Screw the France and Germany

[Tommy-the-Greek]

If it were up to me I would kick France out of Nato and Germany is teetering on the brink of expolsion.

Rumsfeld's Remarks Draw Anger in France

PARIS (AP) - French leaders reacted angrily Thursday to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's dismissal of France and Germany as the ``old Europe,'' saying the comments underscore America's arrogance.

Finance Minister Francis Mer said he was ``profoundly vexed'' by the remarks.

``I wanted to remind everyone that this 'old Europe' has resilience, and is capable of bouncing back,'' Mer told LCI television. ``And it will show it, in time.''

``If you knew what I feel like telling him, to Mr. Rumsfeld ... `` said Ecology Minister Roselyne Bachelot on Europe-1 radio. She then stopped herself and said the word would be too offensive to publish.

Martine Aubry, a Socialist leader and influential former labor minister, said Rumsfeld's comments ``show once again a certain arrogance of the United States.''

Washington ``continues to want to alone govern the world and more and more without rules,'' she told RTL radio.

Rumsfeld made the remarks at a news conference in Washington on Wednesday after the leaders of France and Germany agreed to counter U.S. threats of war against Iraq by committing together to give peace a chance.

The decision from the two European powerhouses led NATO to postpone its planning for a possible war in Iraq.

Rumsfeld downplayed France and Germany's reluctance, saying he was confident that other NATO members would come together behind the United States.

``Germany has been a problem and France has been a problem ... but you look at vast numbers of other countries in Europe, they're not with France and Germany on this. They're with the United States,'' he said.

In responding to a reporter's question about French and German qualms, Rumsfeld hinted the United States would turn to new NATO members in Eastern Europe for support.

``You're thinking of Europe as Germany and France. I don't,'' he said. ``I think that's old Europe. If you look at the entire NATO Europe today, the center of gravity is shifting to the east and there are a lot of new members.''

Washington's European allies are deeply divided over the possibility of war, with the French and Germans opposing any rush toward military action while the United States and Britain intensify their military buildup on Iraq's borders.

The Bush administration accuses Iraq of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.

Russia and China have also expressed reservations about going to war against Iraq. On Thursday, China said it supports French efforts to find a peaceful solution, underlining the challenge the United States would face if it seeks U.N. Security Council support for military action.

``We have always stood for a diplomatic and political resolution of the Iraqi issue,'' said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue.

OOPs my bad....I wanted this in the tailgate section. Art can you please move this. This is a clear example of a brain on drugs.:doh:

[@DCGoldPants]

they bounce back when we loan them tons of money they never pay back. Right now both countries could be speaking English or Russian right now and they aren't not by their own choice either.

[Henry]

Funny that the two world powers that last attempted to conquer the civilized world are criticizing the US of not paying attention to the rules.

Germany especially, with it high ranking officials publicly likening Bush to Hitler, had better just shut up. They have no room to talk.

France's reluctance to use force under any circumstance is nothing new. They are apparently still reeling from the Great War, which ended in 1918, which makes them old Europe.

[tex]

Chirac is a fierce nationalist and is at the head of European countries worried about unilateralism in Washington. Chirac is also concerned with solidifying France's standing in the European Union and preventing it's swing toward Germany as it's leader. In October 2002 he lent his backing to a conference of French-speaking nations in Lebanon in a bid to stop the spread of the English language caused by American popular culture. Paris is anxious to bolster its political and economic position in the Middle East because French companies have considerable investments in Iraq, including in the oil industry.

The US was already at odds with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder for a re-election campaign last year that centered on opposition to U.S. policy on Iraq. Schroeder scuttled German / US relations by phrasing his disapproval of a war against Iraq as an American "adventure." He promised not to support it, even if sanctioned by the United Nations. The White House responded by saying Schroeder had poisoned the "special" relationship between the two countries.

Both France and Germany only pretend to be our friend for the sake of their economic interests. In fact their actions show they actually dislike the USA a great deal.

[Displaced Fan]

In the words of Jim Mora:

FRANCE?????

GERMANY?????

[OrangeSkin]

And they're calling us arrogant?

[redman]

This is why I love Rumsfeld. First of all, what he said wasn't all that horrible. It was however roughly equivalent to Bush's speech to the UN back in September. In both instances the message was that if you don't get off your keister and act, you'll be irrelevant.

In Rumsfeld's case, he was simply reminding the Krauts and Frogs that if they continued to rest on their historical laurels as "great nations" they'll soon be overtaken by the upstart and more active and aggressive Eastern European countries.

