Who loves the French?

True, France is not a military power unless commanded by foreigners (e.g Napoleon, Charlegmagne, etc). However, nobody who has ever been to France can deride the country as a whole. The cathedrals at Notre Dame and Chartres are absolutely awe-inspiring, the castles in the Loir stunning, and if you take the time to know them, the people are entertaining and friendly. I could go on and on.

That said, most of the quotes are pretty funny--but don't forget they saved our asses in the US Revolution, we probably wouldn't have been able to do it without them. And, the elder French generation really does carry a deep sense of debt for us rescuing them from the Nazis, even if it doesn't come across in the press.

The French should be respected, they are sticking to their opinion and not being influenced by the promises of the American govt. post war on Iraq, for example what has Bulgaria been promised for such uncompromising adherence to the US way? You take away opinion and freedom of expression and you have a dictatorship, have some respect for other opinions, the French may be less impatient in their actions, lets face it, Saddam is not about to roll into any other country with guns blazing, his country is starving and on the verge of collapse after 12 years of continual bombing and dsetruction by the US and UK, not to mention the sanctions in place. Why are we not sorting out N Korea, Zimbabwe, Iran, Israel......

David, thanks for the laughs........and so very true however.

waz,

The French are against the war with Iraq because of oil.

Hey, if the US can be blamed for wanting to fight a war for oil, then it is only tit for tat that France can be blamed for not being involved because of oil.

"Tit for tat? Just what is tat, how do I get it, and how do I exchange it for the other thing?" - Dennis Miller

If thats the case then Willy why do you Americans take the moral high ground, you are as low as those you discriminate against if thats the case.... wheres your common sense?

The only difference is that to get your way you have to kill innocent people and cause mass destruction, all the French have to do is keep their mouths shut to get what they want...

What amazes me is that the French continue to back themselves into a corner. Say what you will about Dubya's diplomatic skills but, at least he knows how to leave himself an out to appear somewhat "flexible".

Unless Chirac does a complete turn or chooses to abstain from a U.N. vote, expect ungodly tarriffs on French wine, food, and textiles. Also, look for U.S. airlines to cancel aircraft orders with Airbus Industries and buy Boeing instead. The French will be punished and for quite a long time. Stock up on brie now!

Tat must be a reversed tit.

I believe the French have the right to make decisions about what is best for their people and for their economy. I don't see anyone bashing the Russians when they said ''nyet'. I think the whole pending war is stupid and without credance and I don't have one ounce of French blood in me. Let them think for themselves. Jokes are ok, but politically we need to shut up.

The reason no one gets on the Russians is that their stance is par for the course. They initially stand up to the U.S. for the sake of national pride and to offer their traditional counterpoint role. They won't use their veto and will likely abstain from the U.N. vote. Why? Because Putin needs two things: continued U.S. investment and a "blind eye" while he deals with his "Chechnya problem".

All Russia is looking to achieve is a modicum of independence and the perception that they are not becoming the 51st state. Other than that, they couldn't care less about Saddam. If they play ball, we'll invite the Russians to partner in the rebuilding efforts and that provides economic gain to the Russian economy and legitimizes Russia as a "peace loving, nation building" country.

Portland Runner wrote:

If they play ball, we'll invite the Russians to partner in the rebuilding efforts and that provides economic gain to the Russian economy and legitimizes Russia as a "peace loving, nation building" country.

The biggest export Russia has is reserves of plutonium and weapons stockpiled from the Cold War. They have sold plutonium and warheads all over Europe to keep their pitiful economy going. Hell, US were offered billions to them just a few years ago to keep the stuff from getting into the hands of someone like Saddam and Osama.

I am totally convinced that the majority of what Saddam has (that wasn't given to him by the US) came from Russia. I am totally convinced that Pakistan and North Korea also have been to the Russian candy store. They owned a tremendous amount of weaponry that has not been accounted for - I believe it is all over Europe.

Random points:

This 'war' illustrates how thoroughly diseased global politics is, and things are far more complicated than most folks realize. Bush is relying on the American public's ability to be hornswoggled. But he wields less power and receives a lot more scruntiny on an international level than he has at home. Bush looks like he's might stroke out if he doesn't get his way soon.

France is an amazing country--wonderful people, culture, history, etc. You're missing out if you think otherwise. In this case, its anti-war stance highlights the hypocrisy of the Bush administration. GWB's drive for war vs. Saddam's Iraq is a redneck family feud on a grand scale--a manifestation of the Bushes axe to grind with Saddam. They're forcing him to come up with a valid justification for war and Bush really hasn't on paper. The Hatfields and the McCoy's, or the Bushes and the Husseins.

Still note that France and Russia are locked into very substantial oil contracts with Iraq. In fact, virtually every country opposed to war with Iraq is significantly (if not solely) dependent on Iraq for oil.

North Korea is a far more dangerous nuclear threat than Iraq. Yet the U.S. is cutting them more of a break; they are a poor country with no real resources of interest to offer us. And neither Iraq nor North Korea is suicidal enough to 'nuke' the U.S. Obviously we'd turn them into a sheet of glass if that happened.

