http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6013004%255E13762,00.html
I love America, it's full of Americans.
God bless America
Feb 27, 2003, 3:12 PM ET28 posts by 10 posters
28 posts
Jebus!
"Chris Fewer" wrote in message news:b3lrf5$8rs$[email]...
Bah, this reminds me of the Pizza baker who has banned Germans and French people from his pizza place.
KD Larsen (BAW152) wrote:
http://www.canada.com/news/story.asp?id=AFF9BB93-4FCE-4E2A-AFED-504AEAC62686
"Chris Fewer" wrote in message news:b3lrf5$8rs$[email]...
My favorite part is "the switch from french fries to freedom fries came to mind after a conversation about World War I when anti-German sentiment prompted Americans to rename German foods like sauerkraut and frankfurter to liberty cabbage and hot dog," delivered without a hint of irony. It appears that Mr. Rowland is not aware that these food-name changes are often brought up as examples of a deeply *embarrassing* part of American history. The same people doing that sort of thing were also kicking dachshunds, since they're a, you know, German breed of dog. Maybe I, in a fit of patriotic righteousness, should start maiming French poodles.
The deeper problem lies in a feeling Rowland seems to have, unfortunately shared by far too many Americans, that might be expressed in this way: "How dare those French have their own opinions and foreign policy! They are sometimes at variance with what United States presidential administrations want!"
Sigh.
Jon Hall
"I don't understand anything, so there you go."
--Bill Hicks
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 22:48:27 GMT "Jon Hall" wrote:
Sometimes? Son, France is only in agreement with the United States when we're bailing them out of some mess into which they got themselves. In other words, when it benefits France, they love us; any other time, we may as well be a leper colony...
"Jason Saslow" wrote in message news:[email]...
wrote:
we're bailing them out of some mess into which they got themselves. In other words, when it benefits France, they love us; any other time, we may as well be a leper colony...
At least they have the guts to disagree. Too many other countries meekly echo whatever the US says in order to keep the payoffs (called "Aid") coming.
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 23:00:54 GMT "That Guy" wrote:
It's not guts when you disagree when it suits them and then run to us for protection when they're threatened.
"Jason Saslow" wrote in message news:[email]...
meekly
protection when they're threatened.
The two things have nothing to do with each other. France disagrees with the US because they are one of the few nations that has the balls to stand up to the US when they think we're in the wrong. They count on our protection when they are threatened just as we would count on theirs if we were. That is what being allies is about. It's not about keeping quiet when you think your ally is planning something that you consider to be wrong. If France was getting ready to invade Portugal on some flimsy excuse, you can be sure the US would criticize that! But would we then refuse France's help if we were attacked by, say, China? Of course not.
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:28:30 GMT, "That Guy" wrote:
Heh. Good joke.
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:28:30 GMT "That Guy" wrote:
Right. So France disagreeing with us has absolutely nothing to do with France's 75% reliance on Iraq for oil. It's entirely because they think we're wrong.
I mean, the sweet deal France has with Iraq for oil, it would likely still be there after a regime change. No new regime would *ever* consider hiking up exported oil prices to help cover defense costs (among dozens of other costs) after they just helped overthrow the previous government or anything like that. So it's clearly because France has balls and they just don't like what we're doing.
Yeah, right. That's how it works...
"Jason Saslow" wrote in message news:[email]...
with
stand
we
France's 75% reliance on Iraq for oil. It's entirely because they think we're wrong.
be there after a regime change. No new regime would *ever* consider hiking up exported oil prices to help cover defense costs (among dozens of other costs) after they just helped overthrow the previous government or anything like that. So it's clearly because France has balls and they just don't like what we're doing.
LOL! I suppose you believe we won Desert Storm, too.
And even more countries actually agree with the American position on Iraq, and they're not getting an extra dollar to do so. France has no guts. That's why they hold their current position.
"France has neither winter, nor summer, nor morals. France is miserable because it is filled with Frenchmen, and Frenchmen are miserable because they live in France" - Mark Twain
"Jason Saslow" wrote in message news:[email]...
we're bailing them out of some mess into which they got themselves. In other words, when it benefits France, they love us; any other time, we may as well be a leper colony...