The fact that they both started screaming due to merely be called "old Europe" is frankly hilarious. Hey guys, if the shoe fits . . . :laugh:

[fansince62]

calm down all.......I heard what I thought were some good points last night:

- the French did almost the same thing prior to Desert Storm but sent forces anyway at the very last minute (i.e., lot of posturing going on for domestic politcal reasons)

- the French (and Germans) are risking a lot here: if they are not part of a coalition, they are not going to be part of the reconstruction and rebuild afterward, and everything that implies economicly...this ought to be interesting!!!!

the larger issue is that, it is claimed, most of our allies are so far behind the power curve technologically, that their utility to us in warfare (i.e., interoperability) is limitted anyway.......it's more than just a body count at play......

as for international ramifications: there is not just one scenario. suppose a successful democracy (or some variant) is established. a model for other arab peoples under the yolk of despotic governments to see. suppose further that the people who accede to power in Iraq actually feel indebted to their liberators and that this influences their polciies and political alignments. suppose the folks in Iraq actually prosper when oil moneys are used to build schools, universities, hospitals, etc, rather than sarin gas plants, chemical weapons, bunkers, presidential palaces, republican guard uniform shops, etc. just one scenario that may or may not happen.........but it is a possibility.....

[Kilmer17]

The issues are very clear.

France has a HUGE problem of anti-semitism in their country. It is even more prominent in their youth. Chirac has to talk hard. I will have a problem if he fails to support us when the time comes, but his words now are empty rhetoric.

Germany has a huge influx of arabs and muslims since the Balkans wars and has similar problems to France, but it also is facing a big economic crisis and the people are angry. Again, it's empty rhetoric.

When we go in they will be their. If not, look for WW3 within 10 years.

We dont need either of them really. Our own forces are enough to handle the job, and we have support and promises from about 30 other countries.

[A_Monk81]

I would not care one way or another if France joins us or not.

The French have not done anything good warwise since the battle for independance.

As far as I am concerned they can stay home.

Germany, Well not real wild about having them come in either.

I am sure that France would not ally against us if we did goto war with Iraq. Also if we do go to war with Iraq I bet Geremany will fall in line.

The real key will be the willingness of the countires surronding Iraq to work with the US

be very handy to hit Iraq from multiple angles.

Just my humble opinioin

[Kilmer17]

Why are their trees along the Champs Ellysee?

So the German soldiers can march in the shade.

[NavyDave]

Its a good thing that those bast@rds invented French Dressing and French Fries otherwise they would be of no use:rolleyes:

Germany well prior to settling down I would probably hate them until october fest.

Those oil deals they made with Iraq is causing a conflict of interest and france also played a huge part in helping build that nuke plant in Iraq that Israel bombed in 81

[APB]

French fries were actually a Belgian invention.

Anyway, why is there all of this animosity towards French and German opposition to the administration's current ideology when a growing number of Americans are also opposed to the way Bush is handling this?

I'm not asking this as an expression of anti-war sentiment. I'm simply curious.

[Art]

APB,

The answer is simple. Americans can think whatever they want about American policy. Germany and France can't. They aren't Americans. They are Germans. They are French. They have absolutely no bearing on how the United States deals with foreign policy. Americans do.

Now, the reason Americans may be questioning what Bush is doing is because, like you, they seem to think what France says matters. It doesn't. Further, the story isn't being told fairly. We keep hearing about allowing the inspection process to work. Yet, no one is saying the truth, that the inspections are simply going over already clean sites that everyone knows is already clean, so, the process itself is aimed at dictating American policy and too many people think the United Nations has suddenly become a fourth branch of American government. It hasn't.

Washington should rule Washington. Ask Americans if they believe that. If they do, they actually support Bush and won't even know it .

[APB]

Thank you for telling this American what to think, Art. I apprecaite the help.

The reason why I question what Bush is doing has nothing to do with the French. It has to do with the fact that I am an American. The case for immediate war has not been clearly made in my opinion. Call me ignorant or unpatriotic or whatever you choose, but I am not alone.

As an American, I have the right and the obligation to be wary of my government. I would have thought you would agree with that statement. Maybe not.

Secondly, your point is valid that the French and Germans should mind their own business. That's fair. But how are activities in Iraq more our business than their business?

[fansince62]

APB...what would be your criteria and what "metrics" would it take to support a war? Obviously, violations of resolutions by the very organization so many want the US to defer to are not really the end-state.

