please stop bashing France

In article ,
"Franck" wrote:

of course france sold missile 20 years ago, but in the same time US
give chimical weapon to your friend Saddam Hussein.

False.

But you knew that.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"tscottme" wrote:
Franck wrote in message
...


In fact only the US citizens ignorants like
you believe that. I'm
sure it's
not 'the vast majority'. look on this NG,
you're only 5 or 6 with
always the
same poor discourt

--
Franck


Since you say this assertion of yours is a fact
you can document it
can't you? France and Germany were Saddam's
largest trading partners
and they were pressuring to end sanctions on
Saddam before the US forced
the UN into its last round of "last chances
for Saddam". France
announced it would veto the last pre-war US
proposed UN resolution
before Iraq rejected it.

France is the enemy of Western civilization.
Maybe they are just bitter
at watching their culture and their language
become more irrelevant each
day.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war
only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news
directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the
news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we
hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm


I'll go along with that. They just haven't gotten used to the fact that
they are no longer a colonial empire, major military power, or the fact that
the most popular books, movies, TV, etc. are American. And they know it.
Most of the top-grossers in French theaters are out of Hollywood, and with
Satellte TV, folks can get all the American TV that they want, bypassing
the over-the-air channels.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
The vast majority of US citizens believe, correctly, that France
was/is supporting Saddam. France has been an enemy of the US for many
years.

Like the rest of the world knows, correctly, that the US was supporting
Saddam at a time when he was brutally butchering tens of thousands of his
own people? The hippocracy is laughable. Your moral high ground is a sand
castle built upon a swamp!

Si

The vast majority of US citizens believe, correctly, that France
was/is supporting Saddam. France has been an enemy of the US for many
years.

Like the rest of the world knows, correctly, that the US was supporting
Saddam at a time when he was brutally butchering tens of thousands of his
own people? The hippocracy is laughable. Your moral high ground is a sand
castle built upon a swamp!

This is my one input to this thread - I believe that countries do things in
their own interests 90% of the time and if other folks are getting butchered,
well, that's just terrible. Saddam was seen as the lessor of two evils in the
region, then over the years gained in stature among despots, reaching the
pinnacle of brutality. By then, America had been distancing itself from Saddam
for years. But even as we drew away, other countries embraced him, pointing at
our earlier involvement as a sort of extenuating circumstance for their current
colusion. Plus, our government drilled it into everyone's heads that Saddam
was actively working to either nuke or dust us. With that as a background,
France stood up as defender of Iraq's despot, not its people. The differences
between us became a rift and for the foreseeable future, its going to remain.
America didn't do things in Iraq for the right reason, and neither did France.
The main difference is that we stopped supporting Saddam at some point. France
never did. Both countries were "beating their wife", but at least we stopped.

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR Aircrew

"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."

"Gordon" wrote in message
...
This is my one input to this thread - I believe that countries do things
in
their own interests 90% of the time and if other folks are getting
butchered,
well, that's just terrible. Saddam was seen as the lessor of two evils in
the
region, then over the years gained in stature among despots, reaching the
pinnacle of brutality. By then, America had been distancing itself from
Saddam
for years.

If by the pinnacle of his brutality you mean his extermination of thousand
of Kurds with chemical weapons then the US was certainly still supporting
him at the time. Concern was certainly expressed within intelligence and
government circles yet foreign policy at the time dictated a blind eye be
turned as you say because of the "lesser of two evils". But then a lesser
of two evils is still an evil.

But even as we drew away, other countries embraced him, pointing at
our earlier involvement as a sort of extenuating circumstance for their
current
colusion. Plus, our government drilled it into everyone's heads that
Saddam
was actively working to either nuke or dust us.

Despite the fact that he never expressed any intent to attack anyone outside
of the region? He was certainly critical of US government behaviour, seeing
the US's double-dealing in the Iran-Iraq war as a betrayal, but there's
little evidence he was working to create anything beyond a theatre
capability. (Where as we on the other hand actively seek to create
inter-continental weapons capable of threatening and striking those who
oppose our political standpoint. Is it any wonder that nations the world
over want to redress the balance?)

With that as a background,
France stood up as defender of Iraq's despot, not its people. The
differences
between us became a rift and for the foreseeable future, its going to
remain.
America didn't do things in Iraq for the right reason, and neither did
France.
The main difference is that we stopped supporting Saddam at some point.
France
never did. Both countries were "beating their wife", but at least we
stopped.

It was only stopped due to political expediency and a shift in allegiances.
America no longer had anything to gain by supporting Saddam, I don't believe
conscience or the welfare of the oppressed citizenship had anything to do
with it. The defence of Kuwait and protection of Saudi Arabia show
un-democratic and despotic regimes continue to be supported in defence of a
greater evil.

Si

Simon Robbins wrote:

If by the pinnacle of his brutality you mean his extermination of thousand
of Kurds with chemical weapons then the US was certainly still supporting
him at the time. Concern was certainly expressed within intelligence and

"Support" is an excessive description of the relationship.

The US was attempting to get along with Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war.
The US didn't like Iran because of the hostage situation in 1980. The
attempt to make an "ally" of him failed.

So as of spring of this year, the US had tried to befriend Saddam and tried
to contain Saddam. Largely to no effect, or very limited effect.

The US no more "supported" Saddam than just about any other major country
of the world. The difference is, the US stopped while much of the rest of
the industrialized world continued in its business/military relations with
the despot.


SMH