Ideologically, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden have far too little in common to be in cahoots, except for a deep mutual hatred of the U.S. They're more opposite than Wiccan pagans and Christian fundamentalists. It's amazing that up to 55% of Americans think Hussein is directly or indirectly responsible for masterminding the 9-11 attacks. Bush uses this to his advantage on the many occasions he defends his desire to go to war with Iraq.

Another point. Pakistan is suddenly turning in suspected high-level Al-Quaeda terrorists right and left, which is wonderful. But recognize their motivation is in part in the interest of self-preservation. They aim to curry American favor in the event of a conflict with its neighbor India. What better way to do this than turn in Bin Laden's henchmen?

Also the Israeli Mossad or some Special Forces troops can easily take out Saddam if that were our only goal. Bush also possesses the military intelligence to pinpoint where Saddam is within a square block and take him out in that fashion. He wants to drop some Moab bombs on the citizenry.

Since most of the world isn't going to go along with the US unless it is scared of us that is what Bush seeks (i.e., 'Shock and Awe' campaign). But the price is too high in the long run.

The U.S. will lose all international legitimacy if we go to war and the United Nations hasn't sanctioned it. We'll lose our clout diplomatically, politically, even economically. International travel could be a dicey proposition for Americans someday.

Which brings up another point: The more hooplah generated about this war, the less attention will be focused on our economic woes at home. Look at the price of oil. There is a direct causal effect.

Don't think for a minute that Bush doesn't have a hard-on to go to war after allocating $$ for 300K troops to go to the Middle East. It's a huge financial military boondoggle if nothing happens, especially during these economic hard times. Bush was also financed by many corporations (i.e., Lockheed-Martin, Martin-Murrieta, etc.) during this election campaign, and they stand to benefit tremenously if we go to war.

Good points One Keg. Shows why this situation is such a political mess. Also, I think Bush is relying on the age old reliance that when American goes to war Americans usually rally around The President and the flag. Unless, of course it is like Vietnam and no one believed The Vietnamese were ever a threat to attack us. I guess that is why Bush keeps saying Hussein is a threat.

One Keg wrote:

Don't think for a minute that Bush doesn't have a hard-on to go to war after allocating $$ for 300K troops to go to the Middle East. It's a huge financial military boondoggle if nothing happens, especially during these economic hard times. Bush was also financed by many corporations (i.e., Lockheed-Martin, Martin-Murrieta, etc.) during this election campaign, and they stand to benefit tremenously if we go to war.

So if we follow your stated fact that donating to the election campaign drives the decision to go to war, then we can see from:

that LM's $2.7 million in a 39/61 split for the Republicans will benefit them in increased military contracts, the same way AT&T with their $4.9 million 40/60 split will be getting all the phone network rebuilding contracts in Iraq, the $3.9 million 42/58 split from the National Association of Realtors will get them exclusive deals to sell all the "conquered" land, the $3.8 million 18/81 split from Philip Morris guarantees them a whole lot of soldiers sitting around on their own in the desert with nothing to do but smoke, and UPS's $2.9 million 29/71 split gets a whole bunch of business delivering care packages to troops stationed overseas.

Too bad the Carpenters & Joiners Union donated $4.7 million in a 94/6 Democrat split. Guess they ain't gonna be doing any re-building in Iraq for that one.

Not only are you wrong on all points, but your blather (i'd say "rationale", but there is no reason to what you wrote) exemplifies a complete and total ignorance concerning world affairs, the magnitude of which I haven't seen in some time.

Alright, why is it that the US is only angry with the french because they refuse to help out with the war on Irak. It seems to me that every other country beside UK and Spain, are not helping, only difference is that the French are openly saying it. I'm canadian, French -Canadian, and truth be told, i'm suprised that for once our governement has had the balls to not side with the US. When the whole deal started, i was thinking: well here we go again. And anyhow, how can the US bring up all these incidents from the past when there was no UN? Seems to me that France is actually taking a step towards progress and peace rather than always going straight to war (even tho their intentions might not necessarily being peace...eg. oil.) Thats my two cents (so that should be worth about 1 american cent)

Frenchie

Back to the original question.....

1) Jerry Lewis

2) The French

3) did I say Jerry Lewis?

you go Frenchie.

For all of you who think the french owe us because of WWII, did u forget a little war called the revolutionary war, where the french gave us 90 percent of our gun and provided vital support. NOt recent i grant you but without the french they'd be no us/\. So if you're gonna bash the french, bash the russians and canadians.

The french are a bunch of pussies. No more quotes, No explanation.

Frenchie,

You are pathetic scum. A mix of Canadian and French is disgusting. You are not only a pussy, but you are a stupid pussy.

As for the jerk-off claiming the revolutionary war; keep in mind the first rule of french warfare: The French only win a war when Frenchmen aren't fighting the war for them.

French are disgusting. Dumbass, its Iraq, not Irak. Stupid ass.