[panel]

if we didn't want to go to war, like WWII (we jumped in after pearl harbor) we wouldn't have to. other countries respect that, why can't we? as the Germans might say about this war, Das ist mir Scheissegal

[NavyDave]

I know I was being sarcastic thus the

When our ship was in Toulon, Marseilles,(1988-89) etc and we'd here the you american act like you own the road and I would p1ss them off with we do until you pay us back and at the open air restaurants I'd demand french dressing like we enjoy from kraft or wishbone.

I did tell one french american guy who slammed the US after he retired that the French had to have invented fellatio since they Su....

[Art]

APB,

"Thank you for telling this American what to think, Art. I apprecaite the help."

What part of my post merited a snide comment such as this? Didn't I say that as an American you can think whatever you want about American policy? Did I say anywhere what you SHOULD think? I did outline the factual statement that the U.N. isn't a branch of the American government. If you are inclined to think the U.N. should dictate American foreign policy, then, you are wrong, because, the U.N. isn't a branch of American government. But, I didn't tell you what to think. In fact, I said what you think is great. You're American and you can think what you want.

"The reason why I question what Bush is doing has nothing to do with the French. It has to do with the fact that I am an American."

Great. I said the same thing. Glad you agree.

"The case for immediate war has not been clearly made in my opinion. Call me ignorant or unpatriotic or whatever you choose, but I am not alone."

No, you are not alone in ignorance or a lack of patriotism then, if those words are apt for your situation, though I'm not saying they are. But, simply put, the "case for war" is usually laid out in the form of dead Americans. I take it you are among the group who feels that in a world where four guys in a basement praying to Allah and who want to kill American citizens that the only case for war that can ever be made is when there are dead Americans. Was there a case for war five minutes before Sept. 11? Of course their was. Just not for you. You'd have been shouting that there was no case for war right up until the airplanes hit the WTC, and then you'd be screaming for us to kill the *******s.

If that's what you need to believe military action is needed, then, you are ignorant and unpatriotic. Is that what you believe? Do you believe that Americans must be killed in order for Americans to act in their own protection and best interest? The case for war is clear. Saddam has attempted to murder an American President. He's fired at our aircraft. He's lied about his weapons as he continues to hide them. If all those things are true, and they are, the case is made. We just don't have the body count there to move you perhaps.

"As an American, I have the right and the obligation to be wary of my government. I would have thought you would agree with that statement. Maybe not."

I agree with that statement. Just as you agree with the statement, I'm sure, that as an American, I have the right and the obligation to be wary of dictators in Middle Eastern nations who have attacked Americans, invaded a neighbor, attempted to assassinate an American President, developed chemical and biological weapons, used them against his own people, used them against us, violated the terms of his surrender dozens of times, and continues to do so even more. I would have thought you agree with that statement. Right?

"Secondly, your point is valid that the French and Germans should mind their own business. That's fair. But how are activities in Iraq more our business than their business?"

Because terrorists in the Middle East aren't killing French. Or Germans. They're killing Americans. They hate us. They announce their hatred. They teach it. It's our flag they burn. It's our President they've attempted to kill. The French hate the Jews just like the evil people in the Middle East that share their destructive and backward views. And they hate us because we don't hate them as much as they do and would dare protect them. It's sad you don't see the difference.

[Art]

Originally posted by panel

if we didn't want to go to war, like WWII (we jumped in after pearl harbor) we wouldn't have to. other countries respect that, why can't we? as the Germans might say about this war, Das ist mir Scheissegal

Uh, Panel, are you kidding? I don't think anyone gives a rat's a$$ whether France or Germany want to go to war or not. Hell, the last major military mobilization the French undertook was to round Jews up to send to Nazi Germany before they surrendered. They tend to be bothersome when they get involved in war. They can sit home. They can relax. We don't care one bit. Just don't tell us what we need to do to protect Americans.

We'll figure that out ourselves. And we don't need their help to do it if we go in, or to figure out what to do before that point. On the other hand, the French in particular have needed our help. They have required us to free them from occupation. So, while we don't need them, you're wrong that other countries respect when we don't go to war. Because when we don't, they die. When they don't, well, we still win. So, no worries there .

[Tommy-the-Greek]

I loathe the French with a passion. I am starting to hate the Germans too. We Americans should start a damn boycott on all German and French products. Tell me exactly where there Economies would be if we stopped buying there imports? Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. When Bush says jumps those damn puddle jumping Frogs should be airborne asking for permission to come down.

Since when does Bush need anyone's approval to protect our national interests or provide national security to the American people?

