Oh My God!

yep, nowadays the US do not represent the ultimate freedom anymore...

some people have vacuum instead of brain

The site is run by Josh Wander, with a name so close to Wanker...no wonder.

What a lack of respect for the old Lady Liberty!
May be that guy wants to start a campaign to boycott French Fries also!

French Fries?!

Haven't they already renamed them to "Freedom Fries" or they changed their mind eventually?

The madness is everywhere...
http://www1.union.edu/~knowlesm/antifrench.html

I heard a good one on the radio this morning. Someone went through a local supermarket identifying products made in France. And tagging these items with an index card asking everyone not to buy these products.

You know you need to get a life when you have this much time on your hands. There are things you could be doing that are constructive, productive and just, well, anything. I really get sick of this shit.

Some of these people should take a look in the mirror sometimes, just to see how far their head is shoved up their ass. Of course, they'd have to open their mouth to do so.

Who does then? Because it is not the French, the German, the Russian, etc. There are fanatics everywhere. Should we dig up what the French and Germans have been saying when they thought they were out of earshot of the Americans? How about the insults they have offered to the face of the Americans. It's all politics. And everyone is guilty. Don't start country bashing. It is pointless. And chances are your country or someone their in has some shortcomings which we could criticise and accentuate.

I don't see why people are singling out the French; the Russians also said they'd use their veto, and Germans have been very vocally anti-war. And besides those three, there are many other countries (including most on the security council) that were/are against war. Heck, even my country is against war.

Bush's speeches make it seem like diplomacy failed only because of the French, which is plainly false. It seems like France is just bearing the brunt of the backlash so that the US government can make it seem like there is only a single country against war, rather than a significant number.

I would say that the administration is doing this because France has been a historic ally of the US, whereas Germany and Russia have been much more recent allies. All points are moot, though; the war has begun and the American propaganda machine is in full force.

Administration? You mean not only these zealots, but it's the same on state level?
Anyway it's not the way to treat allies which, surprisingly enough, have their own views/interests.

Furthermore they didn't even try to rein in George The Crusader, just 'nope, you can't count on us', that's it. Veto? Who cares about UN nowadays, when there's 'the right thing' to be done?

@bluewer than blue

Let them bring back Liberty to France - this egoistic U.S. administration is no longer worth being its owner Since Bush II is president, the U.S. only commit to international contracts when they are advantage for the american industry (Kyoto climate protection, International court)
One day when a president like Clinton or Kennedy will be the leader, Liberty may return to her place.

I do not at all understand how Baby Bush can have the nerve to talk about a defensive war in this case. And he is destroying the United Nations with this act. And claiming to be sent by god to fight the evil - this does not sound very sane to me. A country like the US have deserved a better president.

The self-styled "Land of the Free" (ha ha ha) does not even invite actors to the academy awards celebrations who made statements against war, e.g. Dustin Hofman, Susan Sarandon. And a nun is refused to take an airplane because she supports peace organisations.
Is this freedom?

It is also question of taking back all dead american soldiers buried in France after WW2, at a very high cost (saw this on the TV news).

For more info on the subject Pio2001 mentioned: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/13/...ance/index.html

I didn't intend to offend the USA. And I did NOT start country bashing. Actually I deny the position of Germany as well as the one of the US. It is stupid to wait until someone who already has proven his evilness like Mr. "so damn insane" (ha ha ha) can develop serious weapon programs and become a menace for his neighbour countries or any country at all. History has proven that exagerated pacifism can have really bad results (regarding the pacifism of GB and Spain in 1938). Mr Schröder's position concerning a war against the Iraq has helped him to be reelected, because he wasn't able to make any of the things possible he had promised in autumn 1998. If the UNO, as representative of the world's opinion, had legitimated this war I'd say nothing against it. BUT when I followed the statements of the US I got the impression that they were simply searching a reason for attacing Iraq (and control the fu**ing oil). They didn't find connections to the al qaida and the local dictator was willing to destroy the missiles that were found. But this changed nothing in the opinion of mr Bush.

