France has, in a last minute public relations move, avoided being placed on America's "naughty" list.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/3153831.html

Shralp, are you sure they are not just saying thankyou to the USA for saving mainland Europe. Let's face it, Britain couldn't have liberated Europe on her own but with the USA backing it we drove those evil Nazi fu**s back to Berlin. Why not pay tribute, the USA deserves it. I don't think the French WW2 veterans care about politics. But the French are still gits becasue they won't buy British beef. There's been a program on over here about America preparing and fighting in WW2. It's amazing how they pulled themsleves out of that awful Deppression to frm the strongest army in the world. The troops were rubbish at first but after some first hand combat in Africa they were ready for the big one. Though the persecution of the Japanese-Americans was horrid. :yot:

[ August 12, 2002, 14:37: Message edited by: Z-Layrex ]

I doubt you know the first thing about the conditions of Japanese-Americans during WW2.

Wow shralp, i'm not trying to start anything. I'm not going to moan about it as the Americans did to many great things during the war period to worry about it. I only know what i saw on TV. People were distrusting of them because of the war with Japan and so were made to live in camps for a brief while. Conditions in the camps were good and there was medical care and they were fed good food. I just don't like it how they were made to move out of their homes like that, i guess it was for national security, maybe even for their own safety. The only bad thing was that they never had heating. Persecution was not really the rigt word i guess.

Z-Layrex, what you just said about the internment camps in the USA is not entirely true. Yes, people mistrusted them, as they mistrust the Arabs now. Our government moved them into camps with armed guards so that riots would not kill them. The government was simply protecting it's people from their own prejudice.

It's nice to see somebody finally give credit to the United States.

I'm very glad Germany lost WW2. But i don't understand the whole case. About english peoples resentments against french people? About which country was "best" in WW2? :confused:
For my sake french veterans can make meetings with american veterans as often as they like. Maybe it's fun to talk about the old days.

[ August 12, 2002, 17:07: Message edited by: Oblate ]

We just don't like it how they surrender as soon as it looks like they're going to be defeated. But i suppose with an massive evil nazi war machine tromping through your country you don't really stand much of a chance. Damn Facists.

You're right, they tried their best. And some were collaborateurs but there was also the resistance. And my "elders" try to take their land. So that explains why the french could have resentments against germans. But that's not the case.
Z your not the only britain that don't likes the french. But i really don't know why.

Rastor, I try to stay away from this phrase, but I must use it now: YOU ARE WRONG.

The US government ripped the Japanese-Americans out of their homes, neighborhoods, and without their permission, placed them in lockdown facilites known as internment camps. The Japanese-Americans were not treated cruelly while imprisoned, and while part of this might have been for their own protection, unfortunately, much of the government and US population began to distrust Japanese-Americans. Some even went as far as to say they were giving coordinates to help the Japanese for their next strike on American soil.

By the way, those families of internment prisoners were later awarded $10,000 tax-free from the US government. I think you now know why...

Oblate, Britishh people are actually more rough around the edges with Germans than French for obvious reasons. I'm not and whenever someone i know says something bad about the current German people i try to make them see that it was before their time and Germany is no longer evil.

Z Z Z I know that it is a common view that France surrenders as soon as they see a german army at their doorsteps and it annoys me very much. Firstly if you look through history its pretty much a tie between France and Germany when war is considered. Secondly one thing I have just found out is that France built a very strong defence line to be able to withstand a german assault (I think it was called the Malignotn line or something) but when they asked Belgium to fortify their borders they refused due to now wanting to offend Germany, France hadnt the time to fortify their border to Belgium as well and therefore Germnay could just wander through Belgium into France...

And if someone deserves recognition for WW2 and hasnt gotten it is the russians, in my opinion their effort in WW2 is sadly neglected by the west and atleast as descisive as Normandy.

