Gay Paris
Posted by Seth on January 16, 2005 , 31 Comments
I’m tired of people picking on the French because they didn’t want to get into the war. They stayed neutral, so what? The United States did the same thing years ago. Remember WWII? Well the Germans invaded France in 1940 but the United States refused to get involved until we were attacked in 1941. Iraq never attacked France so why should we persecute them for not going to war? In all honesty Iraq never attacked America either. Granted Iraq should have been liberated and I am glad we are over here doing what we are doing but we shouldn’t pick on a country for staying out of a fight that isn’t theirs. Later.
Thanks goes to makuahine for correcting the date.
31 Responses to “Gay Paris”
Well, let me just say that the difference at the time was that the U.S. was a neutral nation–much like Switzerland today. France is not. The French simply wanted to cover up the links between Chirac and Hussein. He and Saddam are good friends linked back to when the French tried to help the Iraqis build a nuclear reactor in the 70s.
iraq never attacked the US, either.
in fact, for a long time, they had a business relationship. do a google image search for saddam+rumsfeld.
Spydrz, what does being a “neutral nation” have to do with it? It’s just a term; if a country wants to go to war then they will regardless. And your cover up idea sounds kind of silly, the US had relations with Iraq long ago as well and taught them bomb making techniques. These are the same techniques being used to kill US soldiers today. This is getting too political; I just wanted to show the absurdity of people and how politicians get people to fight with each other whether its red vs blue states or US vs France. Stop fighting people and look at the people egging us on, you might just catch them with their hand in the cookie jar. Later.
This is nice for a change. Merci beaucoup!
Blogger wouldn’t accept my login..sorry.
Dianne
http://elektric-kat.blogspot.com/
I agree with you 100%. I can’t stand those narrow-minded people harrassing the French for not wanting to go into Iraq…
~*JEN*~ from http://www.dream-creations.net
My problem was not with the Frence for avoiding the fighting (they usually do that).
My probelm is that they are actively supporting the other side.
So what if France normally stays out of the fight? That’s their decision to make. Besides plenty of other countries are not in the fight, why not pick on them? Or how about countries that are in the fight but do it half assed? Are they better?
I normally stay out of conversations like this, but I think I have to say here that I agree with you.
I absolutely agree with you.
I agree with you too.
Seth,
I’m not really bothered if a country decides to stay “neutral” and out of a conflict; that is their priority (although I may consider them to be wimps). The problem with France is that they are not neutral! They are waist deep in shit from their dealings with Saddam. They just didn’t just not want to assist America, they argued against it! Wait for a few more months, and they may be chin-deep in shit as it folds out.
And while I’m on this rant, I’ve got to explain that it is not the French people I am angry with. It’s their government. I really wish they would fight for a new government. I’ve been to France twice on vacations; they have some absolutely great people there, and I love to travel the countryside with my camera.
You’re absolutely right. Iraq did not attack us directly. Key word is directly. Saddam knew it would be nuts to do that. That’s why he offered habor & support to Al Queda. He lost the bet, though. We still came and kicked his ass. No wait. We couldn’t. His ass was hidden in an underground hole.
I don’t think the problem lies in the fact that France did not go into Iraq with the US but in the fact that they openly critized the US even though they were thought to be a long standing allie.
As an american in France, I certainly have had my share of this. What kills me though is when people don’t see the difference between “France” and “the french.” I certainly don’t go around saying all americans are bible-thumping, gun-toting war-mongers just because some exist, so what is up with all the cheese-eating surrender-monkey crap?
Kim
francophony.net
I agree with you that France had the right to stay out of it. And I do believe that it had more to do than business because there are a lot of other countries that didn’t get into it. I do have one bone to pick. You said:
“Iraq never attacked France”
You have to remember that Iraq never attacked the US either. And it seems they had no intention to (WMD? Where?)
Just to pick on you, we were attacked in WWII on December 7, 1941.
Yes, France has the right to stay out I think what it is that more people are angry about is the fact that we have helped them several times in the past (even if delayed in WWII) and it was like blatant disregard and ungratefullness.
But, yes, it is their choice if they want to get in or not.
This entry in your blog is actually the first I’ve heard of this issue in a long time…
I have a problem with the filthy bastards giving asylum to our bad guys
In regards to the “we helped them in the past” point, that gets extremely boring extremely quickly.
It’s the last bastion of an argument that is based on nothing but xenophobia, ignorance, and pure malice.
To anyone posting a comment, I did mention that Iraq never attacked the US! A comment like this just lets me know how well you read the post before commenting. The filthy bastards comment is also uncalled for. And for the people, who say France supported Iraq, give me examples. How about a link? True I can google but I am lazy and it’s not my point to make. Lastly, about the 1942 thing that is my fault and I apologize and I edited the post. Sorry for that one. Later.
