Announcement

**Dinner** · March 12, 2003, 03:58

Ramo: You can't claim to be someone's friend if you stab them in the back. Friend's just don't do that. What Chirac has done is the diplomatic equivolent to a stab in the back and this is what has pissed off so many people.

**Ramo** · March 12, 2003, 03:59

And it will keep getting tabled, and there will be no debate on it. The motion for tabling does not include debate on the merits of the bill itself, but on why the bill should be considered (ie, what is new about this).

*Sigh*
Yes, I'm saying that it should be debated instead of tabled or never brought up.

It doesn't? So what does an ally do? Run around the world actively stirring up opposition to its other ally? If so, why do we want allies?

To deal with real threats instead of senseless American agression to gain more international clout.

**Dis** · March 12, 2003, 03:59

yes but he has the right to veto whatever he wants.

It was our fault for allowing that sorry nation to be on the security council.

What were we thinking?

**KrazyHorse** · March 12, 2003, 04:00

Originally posted by Oerdin
Ramo: You can't claim to be someone's friend if you stab them in the back. Friend's just don't do that. What Chirac has done is the diplomatic equivolent to a stab in the back and this is what has pissed off so many people.

It's not a stab in the back. You never got any sort of general agreement for war in Iraq, so you can't be surprised when people oppose you.

I brought the example up before, but do you remember Suez?

**KrazyHorse** · March 12, 2003, 04:00

Originally posted by Dissident
yes but he has the right to veto whatever he wants.

It was our fault for allowing that sorry nation to be on the security council.

What were we thinking?

You're getting 3 vetoes on Iraq. That might tell you something.

**KrazyHorse** · March 12, 2003, 04:01

And it's doubtful that you'll even get 9 of 15 votes...

**LoneWolf** · March 12, 2003, 04:01

Originally posted by Frogger
The US isn't exactly being the best ally to France either.

It's been pursuing an Iraq war since 2001, and hasn't listened to its allies' objections.

So suck it. You get what you give. You've been feeding the Euros ****, and they'll feed it back to you.

Well, yes, as I've said elsewhere, if the Euros wish to be contrary, lets rumble.

But don't pretend you're our friends, and don't come running to us when you get in over your heads (again).

**KrazyHorse** · March 12, 2003, 04:04

Perhaps you're fooled by the flag, but I've never been to Europe.

I'm voicing my support for opposition to war. I choose not to make my flag France's because I sense opportunism on the part of Chirac. If they had a different President, I might choose to hoist the Tricolour.

**Imran Siddiqui** · March 12, 2003, 04:05

Yes, I'm saying that it should be debated instead of tabled or never brought up.

That's nice, but I'm talking about reality not fantasy land.

**LoneWolf** · March 12, 2003, 04:06

Originally posted by Frogger

It's not a stab in the back. You never got any sort of general agreement for war in Iraq, so you can't be surprised when people oppose you.

I brought the example up before, but do you remember Suez?

Well, you know, even Mssr. De Villepien (sorry for the spelling) has been quoted as saying a veto "would be shooting the Americans in the back". So that is clearly a fair characterization.

**KrazyHorse** · March 12, 2003, 04:09

Originally posted by LoneWolf

Well, you know, even Mssr. De Villepien (sorry for the spelling) has been quoted as saying a veto "would be shooting the Americans in the back". So that is clearly a fair characterization.

French FM denies saying veto would be "shooting the Americans in the back"

http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/cy/Qiraq-un-france-veto.RPVH_DM5.html

**LoneWolf** · March 12, 2003, 04:10

News Flash: Diplomat denies saying something that has become inconvenient!

**KrazyHorse** · March 12, 2003, 04:13

News Flash: newspaperman's word was the only source of the quote.

**LoneWolf** · March 12, 2003, 04:15

Well, honestly, they don't even deny it in the link you provide. They only say its not their official position. And the quote was from French source papers. not likely to make their boy look bad.

**KrazyHorse** · March 12, 2003, 04:15

That would be an extremely stupid thing for him to say. It's not as though it "became" inconvenient.

It's always possible that he said it, but given that there was only one source and it's not verifiable, it's open to question...

Now if we want some real doozies we should just all listen to your Secretary of Defence for a few minutes...

Announcement

Freedom Fries in Congress

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment