French Fries or Freedom Fries

If I see a friend about to make a major wrong move,I wont hesitate to punch him in the nose. I am not expecting a thanks afterwards and do understand he wont talk to me for a while. At the end of the day he will remain my friend and, hoprefully, will be intelligent enough to understand that I did it in his own interest.

Call the fries the way you want, it wont change the face of the earth, but GET YOU HISTORICAL FACTS RIGHT. and go see my answer to historical unthruths in the travelling abroad thread.

> However, right now they are no friend to the U.S.

>and I don’t see any reason why we should hold our tongue.

>On a side note, why do you think this whole ‘Bash the French’

>sentiment is picking up so much steam? Just misdirected

>patriotism or a way to vent frustration and anxiety about the

>possible war?

Because 'you're either with us, or you're against us'

Even if being 'with you' goes against what the people, who elected you, oppose.

The French have taken the position that their population, the UN and the majority of the world have expressed. Whereas Blair, against public outrage, has jumped head first. Is that the role of an elected official? I think the polls in Britain show something around an 80/20 split against involvement in Iraq.

Renaming french fries, dumping wine etc. is ridiculous and childish.

Yeah be pissed that they aren't succumbing to the almighty american will, but renaming them 'freedom' fries... yikes....priorities?

matt(not anti american... just anti stupid)

>The French have taken the position that their population, the

>UN and the majority of the world have expressed. Whereas

>Blair, against public outrage, has jumped head first. Is that

>the role of an elected official? I think the polls in Britain

>show something around an 80/20 split against involvement in

>Iraq.

Your information is out of date. Since the beginning of the war, support for Blair in Britain and their participation in the war has gone up to 55% in a very short time. In addition, a little over 2/3 of the parliament voted in support of Britain going to war with the U.S. against the Iraqi regime.

If elected officials govern 100% based on polls, then it really doesn't matter who you elect. Real leadership is about leading a country and not simply following the polls. Let's face it, our leaders are privy to information that we, who participate in these polls, don't have.

But for the record: In my view, George Bush has to be the worst president this country has had in my life time. Although I agree with many of his objectives, he doesn't have a clue as to how to accomplish these objectives in the most effective way possible. This is very poor leadership. I truly pray that the Democrats nominate someone in 2004 that I can vote for instead of Bush (I voted for Gore in 2000). But if they nominate a pacifist, I feel I'll have no choice but to vote for Bush ... and that's going to really piss me off! x(

I'm not attacking anyone

>If elected officials govern 100% based on polls, then it

>really doesn't matter who you elect. Real leadership is about

>leading a country and not simply following the polls. Let's

>face it, our leaders are privy to information that we, who

>participate in these polls, don't have.

I agree, but if they are privy to such information, (IE. having so called weapons of mass destruction), which they can't share with the public, for whatever reason, then why not share the information with the UN inspectors? Or let them know where to look? Or let them have the time required to do a full and thourough search? When it became apparant that nothing was being found, the ultimatums to disarm, a yet to be proven threat, started flowing.

If they are 'privy' to information tying Iraq to terrorist activities, but again for whatever reason, cannot share this information with the public... oh wait, they tried to share proven false documentation.

Or attempting to 'show' proof of purchased equipment for weapons, which was also proven false.

Trusting your leaders to act on your behalf, having knowledge of things we are not 'privy' too, is what we elect them to do. But when do you decide that it's gone too far? And the descisions they are making in your name, are not the descisions you would have made with the same information?

Blindly accepting a governments choices, because they tell you it's good for you, is scary and foolish.

Matt(again, not anti american, just anti ignorance)

>I think Dubya's loathsome, and he certainly gets low marks

>for intelligence, but nobody should make the mistake of

>thinking he's brainless. He has a certain low animal cunning,

>and he's used it successfully enough to maneuver himself into

>the presidency of the United States. Even though he had a lot

>of help in his career, and he benefited from a "deus ex

>machina" rescue of his presidental campaign, he couldn't have

>made it this far without some smarts. To underestimate the

>enemy is to put yourself in considerable danger.

I agree that Bush isn't brainless, but he is a real dim bulb. His theme song should be "I get by with a lot of help from my friends (and family). His father's cronies perpetually had to bail little george out of his failing businesses. And his brother Jeb assured his assuming the presidency by a very slick manuever of hiring a a company called "ChoicePoint" to set up software for purging "felons" from the voting rolls in Florida. Choicepoint, a Texas based company who has contributed heavily to Republican campaigns, provided software that worked like this:

Say you have twenty people in Florida with the name Roosevelt Brown, and it turns out that one of those Roosevelt Browns is a felon. The software culls all twenty Roosevelt Browns from the voting rolls, listing them all as felons. Consider the fact that the first name "Roosevelt" has historically been a name used by African Americans, and that African Americans have historically supported Democrats, and you have a very useful tool for subverting an election.

Take a journey down memory lane to election night 2000 and remember the utter disbelief that Jeb and Company had when Gore was projected the winner. They were flabbergasted, because they knew it just couldn't be, because they had taken the steps to assure Dubya's victory in Florida via Choicepoint. Then the "anti-lawyer" Bush family brings in their lawyers, the whole thing ends up in Republican appointed Supreme Court, and the rest is history. So, in the end, Dubya didn't "win" the election, his brother engineered it through election fraud.

So where do we stand now months after all this garbage was written?

An old friend, France, had the guts to stand up to an old ally and plainly say : "You are making a mistake. Going to war in Iraq will set the whole area afire. Let us not start something which we do not know where it will lead us to".

I wrote on this board not in defense of my country but of common ideas we developped over 200 years and was ridiculed. I survived.

Now, where are the WMD?

Has Saddam been caught?

Have we seen evidence that he was linked to al-Qaeda?

Are the Iraqis better now than before?

Has terror decreased?

Has democracy been restored to Iraq?

And even the tricky one: is Iraqi oil back on the market helping push the price of oil down?

If you can answer yes to any of those questions then I will shut up.

Worse :

How many US kids have been killed, injured?

How many Israelis and Palestinians have lost their lives in renewed fighting after the botched "Road Map", just a pretense to calm the Middle East?

What is the cost of this war going to be for the US?

Results :

Old friends have doubts now about the US and what it stands for. They dont voice it by asking to rename ketchup or McDonalds. They dont boycott CocaCola. They might just not want to send troops AND money to fight a war we refused. They will not VETO, they will probably abstain and let the US finish what they have started whatever the cost.

So the world would never be the same with Bush and accomplices: you are right it is going to be just WORSE.

I cant resist a final: WE TOLD YOU SO!x(

>Are the Iraqis better now than before?

This is the only point I disagree with you on. I think that non-Saddamites are for the most part far better off, if they haven't been killed...

I'm worried that our 'flight suit in cheif' will pull out long before there is any real progress though, much like Afganistan, which would of course encourage it to develope into all the things it wasn't that were the reason we had to get in there in the first place, such as a hotbed of terrorism making real progress on WMDs...

But hey, half a trillion dollars isn't too much to pay to line the pockets of Haliburton and the like!

>So the world would never be the same with Bush and

>accomplices: you are right it is going to be just WORSE.

>

>I cant resist a final: WE TOLD YOU SO!x(

Oh, look what we have here - how adorable - another Frenchman who thinks that this country's obssession with opposing America is somehow a mark of national greatness.

I know I'm just a crass, anti-intellectual, unsophisticated American so distasteful to the Gallic sophisticate, but please do allow me to share something with you, if I may: when a country's defining attribute is opposition to a more powerful country - i.e., when ressentment and envy are the driving forces of a country's character - it is a sure sign that the country is a broken, failed, irrelevant remnant of past glory, desperately trying to cling to illusions of greatness.

If you want to actually have a country that matters, rather than merely lounging around in the fantasy, you actually need to DO something and create something in the Now, and not merely drink wine in cafes and oh-so-smugly criticize others.

And one last thing, while I have you: Why did France just invade the Ivory Coast? How come it was okay for the French to send its soliders into this sovereign country without even asking its European "partners," let alone seek <all together now, in whispered reverence> UN approval? When is France going to stop unilaterally and lawlessly invading sovereign countries?