I'd like to justify my former statement concerning the US and freedom. If someone is allowed to dictate the media what to publish and what not, you cannot tell this freedom of speech. In read that some bands are forbidden to be braodcasted in radio and criticisim of the government has become taboo. And I've read an article about German exchange students in the US. Since the damned debate about the war has started and Germany acted against war, they (the students) get offended by many American citizens. This is surely not due to evilness or xenophobia of Americans. It's simply due to the censorship in media. The information that are the source for making one's own opinion, are pro-war and leave out all critic voices against war. So a non-majority-elected president can pretend to be supported by his people. I think Bush's government has done a big step backwards concerning the freedom I connected with the United States of America, which I admired in most aspects I can think of until Bush came.

When considering the French stand, you have to consider their recent history. Two "world" wars have raged over their land (and others, obviously!) - the USA hasn't seen this kind of fighting "at home" in living memory. They may have a different perspective on war.

Or maybe the French and German leaders are just trying to jump on popular opinion to hide their pitiful performance on domestic policy.

No, I think I was right first time - they see (and have seen) war from a completely different persepctive.


Cheers,
David.

Actually, most of the people serving in the administration are the zealots. Many pro-war Americans are CNN/Fox News drones.


That's quite true. In fact, that is one of the reasons why I am so anti-Bush.


The only thing that might have stopped the administration from going back to war would have been a threat of war by France, Germany, Russia, and other anti-war nations.

I'll have more to say on this later.

That's what my grandfather (former military in Algeria and Vietnam) uses to say, regardless of the present situation.

www.germanystinks.com
Also works for "francestinks" (same page).

But I am gratefull to say there's also www.moveon.com.

That's pretty sick. Who are they to boycott products from countries whose governments don't support the war? I think this is about the governments, not about the people. If Gore were president, maybe there wouldn't be a war now. If the CDU party would've won the german election, maybe our government would be rather pro-war now. Even if we live in democracies, the government can never represent the multilateral opinions of the people. So there is no point in boycotts. Actually, it would seem more plausible to me if US products would be boycotted, but that would be irrational as well.

Maybe we will when we again have an elected president.

The victory speach I would like to have seen:

"I'd like to thank all those who made my election possible:

1) The head of my Florida campaign, who also certified the election in that state.
2) My cousin at Fox network, who was the first to declare me the winner.. got that
momentum thing going.
3) My brother Jeb, governer of Florida, who kept an eye on things there.
4) The Supreme court justices appointed by my Dad and Mr Reagan who
were luckily a majority and voted against their prior judicial philosophy to
finally nail Florida for me.
"

Family values at work!

Btw...the argument "those French owe us because we saved their ass, and it's thanks to us that they don't speak german atm blah blah blah" is like having us Greeks stating that "it's thanks to us that the world didn't turn up into a global Iran, since we won the Persian wars blah blah blah". Pathetic arguments from illogical people...

No the French don't owe the US just because the US played a major role in saving their butts. The French, British, German, and many others owe something because the US funded the rebuilding of their countries via the Marshal Plan after the second world war as well. Not a single one of the countries that benefited has paid back their debt. I am not saying that the US should own them. But I am saying that people in these countries should give some respect and understanding and not be money grubbing backstabbers. The US is not asking that all countries repay their debt in full or that they even repay it with money.

Weird...till now French and German has co-operated with US in every decision of the latter...should I remind you the first Gulf War or the Serbian bombings? Did they oppose back then as well? Of course not...they did their "duty"!

Britain on the other hand is always (and I mean ALWAYS) with US, so it seems that it has re-paid its debt and more till now.

The way you describe it is like asking for Germany/ French (and any other that is debted to you) to "close their eyes" when US decides to do something that is not totally "OK" and let it pass without posing any reaction.

In that case (and if I was a citizen of those countries) I would just prefer to give every single dollar back and to have a country that will have a voice of its own than this situation.