The Un inspections are a farce of epic proportions. We know they still have weapons that they never destroyed. We know Saddam has used them and will use them. We know there are groups in the middle east who would use them against us if given the chance. Are we suppossed to wait till a million people are dead to act? Bull$hit, as soon as the necessary forces are in place and capable of going in we should act swiftly and destroy the weapons ourselves. Then we grab Saddam and convict him in a military court of crimes against humanity. Lock him away in a military jail for the rest of his life. Then we help the Iraqi people establish there own democratic government. We stay as long as it takes to maintain stability in the country till we are no longer needed. Then we benefit from the relationship with the new government and from the example we set in the region.

[redman]

Originally posted by APB

The case for immediate war has not been clearly made in my opinion.

What information in the articles I've posted in this thread falls short of justifying that force immediately be used?

[Sarge]

The reason why I question what Bush is doing has nothing to do with the French. It has to do with the fact that I am an American. The case for immediate war has not been clearly made in my opinion. Call me ignorant or unpatriotic or whatever you choose, but I am not alone.

OK dude, you're ignorant. It's not a slam, it just appears to be fact. When it comes down to it, France and Germany are illrelevent. They know it, we know it. That's what bothers them. What also bothers them is the fact that they are nuts deep into helping the Iraqi's with nuclear technology and oil deals, both of which are against the all important "UN resolutions" that ended the Gulf War. They are also on the verge losing all of the investments they have made, because if we level the place and then stay to rebuild, guess who will get all of the rebuilding contracts? American companies

In the end, I say screw 'em. They add absolutely nothing to our military, since they have decided not to modernize their military in a couple of decades. In fact, they Frogs that were based with us in Saudi did nothing but spy on us and report to their Iraqi buddies. In Kryzekstan last year, they wouldn't bomb a target that was within two or three days flying distance of a town. Why they were there, I have no idea. We don't need them. France should be exiled from NATO and Germany should be told to shut up.... or maybe we'll move some of the bases that go a long way to supporting the German economy into some new eastern NATO member country that would apreciate us being there.

[APB]

Okay. We go to war. What next? The people who currently hate the US suddenly love us? They think we're their saviors? They embrace America's democratic and "Christian" ideals? The four people in their basement chanting to Allah and planning the next terrorist attack come out and join the Republican party?

Look at France and Germany, to take the example du jour. We saved France and ended a war that most Germans had wanted to end for years. We rebuilt their infrastructure and we helped stablize their governments and economies. Sixty years later, these people apparently can't stand us or the things we supposedly stand for. Sure, they kissed our butts for a while, but if those who welcomed our intervention can so quickly forget, how can we honestly hope to do better with those who don't want what we would bring them? Seriously, that makes no sense to me.

Saddam is a bad guy. He's a really, really bad guy. Nobody is defending Saddam. Do you people not see that killing Saddam, to paraphrase Star Wars, "would make him stronger than you can possibly imagine?" There are no telling how many thousands of pockets of fundamentalists are already willing to die for what they believe. What do they believe? America is selfish. America is the devil. America is out to destroy their world and world-view. "So," America says, "let's destroy their world and world-view. That will teach them to love America. A Coke and a smile, and all that other stuff." What a load of garbage!

Is Saddam a tyrant? Did he try to assassinate a US President? Has he killed Americans and Iraqis and threatened to kill more? Yes, yes, and yes. Are these indictments strong enough to justify a war. Yes, they are. Does that mean that war is the best solution? In my opinion, it does not. Unfortunately, we are not willing to listen to alternative plans. We don't have time. We've got a war to plan.

[Sarge]

So what do you advocate, APB? The UN? Please. What has the UN done to stop Iraq getting to where it is today in the past 11 years? More talks? What has that gotten us? What the he!! does it take to wake some people up, another WTC? Has the tragedy worn off in just a year and a half. I can tell you now that most of you cake eating civilians have no idea what you are talking about in regard to Iraq. I get breifed on things you have no idea about and suffice it to say,given time and half a chance, uncle saddam WILL give bad things to bad people that will come here and use them. Is that what you are waiting for? Why is it that I, being in the military, have no problem leaving in the near future to do what needs to be done, but people like you have problems with it?

I look at my little girl and boy, and I know what needs to be done. It needs to be done because I would rather take care of the problem now, than to have them deal with it 10-15 years from now, when it comes home. I am unwilling to give them another chance to harm my family and other Americans.

Will those people ever love us? I doubt it. But as Macheavelli once said, "It is better to be feared than loved". And maybe, once we install a government that will use their oil profits to feed all of the people the UN says are starving over there right now instead of buying weapons and palaces for saddam, they might just come to think maybe we aren't so bad after all.