I'd just like to remind all those who enjoy bashing France as an everlasting militarily weak nation to look at its history circa 1800-1815... Greater France at the high of its power was about as Greater Germany circa 1942.

The French (technically Normans at the time) so far have been the only people to ever conquer Britain in it's entirety.

They were also rather effective during the many wars of religion during the late middle ages and renaissance, not to mention were a decisive factor in the outcome of the American Revolutionary War.

I'd recommend, before bashing poor France, to do some research first, or at least specify that you're only referring to its military history within the last century, in which case you're about right. :D

[ August 13, 2002, 05:58: Message edited by: Sir Beverage, formerly Alex ]

I'm kinda curious as to what set up the poor feelings between US and France to begin with. France loved the US during revolutionary times, they saw it as a beacon of hope after their own disastrous attempts at a fair government. Hence the whole Statue of Liberty gift, and whatever it was the US gave back...I wanna say it's in or on some river in France. What happened?

France started selling high-tech weapons to rogue states, sheltering terrorists and other criminals by refusing to extradite them to countries where they were wanted, and eating snails.

Getting an extridition from them is easy so long as we promise not execute them.

France sheltering terrorists ... you must either refer to the 15 million north african arabs in France ... or to Carlos? Yeah, they are sheltering him in a high security prison and kidnapped him from Sudan to protect him from the firece law enforcement there ... :rolleyes:

Deviant Mage,
True, France did like the US at one point. I believe they helped us (during the revolution) to piss off England.

Heh.

No, Ragusa. I'm talking about al Queda suspects. They were initially refusing to hand over Zacaraias Moussai as well.

France did provide assistance and money to the American colonies during the revolution. Ben Franklin was quite the hit on the continent at the time. But if I remember my US history correctly, during the Civil War France took sides with the Confederates against the Union. I don't remember what the reasoning was at the time though.

Just a little side reference though for Joacqin. This article (http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2002%2F04%2F21%2Fdo210 6.xml) appeared in the Telegraph several months ago. The Russian contribution isn't the only one that often gets neglected :) Although Canadian vets, like the US vets mentioned above, often receive a heroes welcome in France and other places for their efforts in WWI and WWII.

SlimShogun, how is that different than what I said? Okay, I left out the part that they were taken from their homes? The reason I gave for the camps and the reason you gave were the same. I simply gave a much more concise reason than you.

Shralp is buying all the"War on Terror" bollocks isn't he? (ps the moron spouting crap about the French is a not a typical example of a British person - we do not all live in the past and reguritate the views of our Imperialist predecessors)

[ August 13, 2002, 21:31: Message edited by: Christopher_Lee ]

Rastor, you portrayed the internment camps as a positive thing, while I portrayed them as a negative thing...there is a slight difference.

"I'm kinda curious as to what set up the poor feelings between US and France to begin with."

Hmmm... two large countries where significant numbers of otherwise sane citizens insist their citizenship makes them superior to the rest of the world ... I can't imagine why we don't like each other? :rolleyes: :lol:

Well all through history you'll notice that Britain is the only European country that can survive against a strong enemy, i know this is because we are an island nation but the British smashed the French in Waterloo when it was almost 2 to 1.

[ August 14, 2002, 14:51: Message edited by: Z-Layrex ]

Z-Layrex, I must disagree.

During the WW2, Finland was attacked by Russians, and managed to withstand the assault and was never occupied.
Take a look into the European map and compare the former Soviet Union and Finland... 2 to 1 is nothing.

Ara
(Feeling particulary patriotic today...)

"Buying all the war on terror bollocks"?

STFU or go red, noob.

Shralp
Washington, DC
Target Central

Christopher lee... HOW THE FU** IS IT BOLLOCKS!!!!
Was the thousands dead on 9/11 bollocks?!!!!
Was Canada, America and Britain invading Afghanistan and freeing the population bollocks!!!?????
Was the US Anthrax scare bollocks!!!!????
Were those hi-jacked planes bollocks!!!?????