Probably the US is not asking that because he wants to have those countries "tied" to its "chariot"...it can control them better that way. If I was US I wouldn't want to get repaid with money as well...

The world is a wonderful place to be, isn't?

I would say US had a major role in recovering their saved butts, not in freeing those countries.

When Stalin and Hitler have divided the Europe between themselves and invading one country after another, US actions were forever delayed. They were actually waiting to see who is to come out victor, to deal with.

US was way more pragmatic then. It hasn't force its own NWO plan, but cared more for its people. That's why it gained most from this war, IMO.


In fact there's no lack of respect from France And Germany, but it's about US attitude 'who's not with us is against us'.

Although at first I thought the sites mentioned here are some sort of bad satire. Seriously, one must have twisted sense of humor to come up with something like this.

I hope so. I hope that, after this war, Blair is still in power here, and that Bush really "owes him". If so, I hope Blair will do the right thing, and use his influence with Bush to re-start the middle east peace process, in a fair and even-handed way.

It's interesting to compare the "we are at war" speeches of Bush and Blair. They're kind of singing from the same hymn sheet, but Blair is much more of an internationalist - or else his speech writer feels that people in the UK are more concerned with the fair and just treatment of other peoples. I don't know if I'm mistaken, or just too cynical, but I get the feeling that when Tony talks about "Iraq being a threat to us", he's just saying what George wants him to say. And when George talks about war being "for the good of the Iraqi people", he's just saying what Blair wants him to say. Maybe neither is interested in the other's adjenda.

Anyway, if Blair doesn't pull something good out of this war - and I mean "morally" good, not "good for Britian", then he would be out at the next election - if only we had an effective opposition!


Cheers,
David.

http://www1.union.edu/~knowlesm/antifrench.html

lol

Some americans can be incredibly stupid.

Personally, I'm against Americans in general thinking they should more or less control the world.

...

http://www.actualclient.com/france.htm
Good lord...

Just the same ol' narrow minded north-americans with their twisted friend or foe line of though.

It's good to know not everyone in the United States thinks this way.

//edit
Trimmed out some personal comments about a user that were rather off-topic

Up untill recently Germany had very little choice in the matter. And at the time France did not have a conflict of interests brewing.



So it is better to close ones eyes and ignore genocide? I mean what's a little genocide among countrymen after all? I assume you approve of Milosevic's actions. I assume you have subscribed to http://www.icdsm.org/ ? What makes Saddam so much more worthy to continue where Milosevic was not? Why should we wait another 12 years for the UN to finally make up it's mind and commit to something that it by it's very nature can not approve? Whatever the reason isn't it about time this was done? I saw the Iraqi ambassador to the UN speaking today. I really had not laughed that hard for a long time. The way he was trying to paint Saddam as the innocent victim(which everyone knows he is not), and America as the big bad bully. Saddam was told their would be consequences. He laughed at the UN for saying that. I mean after all what is the UN going to do? Resolution him? Yes that is exactly what the UN was going to do. Supprise Saddam! What the UN could not do those in the international community that can will. Saddam has played the UN like a sittar. You guys are just afraid to admit it.



Even if they wanted to they could not. And who says they don't have a voice of their own. Clearly they do. But they have proven that their friendship is only avalible when it suits them. Mostly France anyway. Everyone else had a good excuse. France on the other hand had none. And what's further they went on to subvert the effort. That is why there is such backlash against them. Personally I think that the people petitioning to give the statue of liberty back to the French are activist nuts. Just as the people demanding that in any term we use "french" we replace it with "freedom" are nuts as well. Personally it is a childish overly nationalistic response. Much as what I am seeing from people of other nations here.



Leave it to a nationalist to pervert the meaning of a gift given in good faith. That's all you folks seem to be good at. You can make resolutuion after resolution. You can bicker amongst yourselves. But you can't see the simple solution to a nagging festering problem. How are we to get Saddam out of Iraq? Would he just walk away? Are you people really that ignorant to believe that?