>I know I'm just a crass, anti-intellectual, unsophisticated

>American

You're much too hard on yourself - you're just a creep - that's all.

fukamarine

>You're much too hard on yourself - you're just a creep -

>that's all.

Brilliant reply. Congratulations on a very infromative, enlightening and riveting contribution.

Isn't this the reason people tend to fall asleep as soon as they hear the word "Canadian"?

>>You're much too hard on yourself - you're just a creep -

>>that's all.

>

>Brilliant reply. Congratulations on a very infromative,

>enlightening and riveting contribution.

>

>Isn't this the reason people tend to fall asleep as soon as

>they hear the word "Canadian"?

It wasn't meant to be "infromative (your spelling - get a secretary, honey!) enlightening and/or riveting" It was just meant to convey my impression of you.

And as for people "tending to fall asleep as soon as they hear the word Canadian" - well let me put it to you this way - I have never heard the expression "Ugly Canadian" - if you get my drift.

You on the other hand exemplify why the term "Ugly American" has become a household word around the globe.

fukamarine

>>when a >country's defining attribute is opposition to a more powerful >country - i.e., when ressentment and envy are the

>driving forces of a country's character - it is a sure sign

>that the country is a c.

That sounds to me like the town bully speaking. That was said about other countries before by the charming likes of Adolf, Hiro and Joseph. Is this what is in line for all "non obedient" allies that disagree. Last I heard we had a rather begging (for money and support) Shrub rediscovering the world was not as simple as his cronies had told him.

And why do you even bother about such a remnant of the past.

>

>If you want to actually have a country that matters, rather

>than merely lounging around in the fantasy, you actually need

>to DO something and create something in the Now, and not

>merely drink wine in cafes and oh-so-smugly criticize others.

And what did you personaly do? France bashing in a bar with a Bud in your hand? Not much different in my eye to drinking wine in a café.

>

>And one last thing, while I have you: Why did France just

>invade the Ivory Coast? How come it was okay for the French

>to send its soliders into this sovereign country without even

>asking its European "partners," let alone seek <all together

>now, in whispered reverence> UN approval? When is France

>going to stop unilaterally and lawlessly invading sovereign

>countries?

>

Oh dear. Get your facts straight. The country called us to stand between the elected government and rebels funded by the infamous Liberia's dictator that Washington would not help to oust even though the whole area asked to. No oil to gain I guess.

>

>This is the only point I disagree with you on. I think that

>non-Saddamites are for the most part far better off, if they

>haven't been killed...

>

We can in fact argue that point. What I see and read is a people that is hardly fed, lit and will probabaly have no heat this winter. But we all know freedom comes with a heavy price. On another hand I will be truly convinced they are better when no occupying force will decide their future.

Hey Doogie,Since you have started posting on this board UNDER YOUR CURRENT HANDLE (I still think you are a troll that was TOS'ed earlier)Have you contributed anything to this board?Not in my opinion.

You are such a NUTCASE!

And your"well isn't that something,a(fill in the blank-I am sure you have lots of blanks to shoot off)comeback is soooooooooo TIRED!

No go back under your bridge you bitter ol' schmuck.

There is something here.A lot of the "leaders"the US is installing to replace the Taliban are such hardliners that the rights of women and "non-faithful"are still being curtailed.I heard an interview with some citizens telling tales of worse repression than before.

As we reflect on the Pinochet coup anniversary,Has the US ever placed a leader,or empowered a coup d'etat that has not come back to bite us in the butt?And why are we still allowing our "government"to do so?

>That sounds to me like the town bully speaking. That was said

>about other countries before by the charming likes of Adolf,

>Hiro and Joseph. Is this what is in line for all "non

>obedient" allies that disagree.

Being "non obedient" is fine. Having your country's only non-culinary source of pride being that it opposes America is pathetic. See the difference?

>Last I heard we had a rather

>begging (for money and support) Shrub rediscovering the world

>was not as simple as his cronies had told him.

"Begging (for money and support)"? Let's see. . . Bush offered other countries the opportunity to contribute money and troops to what we are doing in Iraq as long as the reconstruction is subject to U.S. authority and control. France has demanded that the U.S. cede control of Iraq to the U.N. (read France), which will never happen - that's another French delusion of grandeur. How is that begging?