Which mess would that be exactly? And hate to tell you, but the world wars don't count.
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 19:42:10 -0330 "Chris Fewer" wrote:
Wow, you're kidding, right? Either that or you're completely uneducated on what lead to the beginning of both World Wars...
"Jason Saslow" wrote in message news:[email]...
wrote:
wars
what lead to the beginning of both World Wars...
As I said, the world wars don't count.
Now what mess exactly have the Americans dragged the french out of?
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:15:40 -0330, "Chris Fewer" wrote:
That is one neat rhetorical trick. Simply assert that the two best examples "don't count," and then say, "Name one!"
I salute you, sir! Your duplicity is worthy of a Frenchman.
"Scott Munro" wrote in message news:[email]...
on
They don't count. The entire world was involved. It was not a matter of "America saving France".
Other then that, there are no instances where America "saved" France.
It's all arrogant yankee bull-shit.
Chris Fewer wrote:
Yeah. It was the Russkies that saved France.
<hip hop>Go Stalin! Go Stalin! Go Stalin!</hip hop>
"Brian O" wrote in message news:[email]...
As long as you're using WWII, I'll point out that Canada kicked your ass in the War of 1812.
Chris Fewer wrote:
And to this day I refuse to put maple syrup on my pancakes.
An independent nation, in fact!
cheers, Disgruntled Goat
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:48:27 +1000, "C Kelly (BCTA)" wrote:
The problem with France is not that they won't toe the US line. It is that they are arrogant, duplicitous bastards who prefer third-world dictatorship to democracy, and who cynically prop Saddam up for their own benefit while attempting to claim the moral high ground (as they simultaneously send troops to intervene in Ivory Coast, also for their own benefit).
All this "cheese-eating surrender monkey" and "we saved yer asses in WWII!" stuff, while fun, misses the point. The French do not want to confront Saddam because they see him as an ally in support of French interests, and against the interests of the US. Their attitude toward Saddam is somewhat reminiscent of the US attitude toward right-wing third-world despots during the Cold War: better our SOB than a pro-Soviet SOB. The French attitude, though, is slightly different: better our SOB than a pro-American democracy.
Of course, such clarity is beyond the diplomatic corps, who will continue to insist against all evidence that France is a US ally--kind of like they do with Saudi Arabia.
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:13:16 GMT, Scott Munro wrote:
And from historian Paul Johnson <http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/0317/037.html>:
We have been reminded that France is not to be trusted at any time, on any issue. The British have learned this over 1,000 years of acrimonious history, but it still comes as a shock to see how badly the French can behave, with their unique mixture of shortsighted selfishness, long-term irresponsibility, impudent humbug and sheer malice. Americans are still finding out--the hard way--that loyalty, gratitude, comradeship and respect for treaty obligations are qualities never exhibited by French governments. All they recognize are interests, real or imaginary. French support always has to be bought. What the Americans and British now have to decide is whether formal alliances that include France as a major partner are worth anything at all, or if they are an actual encumbrance in times of danger.
"Scott Munro" wrote in message news:[email]...
My god... sounds like America, spread out over a much longer span...
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 22:48:27 GMT, "Jon Hall" wrote:
I've never heard it discussed in that manner, though it may sometimes be. It is certainly mentioned frequently with no such implication.
What you mean, of course, is that Mr. Rowland should have treated the subject ironically because that's the way *you* would have treated it.
Can you provide a single contemporary source to back up this claim (which I find almost as dubious as the Kaiser's infamous dickety theft).
So, the French are allowed to criticize our foreign policy, but we're not allowed to criticize theirs?
Oh, I get it. I get jokes.
Oh, my, aren't we so much more clever than those slack-jawed yokels?
There's a difference in an honest difference of opinion and an illogical position based on nothing but self serving interests and a desire to recapture lost glory.
Nobody is mad that France has a differing opinion, but their motivations for having it.
"France has neither winter, nor summer, nor morals. France is miserable because it is filled with Frenchmen, and Frenchmen are miserable because they live in France" - Mark Twain
Yeah, they were really out of line in the 100 Years War. Imagine, actually defending themselves from the invading English! What nerve!
Brad