I guess I’m a little different. I see Islamic Fascism not as a US problem but as a global problem. Their prey is not US but western civilization itself.
Nations may choose to stay out of the fray but that does not mean that they don’t have a stake in the outcome. It just means that they hope to benefit from a victory fought for and won through the sweat and blood of others. It may well not be cowardace that keeps nations that are capable of contributing to the war but don’t, like Chirac (and let’s face it, the majority of French people that agree with him) out of the fight.
They aren’t cowards, they’re free-loaders.
Ok Craig, so people who disagree with our ways are the problem? So anyone who does not want a democracy and does not want to conform to our Western ways should be beaten into submission? That sounds familiar, like a watered down version of the Spanish Inquisition. It’s obvious that terrorists are bad and are a global threat but tell me why 18,000 troops are in Afghanistan and 150,000 or so are in Iraq when the attack that prompted OEF (Operation Enduring Freedom) and OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom) was perpetrated by mostly Saudi Arabians who were led by a man in Afghanistan. No link between Al Qaeda and Iraq has been released pre OIF. I say pre OIF because now Al Qaeda has came to Iraq to continue attacks on U.S. soldiers.
I am glad I came across your blog via blogexplosion. I totally agree with you on the France bit. I really don’t know why people get all pissed off about France’s lack of participation in Iraq.
And given the mess in Iraq, France’s protests prior to the war look like a wise move on its part. Perhaps we should have heeded France’s stance more than we did.
If you take away the people who egg us on to villify another country it does look stupid! What, we hate France because they didn’t take our side?
Does it not occur to people that without the French
a) America would not have gained its freedom without the French, who allied with the yankees during the civil war.
b) Modern Democracy itself would not exist without the French, who developed the idea from its infancy and should be given credit for its success.
France was entirely right to stay out of the war… thats what democracy is… if the majority doesn’t want to then the government doesn’t either… maybe George should take some tips.
xxVc
Dammit Seth. Sometimes I wonder if you’re trying to make a point or show the world your inability to grasp the big picture.
Anyone that does not want a democracy is a threat to democracy. It goes way beyond the US and “western ways”. Opposition to democracy is a threat to our global community.
Yes! People who disagree with our ways are the problem. “Our ways” provide individual freedoms and liberties. You are serving in a country that didn’t provide freedoms and liberties. Are you telling us that an Iraqi and an American don’t have a different understanding of freedom?
There was a link between Saddam & Al Qaeda! Saddam provided harbor and aid. Sometimes events are black and white; sometimes they are gray. Sometimes we need to think like a layman and make decisions based on the information and connect the dots.
Ok Craig, so people who disagree with our ways are the problem?I’m not sure against whom you are arguing, but it’s not me. For the record, no, that’s not what I said or meant. I said that every nation has a stake in defeating Islamic Fascism (and whether or not Iraq was a center for the war against Islamic Facism before we attacked, you can hardly deny that it is that now) and that any nation that has the ability to participate but refuses to do so is freeloading.
I will add that when I suggested that those who will benefit from a victory in the war on terror but do not participate therein are freeloaders, I would include myself and any other able-bodied military aged person who did not participate in some form of military service.
So anyone who does not want a democracy and does not want to conform to our Western ways should be beaten into submission? Didn’t say that either. Nations with tyranical leaders that we know at one time had nuclear aspirations and wmd and had used chemical weapons to kill en mass citizens of said nation in the past and refuses to account for the disposal of the same under orders of the UN and was a public supporter (to the tune of between $25,000 and $75,000) of those who blow themselves up in the murder of innocent people and plot to assassinate the President of the United States etc., need to learn that such behavior will not be tolerated.
That sounds familiar, like a watered down version of the Spanish Inquisition. Actually the argument that I just laid out sounds nothing at all like the Spanish Inquisition.
It’s obvious that terrorists are bad and are a global threat but tell me why 18,000 troops are in Afghanistan and 150,000 or so are in Iraq when the attack that prompted OEF (Operation Enduring Freedom) and OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom) was perpetrated by mostly Saudi Arabians who were led by a man in Afghanistan. Well the troops in Afghanistan are there because the Democratically elected government of Afghanistan want them there.
The troops are in Iraq because of the reasons that I laid out previously and because the comparatively small minority of Iraqis and foreign terrorists in Iraq are attempting to stop a process that the majority of Iraqis want. You seem to think that the majority of Iraqis wish that Saddam, Uday, and Qusay were still in charge. I know that you might come to that conclusion just reading the NYTimes but you’d have to be delusional to believe it.
No link between Al Qaeda and Iraq has been released pre OIF. I say pre OIF because now Al Qaeda has came to Iraq to continue attacks on U.S. soldiers.Well, the key is in your final sentence. Al Qaeda is there now. Now it is the center of the war against Islamic Fascism in which, as I said originally, every nation in the world has a stake.
Okay, Seth, in re-reading the first sentence of your response to my first comment, I sense that I misunderstood you. When you refer to “people who disagree with our ways” to whom do you refer?
Craig,
I’ll keep this short mostly because of my laziness. I think you need to re read the part about the troops in Afgahanstan and Iraq. My point was that we have over 8 times the amount of troops in Iraq than Afghanastan. I know why troops are in Afganastan and I have no problem with that. Also let me make clear that I have no problem with troops in Iraq. I don’t oppose the war in Iraq because I have talked and dealt with Iraqi nationals every day now for 12 months. I know that 98% of them hated Saddam and I agree that they are better off now. My problem is the REASON we went to Iraq. Why couldn’t Bush just say “Hey let’s free Iraq”. No WMDs, no Al Qaeda connection, none of that garbage. Just plain ol’ “Let’s free Iraq”.
You said that Saddam supported 9/11 by offering between 25,000 and 75,000. That may be true, I really don’t know because I don’t watch, listen, or read the news very often but that’s a REALLY small amount of cash. To most people it may seem like a lot but these are extremely wealthy people with huge fortunes. Osama Bin Laden has incredible amounts of money, don’t let the cave dwelling fool you.
Oh and your point about Al Qaeda being here now. I know there are here now. They are here because we are here. They hate us not Iraqis. If we started a war in Australia, Al Qaeda what start showing up. The reason why some Iraqis are against the US is because they are ignorant. Not Iraqis as a whole, just the ones who hate us. They either hate us because they were affiliated with the Baath party some how and because of us lost their fortunes. Oh and trust me they had fortunes, I am living in the Baath party headquarters and is where I am typing this very email. Or they hate us because they knew of a family member or friend who was killed by an American. We can’t stop that, that’s just what happens in war. I am sure people in America who have had friends or family die in Iraq hate Iraqis just as much as Iraqis who had friends or family killed.
Okay, I guess we’re not in as much disagreement as I thought.
As for the reason we went into Iraq, it was for the reasons stated by the administration. We had intelligence from not only the CIA but from Britain, Russia, Jordan, and even France than said that Saddam did have WMD. There were those who disagreed but on balance, the majority of the intel that we had suggested the probability that Saddam had them. Furthermore, Saddam put out a report that should have detailed what happened to the WMD that we know he at one time had. That report failed to account for all of those weapons. Saddam repeatedly refused inspectors entry into likely weapons storage locations. I argue that President Bush, faced with the Intel he had before him, could not afford to take Saddam at his word that he had no WMD’s left.
As for an al Qaida connection, we knew that there were several people who had fought with al Qaida against us in Afghanistan and later showed up in Iraq being given aid and comfort to our enemy. The president nor vice-president ever said that Saddam cooperated with Ossama in the 9/11 operation. However, there were a number of ‘connections’ between Saddam and al Qaida.
In short, I do not believe that Bush lied about the reasons for going into Iraq. He used information that, it seems, was incorrect but that is hardly lying. I say “it seems” because it is possible that Saddam did have WMD and succeeded in transporting them out of Iraq to Syria. Heck, since much of Iraq is dessert, it’s possible that there are still WMD’s burried somewhere that they will never be found. However, even assuming the WMD’s were gone by the time we decided to attack, the President could not ignore the intel that he had, in my opinion.
For the record, when I wrote about Saddam supporting people who blow themselves up, I wasn’t referring to 9/11 but to his payment to families of Palestinians who blew themselves up along with innocent Israelis. To Palestinians, $25,000 to $75,000 is a king’s ransom and an excellent inducement to take the plung into Muslim heaven and to take out any number of hated Israelis at the same time.
Finally, I believe that ‘Let’s free Iraq’ was one of the arguments that was made by the administration.
Why couldn’t Bush just say “Hey let’s free Iraq”. No WMDs, no Al Qaeda connection, none of that garbage. Just plain ol’ “Let’s free Iraq”.Honestly, Seth? Because most American’s can’t handle the truth. As you’ve referred to in a previous post, speaking bluntly to some is offensive.
To Kicknit: Because most American’s can’t handle the truth.I completely disagree with you here, in fact, I would venture to guess that bout 51 million people CAN handle the truth.
And Seth, I agree with you. A country has the right to choose for itself what wars it wishes and doesn’t wish to be in. Unfortunately, we are in one that we shouldn’t be in. I’m in the 51 million minority on that thought tho.
Thanks for your support!
I really don’t understand why some people want the french to support sthg they dont believe in. That is just silly! After all, it’s just democracy, nope? 
Miss Qt
http://www.miss-qt.com
Leave a Reply