While speaking to the Hoover Institution today, Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was asked this question:
"Could you tell us why to date at least the Administration doesn't favor direct talks with the North Korean government? After all, we're talking with the French."
The Secretary smiled and replied:
"I'm not going there!"

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me."
--- General George S. Patton

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."
--Norman Schwartzkopf

"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure"
---Jacques Chirac, President of France
"As far as France is concerned, you're right."
---Rush Limbaugh

"The only time France wants us to go to war is when the German Army is sitting in Paris sipping coffee."
--- Regis Philbin

"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 whiskey I don't know."
--- P.J O'Rourke (1989)

"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, U.S. Senator from Arizona

"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

"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

--------------------------------------------
There was a Frenchman, an Englishman and Claudia Schiffer sitting together in a carriage in a train going through Provence. Suddenly the train went through a tunnel and as it was an old style train, there were no lights in the carriages and it went completely dark. Then there was a kissing noise and the sound of a really loud slap. When the train came out of the tunnel, Claudia Schiffer and the Englishman were sitting as if nothing had happened and the Frenchman had his hand against his face as if he had been slapped there. The Frenchman was thinking: 'The English fella must have kissed Claudia Schiffer and she missed him and slapped me instead.' Claudia Schiffer was thinking: 'The French fella must have tried to kiss me and actually kissed the Englishman and got slapped for it.' And the Englishman was thinking: 'This is great. The next time the train goes through a tunnel I'll make another kissing noise and slap that French bastard again.'

Next time there's a war in Europe, the loser has to keep France.

An old saying:
Raise your right hand if you like the French....
Raise both hands if you are French.

O

--------------------

funny

--------------------

The French & Germans see opposition to our very real threat as being their way to increase their own stature.

Do we need another 9/11 to wake the world up? I hope not.

1. They have a few billion tied up in oil deals with Iraq.

2. They have been selling Saddam weapons and spare parts illegally, and they don't want that to be known. (This is FACT, not just conspiracy shit...)

3. Almost all of France's oil is purchased from Iraq. A war will make it difficult for the infrastructure to operate properly.

I say F*CK the French. The President said that if you weren't with us, you are against us. That holds DOUBLY true if you a running a blockade to sell the enemy their parts.

Assholes.

O

--------------------

A brief history lesson. Viva laFrance!

-- Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all
things, an Italian.

-- Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who
inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."

-- Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.

-- Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.

-- Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

-- War of Devolution - Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

-- The Dutch War - Tied.

-- War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War - Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French
military power.

-- War of the Spanish Succession - Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.

-- American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."

-- French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.

-- The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First
Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

-- The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

-- World War I - Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the
United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any
improvement in the French bloodline.

-- World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

-- War in Indochina - Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu.

-- Algerian Rebellion - Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

--------------------

http://www.oilgasnafrica.co.uk/pressinfo/press4.htm
http://www.africa-research-bulletin.com/economic/economic_feature.htm
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/petrostrategies/aimages/eindexes/Index2002E.pdf

--------------------

The United States does want a war which will leave thousands dead, both civilian and combatant, because they want oil in the future.

What's the difference? France is acting legally and within their rights and responsibilities. The United States isn't.

Both countries desparately want their oil. France is doing it without resorting to killing others, but the United States is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Redlemons:
Many good points...

I think the issue of France selling weapons to Iraq is irrelevant and a moot point. After all, the United States has done the same thing time and time again.

...

---

Touche. Just seems that most American citizens didn't even know this or "choose to forget".

Moot point??? Irrelevant???

"Touche. Just seems that most American citizens didn't even know this or "choose to forget"."

Ummm, since when has the US sold weapons to Iraq AFTER UN Resolutions made it illegal to do so???

Us selling weapons 20-25 yrs ago and the french, or A french company selling weapons two-three MONTHS ago are entirely two different things.

LOL, it is so funny how people want to see things the way they want to see things.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Redlemons:
OK, so the French don't want a war which will leave thousands dead, both civilian and combatant, because they want to have oil in the future.

The United States does want a war which will leave thousands dead, both civilian and combatant, because they want oil in the future.

What's the difference? France is acting legally and within their rights and responsibilities. The United States isn't.

Both countries desparately want their oil. France is doing it without resorting to killing others, but the United States is.

