Some French Humor

[SteveMetch]

On the eve of the French (a people that has been saved twice with the precious blood of Americans) attempt to block America from protecting itself from weapons of mass destruction I felt these quotes where timely.



"The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag."
David Letterman

"I don't know why people are surprised that France won't help us get Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn't help us get the Germans out of France!"
Jay Leno

"You know why the French don't want to bomb Saddam Hussein? Because he hates America, he loves mistresses and wears a beret. He is French, people."
Conan O'Brien

"The only time France wants us to go to war is when the German Army is sitting in Paris sipping coffee."
Regis Philbin

"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure"
Jacques Chirac, President of France
"As far as France is concerned, you're right."
Rush Limbaugh

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."
Norman Schwartzkopf

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me."
General George S. Patton



God bless all who take on this difficult and dangerous burden of once again saving the world from itself.

“France” Welcome to the “Next American Century”

Let’s Roll

[yehudi]

do not hesitate to use the special "french bashing" thread for this - no real need to create a new one.

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by yehudi
do not hesitate to use the special "french bashing" thread for this - no real need to create a new one.

I hope you are a Jew, because if you are not, you are Jew-bashing using your Username Yahudi. How would you like it if my handle was "frenchie"?

[minusthejihad]

How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?













No one knows, its never been tried!

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by yehudi
do not hesitate to use the special "french bashing" thread for this - no real need to create a new one.

You know what, you are right. France gets way too much attention.

[djnvcm]

Originally posted by SteveMetch
On the eve of the French (a people that has been saved twice with the precious blood o......................................merican Century”

Let’s Roll

Waowwww !!!!!
Very funny !!!!!. Many thanks for your input. This is a major step forward

[Johnny Yuma]

Did you hear about the big gun sale the French had after WWII?

The sign said: "Never been fired, dropped once."






On n'apprend pas a un singe comment faire la grimace! Non?

[Alfred]

I just heard tonight that the French government has asked Euro Disney to cancel their fireworks display.

It seems too many French are surrendering upon hearing the explosions.

[Blueprint]

"You know why the French don't want to bomb Saddam Hussein? Because he hates America, he loves mistresses and wears a beret. He is French, people."
Conan O'Brien

LMFAO. Gold. :D

[Ralph63]

"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure"
Jacques Chirac, President of France
"As far as France is concerned, you're right."
Rush Limbaugh

History aint over yet. Not even for US.

Johan Galtung (Norwegian historian) have made a study over what caused over 30 powerful historic countries/empires, from Rome and forwards, to decline. One of many reasons was that they all fall victims of their own success. They felt invulnerably.

[Ralph63]

"You know why the French don't want to bomb Saddam Hussein? Because he hates America, he loves mistresses and wears a beret. He is French, people."
Conan O'Brien

I at least understand why the germans are opposed to city-bombings. They know first-hand the consequences (WW2: Berlin, Hamburg, Dresden for example). US on the other hand lacks this particular form of collective warexperience. Thats why they so carelessly can advocate bombings of cities with civilians in them, and bragg about their latest MOAB-bomb.

[Am Yisrael]

Originally posted by Ralph63
I at least understand why the germans are opposed to city-bombings. They know first-hand the consequences (WW2: Berlin, Hamburg, Dresden for example). US on the other hand lacks this particular form of collective warexperience. Thats why they so carelessly can advocate bombings of cities with civilians in them, and bragg about their latest MOAB-bomb. [/B]
What about Britain? The British had to put up with the blitz and constant bombing of cities.

[Ralph63]

Originally posted by Am Yisrael
What about Britain? The British had to put up with the blitz and constant bombing of cities.

Well, thats correct - although the germans got even more of it in the end. But they (the nazis) certainly wasnt innocent. They planted dragonseed - what could they expect? All Im saying is that one perhaps should think a little about the consequences of arial house/city-bombings, and not talk about it so carelessly. There are civilians, children, babies and house-animals living in those places.