Set asside your obvious biggotry and hatred of America. Think for yourself. And tell me. Honestly from your heart. What should be done? Don't tell me we should leave it in the hands of the UN. They have failed utterly to enforce their word. So the word of the UN is worthless. I love the ideal behind the UN. It is just sad that human nature keeps the UN from that ideal. I know you and your respective countries don't have a clue what to do about the situation. It is clear that you are simply; blindly taking out your anger and frustration at your impotence to find a solution beyond war on America. There is a time for war. We must all come to realise that.

Agreed. I'm not a big fan of the current French government, but the anti-French sentiment is sickening. As an American with ancestors who fought in the Revolutionary War, I appreciate the support given to my country by the people of France.

"Freedom Fries". Bleh. They're still French Fries as far as I'm concerned. I don't even want to think about the rest of the crap.

@2Bdecided: Blair did manage to delay Bush for a little bit, so I guess Blair isn't a complete bad guy. Good luck in forming an opposition, though. I'll do my part against Bush in 2004. Third-party voting all the way for me

This has been out for a while, but might serve as a useful distraction.
Well, sorta

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...a_boycotts_dc_5

Looks like product boycotting has become a double-edged blade.

Well I always said that the Americans that were boycotting French goods etc were morons. This does alot to weaken the europen stance. I mean especially if it is getting noticable government backing. Jimmy in the US has decided that he does not like the fact that the french turned down helping the US and then went out to subvert the US efforts. So Jimmy is now boycotting french goods.

Jacques Chirac: "How dare the US boycott french goods! We the nation of France as a whole will boycott American goods! Hahaha take that Jimmy!"

So because we are free and a few people have decided to boycott French goods due to the less than friendly behavior of the french.(Remember they did not stop with saying no and neither should you) Foriegn countries are gonna boycott. Our government has never told us to boycott any country because they did not side with us. So childish to see others do so.

sorry but i think that those countries have already paid that price, don't you forget how us has grown in influence after ww1 e ww2 (that can be understand as 1 conflict as well)

What's the government backing you are talking about? If there's such a thing I would really like some proof over this.

Here's one more kind of protest. At least this one is funny

The way I read the article it seemed like individuals making choices about what products to buy, I didn't see any larger conspiracy.

Three words: Boston Tea Party.

Well, that was during colonial times, but I think it counts. It sure got the attention of the British. I imagine that the boycott of American products in Europe will get our attention, too.

I know our success makes us guilty by default. I don't know why but that is what I get from people internationally any more. Well not those from countries like Japan. They have been so successful in the past in some cases it has given us reason to pause.

But anyhow my previous post is aimed at "if" it were recieving government backing.

I'm not saying that France has nothing to really supply us with. But if I were to have to come up with a list of French products to boycott I can't think of any. None that I use on any given day. I wonder though how that translates to France though. I have already seen some snafu-ed boycotts in europe. Like boycotting Coca-cola. Sure their home base is in the US. And they have bottling plants in the US. But they also have bottling plants internationally. As in the case of europe their bottling plants supply them and not the ones in the US. So yes after a long strange trip and hurting economies in europe eventually the central organisation might take notice of a slight slow down in product sales in a lesser market. But it is not going to cause concern. So unless it is for nothing but show it is an extremely bad idea.

Seems like they really do need to saturate the Statue in "Feel Good Pink Goo", like they did in Ghostbusters II

The big thing in germany is the "peaceful american"... we have something called "Amerikaner", a round pastry with icing. Lately, the bakers apply a peace-symbol with chocolate, which becomes quite popular. Here you see politicians from the green party posing with them:



Not really a boycott, but funny nonetheless.

There is NO such boycott in Germany, and I haven't heard anything about it concerning other European countries. Damn, I can't think of anything that is more primitive than boycott of foreign products to harm a country.

Looks tasty.
Greens, eh? I'm not a member of their party, but I tend to identify with their values the most.
You should try selling those Amerikaners in California

I prefer the word 'stupid' over 'primitive'. The US boycotts all the time, but we use the term 'embargo' when we deal with countries
we don't like. We've tried trade 'embargos' with countries like Cuba, North Korea, and Iraq with usually negative results for the average human being and no result for the intended targets (the governments that we hate).