I think the issue of France selling weapons to Iraq is irrelevant and a moot point. After all, the United States has done the same thing time and time again. Although to be perfectly honest, I don't think that's really a point with which to criticize the United States, since how were they to know that a specific government or group would turn against them in the future. It's hindsight.

---

And there it is again... the old tried and true OIL crap. Pathetic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by outrider:
it is so funny how people want to see things the way they want to see things.

---

You've done my work for me.

What I said was that the French aren't going in there with guns blazing to get their hands on oil. But the United States is.

I never said Saddam wasn't a cruel murderer, and all the rest. We all know it's true, there is no point in going over it again.

Where do you get your news from? You seem to think all Americans just listen to Bush and nod yes. Some Americans READ from MANY news sources all around the world. So where do you get your news from? Do you read any translated middle eastern news media daily like I do? Do you read prior statements from the UN itself regarding Iraq's weapon programs. Do you read what Iraqis who have defected from Saddam have said in statements? Do you read Canadian newspapers, German, French? Or do you just assume you know more than Americans about the world because you live in Finland?

Don't tell me I am naive just because I am American and put forth the suggestion that this pending war isn't all about oil like so many of the "informed" people seem to think it is. You don't know ANYTHING about me other than I'm American and don't presume you do and then tell me to "start flaming"

quote:

---

"Why do we want to defend Saddam Hussein? Why do all the Arab regimes use the Arab people as a human shield for the greatest dictator of them all? If you object to dictatorships who in the [Arab] regimes is a greater dictator than Saddam Hussein? How can the Arab people, who are persecuted by their regimes, be asked to defend the murderer who killed hundreds of thousands of the Iraqi people...? How can we defend Saddam Hussein and remain a free people ourselves? [A people] that defends a dictator is not a free people...

[Today, the intellectuals] have become government officials, and they defend a dictatorial regime. All the Marxist intellectual groups defend the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. The Arab people no longer understand... our intellectuals have sold themselves to the dictator... But what happened is that after September 11, the Americans realized that the dictatorial regimes in the Arab region produce terrorists who attack America and Europe. The entire world lives in fear of the terrorists that these regimes produce. The Americans realized this. They do not want to establish democracy for our sake, but in order to defend themselves. If the Arab people have an opportunity to learn, to participate in the rule of its land, and to participate in building society, it will not destroy America and Europe."

---

I'm pretty sure the french revolutions and the napoleans(except the victor) show how stupid france is and the fact that people with money run their country until they aggrevate the common person enough to raise up against them.. Once and if something happens to the French people they will realize that they are SKIRTS and get their head out there arses.

I dont honestly know to much about france at present but I do know quite a bit of its history.

Most of the Louis were stupid as shit except I think it was one of the first one that actually made some changes and real revolution for his people. Others took his limelight and focused on stupid issues.

Most of you don't care about this so i won't get into it but some topics that are pretty wierd in French history would be

Marat, bastille, "10 Thousand Heads"

a little off topic but you can never tell what god will say to you when he chooses to.......im not a sideshow damn it

--------------------

--------------------

Haven't mentioned oil in my posts, have I?

I'm not calling you naive or ignorant because you are American, but based on what I've read in this thread so far.

I don't presume to know you, but I'm sertainly getting to know a side of you I don't like very much.

quote:

---

Originally posted by god:
All I have to say is France is in it for themselves and if a plane crashed into the eiffel(sp? u would think dieties could spell)
with as many people that were in WTC then they would be a bit more aggressive i would have to say.

---

The Bush government has linked Iraq with al-Qaeda first, and is now desperately trying to find evidence that such a link exists.

I was the one who first mentioned oil. I think Bush's reasons are a desire for oil, a stronger hand in the region, a misguided attempt to get back at al-Qaeda, a misguided attempt to prevent further terrorism, to get rid of Saddam's military (encompassing anything from big sticks to weapons of mass destruction) to put in place a pseudo-democratic government and I might go out on a limb here and say a sprinkling of pure revenge.

I think oil is a major part of it all, but by no means the sole reason for it.

Then after redlemons jumped in screaming oil, I replied to him. Why are my words any more ignorant or naive than yours? Tell me why? Can you? Doesn't bother me in the least if you "don't like this side of me" lol

The war 12 yrs ago was not intended to remove saddam, we should have though, because you're right, 12 yrs later we're still basically in the same place as far as him and his weapons.

But you say why should it now?

Because this time the idea is to remove him from power.