Jesus christ you don't know what you're talking about you moron! :mad: :flaming: :toofar:

[ August 14, 2002, 16:51: Message edited by: Z-Layrex ]

Ok people, this is getting a bit out of hand. Keep to civilized arguments or don't post at all.

It may not be bollocks, but I must say that the general reaction is a bit how to say it..extreme?
And I dont think Lee meant 9/11 or the invasion but the general paranoia in the US that is fueled by its goverment.

Arabwel, Russia sucks at waging war. Look at the map again and compare Russia and Sweden (which Finland belonged to at the time) and try to understand how the hell Sweden and Russia could have waged war against eachother for centuries, with Sweden mostly invading Russia and not the other way around...
Kept our fighting on the other side of the baltic sea ;) let the heathen finns suffer ;)

joacqin,
Once again you post about things which you have no understanding (if there was a prize, you would win):

It may not be bollocks, but I must say that the general reaction is a bit how to say it..extreme?
And I dont think Lee meant 9/11 or the invasion but the general paranoia in the US that is fueled by its goverment.
The "general reaction" (whatever that means) is extreme? How so?
The "general paranoia". What "general paranoia"? And if there is "general paranoia", how is it "fueled by the government"?

How did you come to these conclusions? What are you basing your statements on? I would like to better understand your mindset. It would be easy to assume that you are somewhat anti-US, but I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Perhaps Mr. Lee could also shed some light on the origin of his viewpoints. I really am curious how you come to your conclusions.

"British smashed the French in Waterloo when it was almost 2 to 1."

First of all, the size of the British and French armies were about the same, however Napoleon did have a slight advantage in cavalry and artilery. In fact had the Prussians not arrived in the nick of time to save the British (making it more than 2 to 1 against the French) the map of Europe might look much different today...

Okay, Joacqin... When WW2 commenced, Finland hadnät been a part of Sweden for a long, long time! We declared independency from Russia in 1917, you know.

Ara
(Tired, cranky and unusually idiotic)

Z-Layrex, when you look closer in your history book you will see Alex is right. Actually I kinda doubt that the british would have been able to defeat Napolean alone, it was indeed Bluchers appearance that turned the tide of battle in waterloo. Actually it looked pretty much as if Napoleon would massacre the british army when Blucher arrived, and don't glorify the massive british losses against Napoleon - the armies were indeed about even.

The handful of british troops on the continent was hardly the decisive factor that caused the defeat of Napoleon, in the napoleonic war the major bloodpoll in europe was paid by russians and germans. Without the prussian uprising Napoleon would have stilll controlled all europe. In that war prussia actually lost about 30% of its total population, a very high price for such a - then small - country.
However, this is kinda :yot: :D

That reminds me of the statue of the glorious Viscount Slim of Burma I've seen in Edinburgh. He led the british armies to victory over the japanese in Burma. There the indian troops did the majority of fighting and dieing. The glorious parts in the air and at sea were british though - though the british did not have much glory at sea in asia.
Or take the decyphering of the enigma: It was first decyphered by the polish, then given to the french when the germans invaded and then to britain when the germans invaded france too. That's not quite what I would call a brilliant national solo.

Surprising that the british, when standing *alone* against a strong enemy, always relied on allies. That's smart, understandable and prudent. But it is kinda unfair to use up all the glory alone and forgetting the helpers.

hmm, even more :yot: I'll stop here. And, I think this thread is ready to be closed anyway.

[ August 15, 2002, 08:13: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

This is getting ridiculous.

Ara
(You know the drill, insert some random spam...)

Now those of you who read "USA Gone Mad?" know that I at least do not consider the US response to terrorism completely bollocks. People here are scared, with good reason, and many of things we are doing -- increased security at airports, better oversight of student visas, even the war on Afganistan -- seem reasonable to me.