I'd just like to say that we're getting a fair share of abuse from the warmongers down south as well. And our government hasn't even denounced the war, we just refuse to participate. Something like 35% of americans in a recent poll said they plan to boycott Canadian products. This is especially bad because they are our #1 trading partner.

I understand there are many U.S. citizens who are against the war as well however, and I just want you all to know that I realize and appreciate that fact. It is the american administration and not the people that we take issue with up here.

Amazing... war seems to really bring the idiots out of the woodwork (see soc.culture.iraq on Usenet). In the case of the USA, probably a bunch of in-bred hillbillies from South Carolina or whatever.

It should be obvious that thinking people from the USA (or any country) won't be supporting that kind of idiotic nonsense. I hope those here from France, Germany and etc. realize this (and also that you aren't disliked in the USA -- at least this guy in the USA).

Finally, I hope those from France & Germany (& other places) don't dislike Americans in general (p.s. thanks Jebus... I don't like the American administration any more than you do ).

The main problems I have with the war on Iraq, in no particular orders:

- It will kill lots of people.

- It will kill lots of people.

- It will kill lots of people.

Now, why do I think the U.S. and the U.K. (with the kind assistance of Spain's Government, my own home country ) are not right in starting this war?

- Bush has "sold" it to us as a need to protect the Western way of life, picturing Saddam as a clear and threatening danger to us, ready to attack us any second! That's simply a total lie. They don't have resources to do that, period. Thinking it did is totally absurd. Go check the reports after the first Iraq war, and the UN inspections to see very clear quotes about the level to which Iraq was disarmed.

- Bush has also tried to link Iraq to Al-Qaeda, miserably failing to convince anybody.

Now, I have some arguments to rebate the "We are doing this to free the poor people of Iraq."

- It seems that the poor people of Iraq have suddenly become a lot more opressed by Saddam... That doesn't make much sense, Saddam was there exactly the same 5 years ago.

- Now what about other poor people of the world? It seems that countries without petrol under the surface are not that opressed. Afghanistan, for example, didn't get much attention until 9/11... And you can bet your ass that people there, and SPECIALLY WOMEN, were going through a lot more pain and suffering than many people in Iraq were now. Now that's clearly not a very balanced measuring of the amount of suffering, is it?

Sorry, I don't think this war is right, I don't think it's needed, and I don't think it's the best way to remove Saddam from power. And in the long run, it will bring a lot more harm than good.

Saddam is evil, I agree. He should be removed from power, I agree. But this?!?! Open your eyes: The only reason to start this war is really simple: Money. You can forget about all that "doing the right thing" bullshit. Maybe Bush believes it, but the people that manage/convince him, do not. At all.

And for all those comparisons between Saddam and Hitler, that many people have done, well... That's insane. I'm pretty sure Saddam has wet dreams about doing what Hitler did, but it's totally impossible that he can achieve that, or even start trying.

[quote=Kblood]
The main problems I have with the war on Iraq, in no particular orders:

- It will kill lots of people.

- It will kill lots of people.

- It will kill lots of people.
[/quote]

The main problems I have with no war on Iraq, in no particular order:

-It will still kill lots of people.

-It will still kill lots of people.

-It will still kill lots of people.

For every day the UN sits and does nothing conditions worsen over there and people die. Saddam has no concern for the Iraqi people outside of his ambition to stay in power.


[quote=Kblood]
Now, why do I think the U.S. and the U.K. (with the kind assistance of Spain's Government, my own home country  ) are not right in starting this war?
[/quote]

The war was started back in the early ninteys.This is the second movement in that war. So you hate the war. No one likes the war. But many realise that it is pretty much the only route left. Saddam has not/will not listen to reason.