I know the french are not solely at fault here, I only replied about them because the thread was started about them, lol. But now that they refusing to vote for ANY resolution that will force saddam to disarm or pay the price for not doing so, they certainly are not helping in the least to stop a pending war. And I feel they are not doing this in the name of peace, but in the name of billions of dollars and maybe even to save a little face if french weapons were found there that have been illegally sold to the iraqis since the sanctions have been put in place.

18 resolutions and here we are still talking about an armed and defiant saddam. You tell me why that is kind Sir.

Then try to tell me why we should keep waiting.

For inspections?

lol, only reason saddam has crushed some missles is because 270 thousand US military troops are breathing down his neck. Think Mr Blix will have more success if they leave and come home?

Redlemons states the US just wants a "stronger hand in the region" and that is definitely true because as it is now, it's a Catch 22 with ultra rich dictators ruling the poor uneducated despair. Despair breeding terror. I'm not talking out my ass here. You can find many, many arabs who see this to be true as well. The GDP of ALL arab countries combined is less than that of Spain when you take away the oil factor and this can be directly linked to the dictators who rule for themselves and not for the common people.

Redlemons also states "a misguided attempt to prevent further terrorism"

Well, I'm sure that if/when the US goes for saddam, we will probably see more terror attacks, but won't we see them regardless? AND saddam is considered the most dangerous and terror-driven dictator in the region, so why not get rid of him? Again, this is fact that saddam supports terror, not a "guess".

So um you'd rather have Mr.Hamza continue he's work for the "new Iraqi regieme" untill that too goes rogue (or coupeed) on the US? Now that you mention a nuclear threat, perhaps you guys really should be putting the preasure on N.Korea instead?

Yes agreed the country is poor if not for the oil, and I figure Spain has, among other things, got a slight geological advantage there and of course way better governing.

Taking saddam out will almost certainly increase terror attacks and I bet a lot of those would be seen in Europe, I guess France rightfully fears this.

Also if you believe taking out Saddam will take out terrorism in it's wake you are wrong. There are over 250 billion Muslims in the world and quite a few of them are radicals. Will you keep "taking them out" untill they are all gone and who is the judge that descides who get's it and who does not? The US?

I also think there is some consern about the costs of rebuilding Iraq, which all UN countries will have to participate if everybody votes for the attack. Undoubtably you guys want to share that cost with as many as possible.

I also think there is an element of saving face involved for the US, so many troops have been mobilised and so many sabers have been rattled that the US military simply cannot pull out any more.

Regarding Mr.Blix, I think he is doing a fine jobb and there for has the support if the UN behind him, not only the US.

[edit: not directed at Lindi]

quote:

---

Umm...ok....no point...
[edit: not directed at Lindi]

---

...directed at me then perhaps?

Lindi,

"If the War history of France would have been only failiure and retreat you guys would still be British."

umm, I cannot believe I had to actually state that my posting of the history of french war was intended as a joke in the first place. Wow. Imagine that. I didn't intend for it to be taken seriously as s history lesson for you.

Please don't think I don't have an open mind. I think about both sides of the coin all the time. You just assume I am some ignorant american war monger.

quote:

---

Outie ~ you like most Americans have really made up your mind, so I'm not even going to try to argue about this one way or the other. Funny how pretty clearly most Americans see the Iraq think in a very black & white manner, kinda this almost naive good vs. evil issue. Can't really blame you either that's the way Bush talks about it and that's the way he want's you to see it.

---

then...

quote:

---

I'm not calling you naive or ignorant because you are American, but based on what I've read in this thread so far.

---

You cannot even keep yourself in check. Unless "most" Americans have read this thread or posted in it, then you indeed did call me ignorant and naive because I am American, not because of what you have read in this thread. Either that or you don't have as much of an open mind as you think you do.

quote:

---

So um you'd rather have Mr.Hamza continue he's work for the "new Iraqi regieme" untill that too goes rogue (or coupeed) on the US? Now that you mention a nuclear threat, perhaps you guys really should be putting the preasure on N.Korea instead?

---

No, I linked him because I feel he knows more about what he's talking about than does those who use the "oil" spinoff. See, that right there just goes to show how you misconstrue my words

quote:

---

President Bush's recent demand that Saddam Hussein allow weapons inspectors to return to Iraq, as required by the United Nations, looked like a continuation of Bill Clinton's Iraq policy. But Mr. Bush's angry statement that Mr. Hussein "will find out" the price he will have to pay if he does not agree to inspections may indicate a hardening line. Unfortunately, even resumed inspections would have little effect other than to increase the international legitimacy of Mr. Hussein's dictatorship.