But Christopher Lee may have been referring to those *other* things our Republican administration is doing in the *name* of a War on Terror that are -- tangental at best. Things like the suspension of due process for anyone suspected of terrorism. Our laws state that anyone detained for a crime must be told of the charge against him, must be allowed legal counsel, must be (relatively) swiftly tried or let go. There are now hundreds of people to whom these laws are said not to apply, because they are suspected of terrorist involvement. That is bollocks.

Or using the War on Terror as a reason to go after Iraq and other countries -- where no clear link to Al Qaeda exists. That is bollocks.

Or the idea that dissent regarding anything our current president may choose to do is somehow unpatriotic -- when the dearest principle on which this country was founded is the free exercise of dissent. I love my country. I think we on the whole are a force for good. But if I think that our current president does wrong, Al Qaeda has NOT "already won"!!! *That* is bollocks!

Methyl, just to be clear, our laws apply to US citizens only.

Well, quite... We discussed September the 11th (the act) a lot earlier in the year, and at no point did you hear me saying that it was anything less than an evil act - stop being so ridiculous.

Bush's "war" rhetoric is seen by most Europeans as ridiculous - no one believes he has the faintest idea about what he says. Sorry, I know I'm not explaining these views properly, I am a bit tired...

I believe that GWBs policies are massively short sighted (middle east plan anybody?), I believe that he has made the world a far more dangerous place (Ballistics, Kyoto, not reconfirmed the policy against assasination, nuclear testing ban, increasing military spending, removal of the head of the chemical weapons comittee [I forget his name]etc), I believe that his position on nation building is dangerously ambiguous (regime change in Iraq, but we don't want to get involved in supporting any new government); I believe that he is talking tough not least in order to deflect attention from the potential ruins of the US economy (anyone remember Japan a few years ago); I believe he is taking Americans for a ride; I believe he is cynical beyond belief and lacking in humanity - that he is taking advantage of September 11th is surely beyond doubt. He cheats at golf; I do not believe that any "Evil" state will use any nuclear weapons before he does.

[ August 15, 2002, 21:34: Message edited by: Christopher_Lee ]

I agree with you there, he's told what to say all the time.

sigh

*sigh*

When you are removed from the problem, it's always difficult to grasp the emotional consequences.

Things to keep in mind when you read about worldwide current events:

1. Not all media is "unregulated" to the extent that the US enjoys. Cypress (specifically, the King of Cypress) *just* opened up the media there. And Syria/Jordan/Saudi/Iran/Iraq were not the slightest bit impressed.

2. Not too many people in the US have seen (firsthand, mind you) a 'battle ground' from 1940-2002. Kent State doesn't count; Congress did not declare war on those nappy college kids who burnt down the ROTC playhouse. It's fairly wikked to see the pock mark of small arms fire still on a church, right next to the Berlin Wall (or at least, where it used to be =).

3. I'm not sure it's a law, but it should be a theorem at the very least. As a conflict grows increasingly closer (physically), your awareness of the situation increases geometrically. As an example, I've been watching/reading about kid abductions in the US recently. Doesn't mean this hasn't been going on for the past 20 years; it just means there's no other news, so the media has decided to finally get around to reporting this.

Anyone here ever had their kid stolen right out from under them?

I haven't; but, I used to work in a little group, where one of my department heads had their 13 (16?) year old stolen.

My supervisor summed it up like this: "You know, prison isn't all that much different from the boat. You're trapped, your life is in danger all the time, the food isn't too good, and you are on the low end of the totem pole. There's a point where you just strap on the pistols, and go hunting..."

Bush's "war" rhetoric is seen by most Europeans as ridiculous - no one believes he has the faintest idea about what he says. Talk about your sweeping generalizations. Please show me the polls of all of Europe which show that this is the case.

(Ballistics, Kyoto, not reconfirmed the policy against assasination, nuclear testing ban, increasing military spending, removal of the head of the chemical weapons comittee [I forget his name]etc), Bush did not invent ballistic missles. In fact, his administration has signed treaties to further reduce the number of missles we do have. Look it up.

