instead of *****ing about the French, thank them

[mrmitchell]

Guys, if France was protecting its interests, so whut? Are they just supposed to sit by and watch their finances go to hell?

(Also, whut makes it so different when the US protects its interests?)

Gunk

Saddam = War, death and destruction.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Also, the war was supposed to be about WoMD, not freeing anyone, right?

Comparing Russia and Iraq is apples and oranges

I thought he was comparing Russia and America, as in: Russia is to Chechnya as America is to Iraq.

The thing that is very frustrating as an American is that we are d@mned no matter how we act. When we supported dictatorships during the cold war, we were dumped on for being so short sighted in protecting our interests. But when France does the very same thing and we call them out year and year and then finally step in to rid of the world of a cruel and evil man - well, that apparently is bad too.

Is this all? We're the biggest nation. Our sphere of influence is greater than all the others and it's only natural we are going to come under more criticism.

Well, #1 we really don't care what's going on in Africa and #2 practicality demands that we not enter EVERY war so we pick the ones that coincide with our interests. And #3 there's still the VietNam thing to consider: it ain't our business so let's stay out of it if we can.

Like I said, we're protecting our interests, it's only fair we let France protect its interests too.

And except for one or two rednecks, I doubt you'll find any real Americans who are so ignorant as to hate an entire people.

You must live such a nice life around your intellectual, ideologically similiar friends. Lemme tell you whut: "real Americans" either don't care or eat three squares of Media a day. People like Sava and you, people intelligent enough to make discussion about topics on a higher scale than sports or movies, are a lot harder to come by than you think.

[Defiant]

Mitchell,
You are missing one thing, what about the relationship between France, our supposed longest allie, as a French interest, wouldn't catagorize that as very important to some oil interest from Iraq that they would have gotton anyway from the United States??

What about in the 80's when we wanted to fly across France on our way to Libya and they said no. What intest was benefitted from that.

Also, don't forget the 11 billion dollar trade advantage France has right now against us.

You must weight the so called national interests and France is falling way short to the United States, our longest standing allie.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Guys, if France was protecting its interests, so whut? Are they just supposed to sit by and watch their finances go to hell?

(Also, whut makes it so different when the US protects its interests?)

Who said it was right?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

CounterPithySaying: All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Also, the war was supposed to be about WoMD, not freeing anyone, right?

Who cares what the motives really were? If in the end, an evil madman is stopped, then this is a good thing and should be recognized as such. What sticks in the throat of so many people is that the Americans did something good - not for altruistic reasons, surely, but overall a better thing for the Iraqi people and the world.

We're the biggest nation. Our sphere of influence is greater than all the others and it's only natural we are going to come under more criticism.

Yes, yes. But if France criticizes the US for doing X and then turns around later and does precisely the same kind of X, then I cry foul. At the very least they must expect the same criticism that they once dished out.

Like I said, we're protecting our interests, it's only fair we let France protect its interests too.

I don't buy the premise so I can't accept the conclusion. In any case, French and US interests clashed in this instance. Since Iraq is not in either the French of American sphere of influence, there's no clear "hands off" situation. Lacking such, the US action is better from a humanistic pov.

You must live such a nice life around your intellectual, ideologically similiar friends.

I'm just saying most people don't give a two farts about the French one way or the other. I don't know anyone who eats "freedom fries" or "freedom toast".

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Defiant

http://rasa.iht.com/articles/92727.html

Here you go, it doesn't give the hard number, but says they are about 7% of your population, what is the population of France now?

60 millions
hence, 4.2 millions Arabs. Thanks fr the link. The article is pretty good, and even if it's exaggerated (Marseilles is the most extreme case of France, by far), the trends depicted are very true.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by gunkulator
Saddam = War, death and destruction. Even before GW1, Saddam = death and destruction. Noone should be mourning the overthrow of his regime. If you insist that war = always bad then you basically are saying you are OK with slavery, dictatorship and genocide.

Saddam = death and torture, but the ones directly responsible for the war are those who decided it in Washington. Besides, for the French public, war would have brought much more death and destruction than Saddam could.

Comparing Russia and Iraq is apples and oranges. You have one country struggling with new freedoms and democracy while the other is nothing but a brutal dictatorship.

I am comparing Russia with the US. Both wage wars which aren't appreciated by the public opinion worldwide. Strangely enough, both wars are highly supported by the domestic population.

The thing that is very frustrating as an American is that we are d@mned no matter how we act.

This may be true, but you'll notice that:
1. For some reason, you were much les damned when PR boss Clinton was in power.
2. Having the spotlight can be a good thing PR-wise too. Had Sept. 11 happened in Reykjavik (or hell, even in Paris), the international reaction would have been much, much less intense and sympathetic.

When we supported dictatorships during the cold war, we were dumped on for being so short sighted in protecting our interests. But when France does the very same thing and we call them out year and year and then finally step in to rid of the world of a cruel and evil man - well, that apparently is bad too.

Of course, Chirac didn't go to the TV saying : "We protect Saddam because he is a good client, no matter how ruthless his regime is". He tried to get the moral high ground by "defending the peace". Bush tried to get the moral high ground by "liberating the Iraqis". Both excuses were of course not the real reason behind the two countrie's behaviours, but were needed to foster the population in the favourable way.