The two top American inspectors in the last Iraq inspection effort" the United Nations Special Commission, known as Unscom" were Charles Duelfer, deputy chairman and chief American representative, and Richard Spertzel, director of Unscom's biological weapons unit. Both have expressed skepticism about any inspection system in Iraq under present conditions. For inspection to be meaningful, Iraq needs a strong incentive to comply. The only incentive that might move Mr. Hussein is the prospect that the United States would agree to a lifting of United Nations economic sanctions. But that will not happen, and even Mr. Hussein gave up hope on it long ago. The United States will never agree to a full lifting of sanctions because it knows that this move would lead Mr. Hussein to accelerate his programs to develop weapons of mass destruction.

If President Bush were to put some teeth in his threat and a serious military strike against the Iraqi regime became imminent, Mr. Hussein might relent and allow inspectors, as he did in November 1997. But even then, it is almost certain that he would do whatever he could to keep up the weapons programs in secret.

---

-Khidhir Hamza, December 17, 2001

Kinda funny how he pretty much predicted what is happening present day with Saddam and the inspectors, isn't it?

IF Saddam does go nuclear(which reliable german reports feel will happen in 2005, 2010 at latest if he goes unchecked ie stays in power) then we will be MUCH worse off than we are with N Korea, and the reason we haven't been "putting the pressure" to N Korea is because it is estimated that several million people would die within the first few hours of war if it broke out. You want Saddam to have that capability too given the way someone like Mr.Hamza feels about him? Or is Mr. Hamza ignorant and naive too?

At any rate, this is pointless to continue.

Peace, Lindi.

I leave you with this letter to the editor which I came across at Gulf News, just a little food for thought, mind you:

"In disguise? We have been reading so much about the "peace movement" globally. But is this just a disguise of anti-Americanism and anti-Westernism? I ask the "peace-niks" to reply.

When the Tanzanian army invaded Uganda and removed Idi Amin from power; no one marched because America was not involved.

When the Vietnamese army invaded Cambodia and changed the Khmer Rouge regime there, no one marched. Again, America was not involved. When French troops invaded the Central African Republic and changed its regime, again no one marched.

And what about a march in support of the Chechens? Oh, no, that won't do: America is not involved.

The peace movement would merit the label only if it opposed all wars. Did it march when Saddam Hussain attacked Iran? Not at all.

Did it march when Saddam invaded Kuwait? Again: nix! (Later, they marched, with the slogan "No Blood for Oil," when the U.S.-led coalition came to liberate Kuwait.)

Did it march when Saddam was gassing the Kurds to death? Oh, no. Are they really interested in "peace"?"

I'll post this here and all you Doves can flame me after the smoke clears:

When it's done, it will be astounding how few civilian casulties there are. In fact, I'm predicting we'll be surprised how few Iraqi military casulties there are. We WILL be astounded by how many OpFor POWs we'll have either before the first shot is fired, or just after the first Daisy Cutter pops.

I'm predicting Saddam will cause MORE civilain casulties (his own) than we will ...

Bet me ?

--------------------

I tend to agree with outrider's view points on most of the debate topics in this thread, but Lindi and a few others have some good points too.

There appears to be some grass on the mound so play ball.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by jondster:
What I hear here kinda mirrors the misconceptions that seem to run rife all over. Why does everybody think this war will cause catastrophic civilian / "collateral" casulties ???

I'll post this here and all you Doves can flame me after the smoke clears:

When it's done, it will be astounding how few civilian casulties there are. In fact, I'm predicting we'll be surprised how few Iraqi military casulties there are. We WILL be astounded by how many OpFor POWs we'll have either before the first shot is fired, or just after the first Daisy Cutter pops.

I'm predicting Saddam will cause MORE civilain casulties (his own) than we will ...

Bet me ?

---

I lack the patience, the time and perhaps also the vocabulary to really engage in this discussion, though...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rivendell:
...
I lack the patience, the time and perhaps also the vocabulary to really engage in this discussion, though...

[ 03-16-2003: Message edited by: Rivendell ]

---

dont you agree?

--------------------