The Kyoto Treaty was unfairly skewed against the largest nations, ignored a huge proportion of the world's population, and was voted against by 97 U.S. Senators. You can't say it was just Bush.

Not "reconfirmed" the policy of not assassinating? WTF are you talking about? We don't re-vote on a law or executive order just to make you feel better.

If by "nuclear testing ban" you're referring to our completely legal withdrawal from SALT II, then you're ust being simplistic. We withdrew so that we would have the ability to develop defensive weapons to shoot down incoming missles, something which the treaty forbade. Once we develop them, I'm sure you Brits will steal the plans and be happy that the bad ol' USA withdrew from SALT II after all.

And I'm not sure what "head of the chemical weapons committee" you're talking about. But then it appears neither are you.

I believe that his position on nation building is dangerously ambiguous (regime change in Iraq, but we don't want to get involved in supporting any new government); Same thing we're doing in Afghanistan. Nothing ambiguous about it. We're not social engineers. We just want our enemies elminated or powerless. Very, very simple concept.

I believe that he is talking tough not least in order to deflect attention from the potential ruins of the US economy (anyone remember Japan a few years ago); The U.S. economy is not even close to being in ruins. Indicators are already on the upswing. And it's nothing like Japan's problems, which stemmed from an improperly regulated banking system.

that he is taking advantage of September 11th is surely beyond doubt. No, it is not. He is doing what a nation does when it needs to defend itself. Sorry that we're not sitting still and waiting for more attacks. Apparently self-defense offends you.

He cheats at golf;What? Source, please. I think you're confusing Bush with our previous president, who was notorious for mulligans.

I do not believe that any "Evil" state will use any nuclear weapons before he does.Then you need to read the papers more. The evidence to the contrary is abundant.

I find it interesting that you first say that Bush is an idiot (as "everyone in Europe" agrees) and then go on to portray him as a devious, evil mastermind manipulating the US for his own ends. Which is it?

Or maybe it's just that you've got a huge, whiny, teenage boy chip on your shoulder.

[ August 16, 2002, 18:16: Message edited by: Shralp ]

Shralp, most people in Europe agree with the USA fighting terrorism, there's no doubt about that. The truth is, however, that pretty much every single european thinks George Bush is an idiot. We just can't believe that a man as stupid as him coud become the most powerful man in the world, it just isn't right.

Great response Shralp! :D
National Defense does not mean waiting until you are attacked before acting on a threat. The President warned the world that the U.S. would not make any differentiation between terrorists and the nations that harbor them. The U.S., along with our British allies, are at war with these terrorists! Unfortunately, diplomacy is impossible when dealing with terrorists and their financial backers.
My feathers get ruffled when I read others criticizing the President's handling of the War on Terrorism. I have friends that work at the Pentagon, and by the Grace of God, they were not injured on 9/11. The President (no matter what party he is from) needs our prayers, not our criticism, especially during this time of crisis.

Bring klinton back and then i'll pray. :angel:

[ August 16, 2002, 15:20: Message edited by: Z-Layrex ]

Come on people! *Completely lacks response to Shralp terrible blind response*

I am afraid.

Once again, I request some insight from Mr. Lee and joacqin. You state opinions as if they are fact, with no facts to back them.

I am really beginning to think that both of you are trolling. Neither of you has offered anything of substance to this thread. Every time either of you has posted, it has the appearance of trying to inflame rather than inform (or discuss).

As for me, I am not going to respond to anymore posts from either of you in this thread unless it contains some real insight (facts, please) and not just rhetoric.

Hey Jack, I think Shralp was just itching to start this mud wrestle himself. Look at the first post with french eyes, and ask yourself if; "Shralp states opinions as if they are fact, with no facts to back them."

