August Spies

if you want to attack France for its military failure, go ahead. But the fact their generals sucked and their military plan failed in no way justifies you other comments.

with all the backpeddeling and sillyness you have displayed in this thread, perhaps it is you that should shut your face.

leonarde

I thank OwnRules for the graph of the public opinion poll but I fear it's import is far more sweeping than what is being indicated in these precincts: the blue bars indicate that support for military action wouldn't be forthcoming even with UN sanction . I wish the countries with the large percentiles of that persuasion were ESPECIALLY knowledgeable about Iraq and its history. But my guess is that such countries (eg Spain) are across-the-boards non-interventionist, isolationist etc. and if the
same question were asked THIS way: Are you in favor of military action against nation X? you would get the same responses on a percentage basis.

Cheers!

Skeptictank

Quisling was NOT the king of Norway. King Haakon fought the Nazis as they invaded up the country until he was forced to flee to England.
Also, the French were model collaberators while the Danes resisted, on the whole, much harder. In 1943 when the Nazis decided to come for the Jews in Denmark the entire country mobilized and smuggled their entire Jewish population out on boats to Sweden to keep them safe at great risk to their own lives. It was one of the most heroic acts by a civilian population at the time. The French on the other hand happily boxed up and sent their Jews to Hitler's kind mercies in the East.

The Other Michael

FWIW, I had an email a couple of days ago from a French citizen that is on one of my email lists. He's been planning a vacation trip through the US southwest for spring, and he wanted to know if it would be safe for him to still make the trip.

It sure made me feel proud to know that the US is considered a place where our long-term allies fear to visit. I guess I'd better warn off the Germans that I know too.

cheers,
Michael

sullster

I won't shut my face, so there. I am happy that you don't use those foolish smiley faces anymore. Those are the faces that should be shut all over.

Read Skeptictank's post above, he makes a lot of sense. He actually helps justify some of my "other comments".

August Spies

and luckily for us the french wont "shut their faces" either.
nom de dieu de bordel de merde,

Jane Bovary

They blew it, and the USA has dominated since WW2. They could have been masters of Europe and a world influence. They are neither and should shut their faces.


Why should they? Should Germany shut up too since they started the bloody war in the first place? This is not 1939...why are we revisiting WWII and dispensing this righteous historical blame on France when it has nothing at all to do with 2003 and a potential invasion of Iraq?.

France and Germany has every right to voice their position and without these irrelevent recriminations which are not much more than a simple smear campaign. Once again Sullster descends to a not-so-subtle name calling in the abscence of sound argument. Just as he tried to decry anti-war protesters as stupid hippies, he now attempts to label the French as cowards and Nazi collaberators. I believe there's a whole new generation in France now anyway Sullster. What do they have to do with WWII...?

It's contemptible to use that war as some kind of anti-French leverage in the current circumstances.

sullster

Au-contraire mon cher Jane. Methinks thou dost protest much too much. Is not this thread's title about jokes and anti-French sentiment? I have some historically based anti-French sentiment. I have a right to it. As if the French are innocent, heck, they have thrown rocks through the windows of McDonalds in gay Paris.

Lest you misconstrue my message, for the one other person who may be reading our brilliant invectives, I did not decry anti-war protestors as being "stupid,(your descriptive term") hippies". I described those individuals, who have gone to Iraq to be "human shields", as being assinine clowns, who may use the language that hippies and other cool types use.

As for dear France, well they do have a right to spout off. The Nazis have been pushed out of their country going on 60 years, so they can rant all they want. I just don't see why a country that was defeated and occupied during WW2 has a right to be on the UN Security Council with veto power. That is all.

Au revoir. Ecrasez L'infame!! Sacre blue, si vous plait.

Farren

Sullster: some comments on the US's "domination" (nice, accurate word that) since WWII:

1. The US spends on foreign military occupation what Europe spends on foreign aid.

1a the US spends less per capita than on aid than military expedience - sorry expense. - than any other developed nation

2. The US "nobly" entered the 2nd world war at the LAST MINUTE. Britian, its former colonies and Stalinist Russia did most of the work.

3. The US demanded reperations from ITS ALLIES for entering the 2nd world war. Amongst these, was for instance, a ban of several decades on the French and English manufacturing aircraft of any kind, to ensure US dominance in that field.

4. There were more nazi sympathizers in the US than Britain, contemporary home of the NF.


5.The US used WWII as an excuse to test nuclear weapons "in the field" on an enemy already ready to surrender.

You mentioned that you are not a scholar of history. You should learn more.

August Spies

I have a right to it.

No one is infringin on your "right to sound stupid" sullster, don't worry.

I have some historically based anti-French sentiment
if by historicaly you mean a misrepresentation of a handful of years of a country that has existed for hundreds. If you think that is enough to have "historiacal" anti-french sentiment, you can think whatever you want... mais n'�crivez pas les expressions fran�aises non-sens et stupide � l'extr�mit� de votre poteau. s'il vous plait.