It's like saying: "If you want to donate money and manpwower to my business, you may - as long I retain control over the busienss." Does that sound like begging?

If you want to control what occurs in other countries other than tiny former African colonies, you're going to have to put down your white flag. Since that's the national flag of France, nobody is holding their breath waiting for that to happen.

>Oh dear. Get your facts straight. The country called us to

>stand between the elected government and rebels funded by the

>infamous Liberia's dictator that Washington would not help to

>oust even though the whole area asked to. No oil to gain I

>guess.

Oh, I see - it's okay unilaterally to send in your military into foreign countries as long as you get some colonial puppet regime to say that they want it. Shouldn't that "peacekeeping" have been done under the authority of the U.N.? Why is it permissible for France to send its military into a civil dispute in order to force the outcome it wants without securing U.N. approval for this military action?

>It wasn't meant to be "infromative (your spelling - get a

>secretary, honey!) enlightening and/or riveting" It was just

>meant to convey my impression of you.

I'm glad that you think I'm so important that you felt a need to write a post in order to "convey [your] imperssion of [me]." By contrast, I would never think of devoting time in my life to write post in order to convey my impression of you. I guess that speaks volumes to the relative importance we play in each other's lives.

>And as for people "tending to fall asleep as soon as they hear

>the word Canadian" - well let me put it to you this way - I

>have never heard the expression "Ugly Canadian" - if you get

>my drift.

I get your drift. Nobody uses the term "Ugly Canadian" to speak of Canadians because nobody speaks about Canadians at all. Why would anyone? I mean, what's there to say?

>You on the other hand exemplify why the term "Ugly American"

>has become a household word around the globe.

Throughout history, the strongest, most powerful, most highly achieving nation has been the source of envy, hostility and resentment around the world from weaker, inferior, less achieving countries. I know you have a need to take refuge in something - anything at all - in order to justify and even glorify your irrelevance, but the fact that everyone ignores you and yawns in your presence doesn't make you wonderful. It's just a testament to your medicority and worthlessness.

Hey guys,here is an idea!

It is obvious to me that Doogie will NEVER read anything anyone post with an open mind.It obtains all of it's "world"(read that as 'merkin-center-of-the -universe)views from talking head repug neo-con idiots(scarborough-reiley-limbaugh)and regurgitates that crap on this board.Sooooo-just maybe if we ignore this shmooo it will go away.

It contributes nothing worthy of our eyballs,and gets it's jollies stirring up crap with "it's""opinions".

I do not watch this crap on TV,listen to these morons on radio etc...

So I will do my best to ignore this toad,namely,not respond to it's post directly(unless I JUST cannot stand it anymore-boils must be lanced you know)And will speak of it only in the third person,or as an object.

And maybe if we all do the same It will crawl back under its bridge-where all good trolls reside.

>That sounds to me like the town bully speaking. That was said

>about other countries before by the charming likes of Adolf,

>Hiro and Joseph. Is this what is in line for all "non

>obedient" allies that disagree.

You almost make me laugh. You choose the second anniversary of 9-11 to resurrect this thread to say, “We told you so.” Even though it is way too soon to be making any hindsight judgements, and you obviously don’t speak for your entire country, do you really wonder why so many Americans dislike the French?

A friend of mine was recently describing Argentinean men and he said, “They are beautiful men but they are pretty much the French of South America – arrogant and completely unlikable.” I think that sums it up pretty well.

You’re like the bitter maiden aunt that many families have. Clinging to your past vitality and frustrated with your current irrelevance. You sit on the sidelines and cluck your disapproval. Frustrated that the rest of the family is not paying you more attention and doing what you tell them, you try to hold money or other support over their heads. You try to MAKE them care about you, but in never works. Nobody ever takes their crazy aunt seriously.

>Throughout history, the strongest, most powerful, most highly

>achieving nation has been the source of envy, hostility and

>resentment around the world from weaker, inferior, less

>achieving countries. I know you have a need to take refuge in

>something - anything at all - in order to justify and

>even glorify your irrelevance, but the fact that everyone

>ignores you and yawns in your presence doesn't make you

>wonderful. It's just a testament to your medicority and

>worthlessness.