[quote=Kblood]
- Bush has "sold" it to us as a need to protect the Western way of life, picturing Saddam as a clear and threatening danger to us, ready to attack us any second! That's simply a total lie. They don't have resources to do that, period.
[/quote]

Why did you not tell the world special inteligence this? Damn the CIA should have enlisted you because it is quite clear that you have been to Iraq and given the red carpet tour by Saddam so you know exactly what he has.

[quote=Kblood]
Thinking it did is totally absurd. Go check the reports after the first Iraq war, and the UN inspections to see very clear quotes about the level to which Iraq was disarmed.
[/quote]

I guess you missed it. Saddam had 12+ years to do what he wanted unfetterd by the UN in that time. I could do alot in 12 years.

[quote=Kblood]
- Bush has also tried to link Iraq to Al-Qaeda, miserably failing to convince anybody.
[/quote]

Well at least failing to convince you. But have you taken a look? Alqueda training camps and paying people who are Alqueda or Hommas members families for their terrorist actions in no way support or back terorism in any way I guess.

[quote=Kblood]
Now, I have some arguments to rebate the "We are doing this to free the poor people of Iraq."

- It seems that the poor people of Iraq have suddenly become a lot more opressed by Saddam... That doesn't make much sense, Saddam was there exactly the same 5 years ago.
[/quote]

That's not an argument. We should have not waited the 12 years the UN did nothing.

[quote=Kblood]
- Now what about other poor people of the world? It seems that countries without petrol under the surface are not that opressed. Afghanistan, for example, didn't get much attention until 9/11... And you can bet your ass that people there, and SPECIALLY WOMEN, were going through a lot more pain and suffering than many people in Iraq were now.
[/quote]

I agree that there is more that could/should be done. But you have to give us this. Whatever the reason we are doing more to help than most other countries. Unlike other countries who sit and do nothing most times.

[quote=Kblood]
Now that's clearly not a very balanced measuring of the amount of suffering, is it?
[/quote]

So a balanced measure of suffering would be us staying at home doing nothing in most instances like the rest of the world. Aaaaaah. I see. So inaction is always better than action whatever the reason. If you do something or support doing something no matter how good your intentions someone is always out there to slander and berate you. :|

[quote=Kblood]
Sorry, I don't think this war is right, I don't think it's needed, and I don't think it's the best way to remove Saddam from power.
[/quote]

Why have you not told the world this? If you know a way to get Saddam to up and walk away from his dictatorship without firing a shot. You have really shirked your responsibility as a social engeneering genius not telling the world what you know.

[quote=Kblood]
And in the long run, it will bring a lot more harm than good.
[/quote]

I would be interested to hear your analysis on this if you have any. Some how I don't think it is very well done analysis. But none the less.

[quote=Kblood]
Saddam is evil, I agree. He should be removed from power, I agree. But this?!?!
[/quote]

Tell us how else should it be done?

[quote=Kblood]
Open your eyes: The only reason to start this war is really simple: Money. You can forget about all that "doing the right thing" bullshit.
[/quote]

All about money eh? That is complete bullshit if I ever heard it. This comming from someone who obviously has not looked at the topic in depth is laughable. To pretend that you have any deep understanding of the situation is most hillarious. I am not gonna deny that money plays a part. But there are other benefits, benefits to which you are either blind to or just refuse to acknowledge.

[quote=Kblood]
And for all those comparisons between Saddam and Hitler, that many people have done, well... That's insane. I'm pretty sure Saddam has wet dreams about doing what Hitler did, but it's totally impossible that he can achieve that, or even start trying.
[/quote]

And how do you know that? Are you afraid to admit that you know less than you imply?

Man if you know how to get Saddam to leav Iraq and his dictatorship peacfully then lay it out here. We can then get a proposal ready and present it to the UN and bring the world together in peace. And just to give you a jump start inspections are not the answer. After 12 years they have next to no chance of working. Otherwise don't even bother commenting. No one wants the war. But Saddam is not going to listen to anything less. IF you don't have a better solution then critiquing someone elses solution is pointless.

I hope it doesn't seem like I'm being a clairevoyant, when I say that I have a feeling that this thread is gonna get locked soon