[yehudi]

Mainy germans cities were razed to the ground. I remember visiting hamburg and seeing a sign on a house
"this house was built before the war, it's the only one in this part of town".

Anyway, there are plenty of war graves from WWI where I'm living too. Very close to were I live, German SS executed forty civilians after a sabotage action on a railway.

[Mediocrates]

While there was massive destruction of German cities in WW2:

1 - Both the Germans and the Allies understood that Germany would never surrender until its physical capability to wage war was destroyed.

2 - In the summer of '45, between Berlin and Moscow there was not one standing structure left. Not one. This is a documented fact.

[Am Yisrael]

Originally posted by Ralph63
Well, thats correct - although the germans got even more of it in the end. But they (the nazis) certainly wasnt innocent. They planted dragonseed - what could they expect? All Im saying is that one perhaps should think a little about the consequences of arial house/city-bombings, and not talk about it so carelessly.

Ok I understand you view. Apparently many people feel the same way as you do. Maybe I am biased because I remember as a kid hearing Iraqi shells falling on Tel-Aviv/Ramat Gan in the Gulf War. Maybe im also biased because my father is a Jewish Iraqi exile. But the point I try to make in every arguement is that ANY and I mean ANY war against Iraq will benifit the Iraqi populations to a certain degree if a regime is changed. Im not trying to lower the tone of speach regarding city bombings. I doubt Iraqi cities will be bombed to a large degree as people think (I hope). Americans sure as hell wont go and destroy the country if there is a war because they probably have all the targets and know that they cant mess up or else the world will turn against the US.

Why dont you try and look at it from my perspective. Have a read at Human right violations (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=2596) . I made my decision already that it is morally right to attack the Iraqi regime.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
In the summer of '45, between Berlin and Moscow there was not one standing structure left. Not one. This is a documented fact.
BTW, americans now are saying they saved Europe...

Do not forget the USSR did most of the job and turned the tide in Stalingrad. They lost 20 million people. Without them, no D-day.

[Alfred]

The Russians did a great job in WW2. We did help them a bit, but their Army beat down the Nazi's.

Could Russia have won had we (and the Brits) not destroyed most of the German factories, oil, and cities? Probably not.

The real credit goes to the UK for standing up to Hitler after the rest of Europe caved in. The UK and then America kept Hitler from winning in Russia during 41-43.

By the way. Berlin was leveled BEFORE the Russians got there.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by yehudi
Do not forget the USSR did most of the job and turned the tide in Stalingrad. They lost 20 million people. Without them, no D-day.

No doubt, and?

[Alfred]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
No doubt, and?


..........if there were no D-Day, we would not have made the mistake of liberating France!!


:) :) :)

[mimil]

Hello everyone,

I have spend some time recently reading both the news and the posts from various web sites. I cannot hide my concern for the current events in the middle east.

I find dificult to construct my own judgement with the contradictory flow of information and the obvious manipulation attempts of most of world leaders. This includes as well the pro war and against war.

It is obvious that the iraqi regime is nothing but a human one. It is also obvious that all other political systems are far from being perfect. One would say, their are various shades of gray, and I can obviously hardly deny it.

My main concern so is the use of such reality for other purposes. When doing diplomatie, the goal is to hide your true motives with a false reality.

America is about to attack iraq. The given reason are the threat of iraq to the USA security. One can not deny that they probably free people from misery and torture. But is it the motive of the USA to do so? Obviously not, and somehow it is never the true motivation for any country's action. And is the reason why internatioal laws are build, to ensure that nations do not take unilateral decissions.

But what about the suffering of the iraqi people, what about the jewish tortured in that nation. The world is surely a rough place and none can deny the reality of such acts. But without rules, it is anarchy. And with anarchy comes even more inequalities and inhumanities.

I guess most people will not agree with me, but I do not support the military intervension of the USA on irak because of the above reasons.

The french veto is an excuse given to justify the action. If the USA was to have more than 9 votes and the position of france on the question was to weaken, they would most likely still not support the war, but allow the vote of the resolution.

Finally the united nation are supposingly here to ensure peace, it is therefore not much of a suprise that they did not allow the war.


Best Regards.

[yehudi]

I pretty much share your concerns, mimil.

There are two levels of thinking
- the people / moral level on which we are often there
- the state vs state level, which is mercyless. States are what we call "cold monsters".

The two levels are not completely disconnected though, especially in a democracy.

I'm against the war.
- on a moral level of course, because you simply cannot kill thousands of people if another solution is possible. And I think inspectors will totally disarm Iraq (iraq is actually pretty harmless now whatever documents the CIA forges).
- on a strategic level, I think the US are paying a tremendeous price for this war (and all this squash a dwarf !). The US have a 500B$ deficit and an oversized / inadapted military (the cold war is over). When the time for the real challenges come they will be ruined / powerless.

Terrorism is fought with ideology and the US completely lost the ideological battle in the UN. Amazing how they lost and the "blame it on the french" is so childish. The US lost their main ally in Europe, Germany from the start.

If they had some rationality, they would simply stop before it's too late and the world would "forgive and forget", given their power.

They would keep their power to act on real issues instead of wasting it.

[Am Yisrael]

- on a moral level of course, because you simply cannot kill thousands of people if another solution is possible. And I think inspectors will totally disarm Iraq (iraq is actually pretty harmless now whatever documents the CIA forges).
Ahh and what solution would that be? Let Saddam remain in his regime until death, and then let his son Uday (even bigger basterd) take power? Either way although a short term war will have large civilian casualties, if we leave Iraq and forget about invading, in the long term the civilian casualties of Iraq will be MUCH higher. I know you think weapon inspectors is the way to go. So do I! Its just that I think it cannot work with Iraq. You cannot admit that Iraq is fully cooperating with the inspectors. The UN has tryed for many years to cooperate with Saddam. This is the final chance. I would like to hear your solution (I have heard them all and silenced them all).

- on a strategic level, I think the US are paying a tremendeous price for this war (and all this squash a dwarf !). The US have a 500B$ deficit and an oversized / inadapted military (the cold war is over). When the time for the real challenges come they will be ruined / powerless.

Well if the US succeed in creating a democracy in the heart of the Middle East, then I think no matter how big the cash being spent, the US will have succeded in its ideology. The strategic gain is oil. Wouldnt you rather purchase oil from a democratic country that doesnt fund terrorism?

Terrorism is fought with ideology and the US completely lost the ideological battle in the UN. Amazing how they lost and the "blame it on the french" is so childish. The US lost their main ally in Europe, Germany from the start.

I think the US should have made it clear about its moral ideology of war right from the beginning. That way the war might have been over already.

If they had some rationality, they would simply stop before it's too late and the world would "forgive and forget", given their power.
Wait a minute!!! who will forgive and forget? The dead Iraqis murdered daily? Ohhh France, Germany and Russia will forgive and forget. Why though? They themselves have not validated their cause for preventing war. Their claim is that Saddam is cooperating where in true reality he isnt (and thats a fact). Then they claimed that it is morally not right to attack (completely oblivious of Saddams history or what is going on today).

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by yehudi

- on a strategic level, I think the US are paying a tremendeous price for this war (and all this squash a dwarf !). The US have a 500B$ deficit and an oversized / inadapted military (the cold war is over). When the time for the real challenges come they will be ruined / powerless.

Don't worry about the money. The US economy, even though generated by less than 5% of the world's population, is larger than the next three added together; Britain, Germany, and Japan.

Don't let the word "Deficit" bog you down. Think of it as having a credit card with a small amount of money charged. It's miniscule, against the backdrop of the money in the bank....

That's a hard fact to come to grips with and one of the main reasons for the "perception problem".

