally posted by: Mrburns2007
The French leadership is using the anti-war movement cause they have billion dollar deals with Iraq and you know money is the root of all evil.

well thank god that the american leadership cares so little about money. save us from those greedy french!!!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Mrburns2007
The French leadership is using the anti-war movement cause they have billion dollar deals with Iraq and you know money is the root of all evil.

That and they supplied Iraq with nuclear reactors. France has a fair amount of a Muslim population and Chirac probably fears reprisals against his country from terrorists should he support a war on Saddam.

All of this anti-French sentiment struck me the other day when I was reading through my latest Home Theater Magazine. There was a review of a speaker system from a French company. My first thought was to tear the pages out.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Heisenberg

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Heisenberg
They put their oil deals ahead of people's lives and safety (not just American's, but Iraqi citizens as well).

Oh comon, why do you think bush is going to iraq (that might have WMDs...we dont know) rather than going to North korea (proven to have WMDs, violating the same threaty and with similar human rights record. )

The "its for our own security" argument is the biggest failure of Bushes plan - every country has their own security problems (NK vs SK, India vs pakistan and the list goes on). This pre emptive strike deal is something he should not be mentioning at all, it makes no sense at all and appears texan-style-arrogant.

Bush just should've gone all out, saying that saddam is bad and that his oil would fix the situation of the global economy (global unempoyment, consumer confidence etc.), rahter than filing us with this pseudo-partiotic crap

Yes, because everything Bush does is motivated by oil.

He couldn't possibly be concerned about protecting people's lives. We'll wait and see, but I would bet that Bush will go out of his way to make sure that we don't exploit Iraqi oil unfairly. And BTW, a free Iraq doing business with the west is not an inherently bad thing. They get money to rebuild their country and we have a supply of oil. It's a win-win situation.

well think about it, theres no proven link between iraq and terrorism (versus saudi arabia which our gov't currently funds in order to get oil) and there are countries that pose bigger risk to our safety (nk and their nukes are capable reaching west coast, saudis and their tiny terrorist hobby) so why ARE we going to iraq

I fulyl agree with the free iraq thing, Bush shoul've argued it that way from the Day 1. Im just sick of these pr lies to sell the war to the public, if he argued it form global point of wivew hed sure as hell get more international support

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: halik

well think about it, theres no proven link between iraq and terrorism (versus saudi arabia which our gov't currently funds in order to get oil) and there are countries that pose bigger risk to our safety (nk and their nukes are capable reaching west coast, saudis and their tiny terrorist hobby) so why ARE we going to iraq[?]

Well, maybe it's actually out of concern for the Iraqi people and the Mideast in general? Saddam would like to see a united Arab state (under his rule, of course) and *that* would pose a huge threat to not only the U.S.'s supply of oil but that of the entire world. And, no telling what Saddam would unleash upon those who criticized him or didn't follow him completely and blindly.

 

[Heisenberg]

well think about it, theres no proven link between iraq and terrorism (versus saudi arabia which our gov't currently funds in order to get oil) and there are countries that pose bigger risk to our safety (nk and their nukes are capable reaching west coast, saudis and their tiny terrorist hobby) so why ARE we going to iraq

I fulyl agree with the free iraq thing, Bush shoul've argued it that way from the Day 1. Im just sick of these pr lies to sell the war to the public, if he argued it form global point of wivew hed sure as hell get more international support

Unfortunately, the only way to prove a link may be after another attack has taken place. And that is simply unacceptable. The truth is Saddam is a irrational, destabilizing influece in the region who posseses chemical weapons and is quite possibly aiding terrorism. He has killed thousands of his own people, started at least one major war, and has defied international law for 12 years. Enough is enough.

 

[dexvx]

All of this anti-French sentiment struck me the other day when I was reading through my latest Home Theater Magazine. There was a review of a speaker system from a French company. My first thought was to tear the pages out.

French companies, notably Audax, make some of the best audio material in the world. Although I wouldnt really care, since I really dont have a few hundred grand to plop.

Unfortunately, the only way to prove a link may be after another attack has taken place. And that is simply unacceptable. The truth is Saddam is a irrational, destabilizing influece in the region who posseses chemical weapons and is quite possibly aiding terrorism. He has killed thousands of his own people, started at least one major war, and has defied international law for 12 years. Enough is enough.

If the only way to prove a crime is to use aggressive pre-emptive measures, then the world can be a sad place. Quite odd because your description can be applied to a whoile lot of other leaderships in the world.

 

[Heisenberg]

Originally posted by: dexvx
If the only way to prove a crime is to use aggressive pre-emptive measures, then the world can be a sad place. Quite odd because your description can be applied to a whoile lot of other leaderships in the world.

Really? Then please name some governments who have met the criteria I listed above.

 

[Ornery]

• ''Voulez que je vous porte au mail dans mon SUV?''
  ("Want me to take you to the mall in my SUV?'')
  
  ''Vous pouvez vous rendre au garde de securite!''
  ("You can surrender to the security guard!'')

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Stark

Originally posted by: jahawkin
There needs to be a scapegoat for Bush's diplomatic failures.

ya, bush is the failure and chiraq is the victor... we'll see in about a month.

Well I think the war will start in 72 hours so we'll see in about 80

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: dexvx


French companies, notably Audax, make some of the best audio material in the world. Although I wouldnt really care, since I really dont have a few hundred grand to plop.

Pffft...plenty of
alternatives

 

[PricklyPete]

While I agree that it isn't as simple as "the french don't like us", it is also really ignorant of you to think that all of this is just over one countries oil resources...

 

[Stark]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Mrburns2007
The French leadership is using the anti-war movement cause they have billion dollar deals with Iraq and you know money is the root of all evil.

That and they supplied Iraq with nuclear reactors. France has a fair amount of a Muslim population and Chirac probably fears reprisals against his country from terrorists should he support a war on Saddam.

All of this anti-French sentiment struck me the other day when I was reading through my latest Home Theater Magazine. There was a review of a speaker system from a French company. My first thought was to tear the pages out.

This struck me from the newsweek article:

It is also true that some of the governments opposing action in Iraq do so not for love of peace and international harmony but for more cynical reasons. France and Russia have a long history of trying to weaken the containment of Iraq to ensure that they can have good trading relations with it. France, after all, helped Saddam Hussein build a nuclear reactor that was obviously a launching pad for a weapons program. (Why would the world?s second largest oil producer need a nuclear power plant?) And France?s Gaullist tendencies are, of course, simply its own version of unilateralism.