Don't get all round up, on all the babbling aftermath of Shralp's nifty tongues. Perhaps Joacqin and Christopher_Lee don't want to have a reasonable discussion. Or Shralp for that matter...

[ August 16, 2002, 17:35: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

Not even close, Nooberman. I posted a link to a newspaper article.

joa, if you've got no response, then make no response. Not even to call me names.

Z, now you too are attempting to speak for all of Europe. I make the same challenge. Show me the poll that shows most Europeans think Bush is stupid.

If there is such a thing, then there is really no choice but to conclude that most Europeans are stupid. For how can a moron do what Bush has done in his life? You kiddies like to overlook those biographical facts in favor of dwelling on how he misprounced "subliminal."

If there is not such a poll, then you're just spouting random opinions. Like this one:

"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." --
O'Rourke, P.J. (1989), Holidays in hell. London (Picador), 199

[ August 16, 2002, 19:02: Message edited by: Shralp ]

Heh. Z, his name is Clinton. I was skimming this thread and nearly fell off my chair. I thought you said klingon!

Yep Shralp you posted a link... duh? But have you forgotten you wrote this too?:

France has, in a last minute public relations move, avoided being placed on America's "naughty" list. If you don't like reading crap from other board members (or do you? ;) ), why on earth post a link and make a spiffy hot shot one-liner next to the link, with (to quote Jack Funk again) "no facts to back them"?

What would you possibly achieve other than start a fight? Wanting us all to say; "Cool deduction Shralp, You really hit the mark on the french.. again". Yes or no answer?

[ August 16, 2002, 19:30: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

What facts would you like me back that up with, Nooberman? Did you really think that America has a "naughty" list? That was clearly an opinion and clearly a joke -- in a way that the statement "most Europeans think Bush is an idiot" is not.

Sure thing dearest, but I don't see Z-Layrex laughing. I know I know, its not your fault that Europeans start bugging you with Japanese-Americans persecution.

Don't we need a Sarcasm-smiley for those intriguing political jokes... hehe add sexist jokes to the list for Methylviolet... :1eye:

This board is freaking hilarious :shake:

[ August 16, 2002, 21:25: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

Well that poll proves it, get a person with a mental age over 10 in charge this time and America could start recovering from its recession.

[ August 17, 2002, 15:00: Message edited by: Z-Layrex ]

Z, your apparant low mental age became quite obvious in your last post.

[ August 17, 2002, 20:28: Message edited by: SlimShogun ]

ok 'bud'. :lol:

Please people, keep the insults to a minimum...

Oh this just marvellous. Absoloutley hilarious! I'm LMAO here! :lol: :lol:

Nooberman!? Great! :lol:

You guys are beginning to sound like actual politicians, simply throwing around insults and not doing any real debating. The fact that the last several posts were nothing but insults and short answers kind of annoyed me.

Well that poll proves it, get a person with a mental age over 10 in charge this time and America could start recovering from its recession.And you think that Bush is more immature than Clinton? At least there's not a lot of scandals surrounding the Bush administration.

I have a suggestion for you, Rastor. Know what the heck you're talking about before you decide to talk about it. Have you heard about a little company named Enron and the wee little scandal surrounding the Bush administration...I thought not. What is oral sex when compared to billions of dollars, doof?

Uh, there is no Enron scandal around the Bush administration.

There are no charges, no convictions, no impropriety with the Bush administration and Enron.

In fact, the Clinton administration was more tightly tied to Enron than Bush was.

SlimShogun, ever heard of Whitewater or the campaign financing scandal surrounding Clinton? Doubtful, if you think in any way that Enron can top Clinton. If you think that it's better to take billions from communists as opposed to other Americans, then who's the real doof here? There are a lot more scandals surrounding Clinton than Bush.

[ August 19, 2002, 16:55: Message edited by: Rastor ]

You don't need charges for a scandal. Just a Vice President unwilling to discuss his former relationship with a company who ruined the lives of thousands of people.