As far as the US becoming ruined/powerless... that's a pipe dream. This US will be around l o n g after you and I are dead and gone.

[djnvcm]

Originally posted by Ralph63
"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure"
Jacques Chirac, President of France
"As far as France is concerned, you're right."
Rush Limbaugh

History aint over yet. Not even for US.

Johan Galtung (Norwegian historian) have made a study over what caused over 30 powerful historic countries/empires, from Rome and forwards, to decline. One of many reasons was that they all fall victims of their own success. They felt invulnerably.

This very true statement applied of course to former soviet union
It will apply very soon to USA

[Ralph63]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Don't worry about the money. The US economy, even though generated by less than 5% of the world's population, is larger than the next three added together; Britain, Germany, and Japan.

For US the indevidual free choice is a holy cow. What happens if a growing number of indeviduals (not governments) outside US decides to avoid Americans products, partly as a result of their clumsy big-brother diplomacy? What happens with the economy and their "moral authority" if the war and/or the aftermath of the war goes terribly wrong?

Don't let the word "Deficit" bog you down. Think of it as having a credit card with a small amount of money charged. It's miniscule, against the backdrop of the money in the bank....

The rest of the world lends US about 2 extra billion dollars each and every day - the same world that Bush feels free to bypass and ignore in both UN and multilateral agreements. Bush decides to cut the state-income by heavy taxcuts (mostly for the already wealthy - and they reinvest it in stocks, not in consumer-goods). Simultaneously Bush starts one of many forthcoming roge-state anti-terrorist wars, with unknown political/economical outcomes. Also, most US citizens have consumed for loans/credits for many years. Banks want their money back sooner or later. US companies have also growing future problems with their pension-commitments for their employees....

That's a hard fact to come to grips with and one of the main reasons for the "perception problem".

...but sure; its all about the "problem of perception". ;-)

As far as the US becoming ruined/powerless... that's a pipe dream. This US will be around l o n g after you and I are dead and gone.

Maybe US will be "downsized" somewhat in the future. Mostly by their own political, diplomatic and economical wrongdoings. Is that really so impossible to imagine?

[minusthejihad]

Of course its not bad to dream. I mean, that's all you are really doing. So go ahead, let the lead out.

[minusthejihad]

By the way, over 30 countries supporting and backing the US is hardly unilateralism, no?

Funny, your dream was also what my parents heard as they were fleeing the Former Soviet Union. Guess what? nothing's changed. We're still the best place to be in the world and we intend to keep it that way. Don't forget, some of your fellow countrymen hae helped this country to be the best. Basically, the cream of the crop come here form all over the world, and as long as everybody and their mama is lined up to get green cards outside our borders, nothing will change.

[andak01]

Originally posted by Ralph63
Well, thats correct - although the germans got even more of it in the end. But they (the nazis) certainly wasnt innocent. They planted dragonseed - what could they expect? All Im saying is that one perhaps should think a little about the consequences of arial house/city-bombings, and not talk about it so carelessly. There are civilians, children, babies and house-animals living in those places.

You're in the wrong forum Ralphie. Thinking about the consequences of war and the amount of blood that needs to flow to fill our gas tanks is not allowed here.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by Ralph63
The rest of the world lends US about 2 extra billion dollars each and every day - the same world that Bush feels free to bypass and ignore in both UN and multilateral agreements. Bush decides to cut the state-income by heavy taxcuts (mostly for the already wealthy - and they reinvest it in stocks, not in consumer-goods). Simultaneously Bush starts one of many forthcoming roge-state anti-terrorist wars, with unknown political/economical outcomes. Also, most US citizens have consumed for loans/credits for many years. Banks want their money back sooner or later. US companies have also growing future problems with their pension-commitments for their employees.... This is my feeling exactly.



I'm afraid the dear "Winner's Corporate America" of Jonny Yuma turns out to be ... just another Enron.


.