Well - we may be mediocre (by the way, check you spelling above, you REALLY DO need a secretary) and worthless, but we are a damned sight more progressive in some areas than you are. We can get married, whereas it will take light years before you will be able to. Not that that should bother you as your chance of finding a partner is somewhere between zero and nil unless you are willing to wed a syphilitic leper.

fukamarine

>You almost make me laugh. You choose the second anniversary

>of 9-11 to resurrect this thread to say, “We told you so.”

>Even though it is way too soon to be making any hindsight

>judgements, and you obviously don’t speak for your entire

>country, do you really wonder why so many Americans dislike

>the French?

Well said, phage, and I hadn't noticed the date he chose to post his little "We were right" taunt, but now that you point it out, it's hardly surprising.

Le Monde was the newspaper that so many people pointed to in arguing that the French were oh-so-empathetic and pro-American in the aftermath of 9/11. Check out the below link to a cartoon from Le Monde which was also published on this year's 9/11 - a cartoon which, leaving aside what one may think of the American policy with regard to Gen. Pinochet's 1973 coup in Chile, is utterly grotesque and revealing, as it essentially asserts, on 9/11, that nothing which happened on 9/11 is really any big deal, since it's no different from what America itself has done before. In other words, there's really no meaningful distinction between Al-Qaeda and the U.S.:

http://a1692.g.akamai.net/f/1692/2042/1d/medias.lemonde.fr/medias/image_article/03091203_plantu+x1pl

One quite often finds this attitude among our French "allies", the same country which so many people in this country believe should dictate our foreign policy. But remember - it's Americans who are "ugly."

Well, did you get your panties all twisted up sweetie? Have you ever reviewed your own typos and bad spelling in your very own posts?

>I have never heard the expression "Ugly Canadian" - if you get

>my drift.

Maybe that would be because if they are all like you it would be a redundant term? Darn, if only your drift was the nearest ice floe that you could jump on and sail off to Antartica and hopefully it would melt somewhere around the equator.

>

>You on the other hand exemplify why the term "Ugly American"

>has become a household word around the globe.

>

Is this the same reason that you exemplify the term "Clownish Canadian"?

>A friend of mine was recently describing Argentinean men and

>he said, “They are beautiful men but they are pretty much the

>French of South America – arrogant and completely unlikable.”

AND ... they smell! x(

>A friend of mine was recently describing Argentinean men and

>he said, “They are beautiful men but they are pretty much the

>French of South America – arrogant and completely unlikable.”

> I think that sums it up pretty well.

>

Well, damn that makes it irrefutabale proof!!! A friend of "yours" states his uninformed, racist, nationalist bullshit and that makes it a fact, right, not only about the Argentinians but the French as well? Well, shit, why do the rest of us bother to form our own opinions based on our own experiences and based on history?

Well, please provide the email address of your phearless, phucking phriend phage, so we can all get the phacts.

Since when did France control the UN?

What is it with Americans? Somebody criticises them and they get all defensive and aggressive. If America truly is the world's most powerful country and the leader of the free world, it wouldn't need to indulge in all this bully-boy rhetoric about the French, the Canadians, and anybody else who has the unmitigated gall to suggest that what America does is not always 100% correct.

There is a very serious issue now as to what to do in Iraq. Whether or not the US was right to invade, it did (with assistance from my country, too). And now it's embroiled in a mess that threatens the whole world if we don't do something about it. All of us, including the French, have to work out what to do, and the US shouldn't be feeling so self righteous about French criticism given the present disaster in Iraq.

As for the cartoon from Le Monde, it makes a rather powerful and quite legitimate point, I would have thought. While we are busy remembering the 3000 or so killed on 9/11, we might spare a thought for the thousands more who were butchered by the Pinochet regime in Chile, installed with US assistance 30 years ago on that very day. Perhaps Americans might care to remember that they weren't the only innocent ones killed in unjustified ideologically inspired wars in recent years. It doesn't make 9/11 right, and it doesn't hurt the pain of those who lost loved ones in the WTC, but it is undoubtedly right to remember the others who died on that date in 1973.