Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Sad day for cycling [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply

Quote Reply
bunnyman now weighs in [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
According to this twisted logic, I better put a Colnago decal on my Corima- oh yeah, I already have to do that, as Squadra Chupa Cabra (my new team) is sponsored by Colnago. With all of the weirdos, rednecks*, and the like around here, it's a good thing that my Corima does not have it's headtube "badge" (as it's a French flag)...

I think there are many better things our leaders could be doing besides banning the description "French" from food items served in the Congressional mess hall. How 'bout figuring out how to rev up the economy?

I will go on and order "French" fries and "French" toast whenever I find the need for fast food fat.

*No disrespect to the poster named Redneck, as I am sure he does not run down cyclists in his rusting Chevy C 1500 of '70s or '80s vintage.
Quote Reply
Re: Sad day for France... [Francois] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Please no french army jokes..."

Are you sure? I've heard a few really good ones lately!!
Quote Reply
Re: Sad day for France... [cerveloguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Being English, this doesn't really matter too greatly... French Fries are Chips, and French Toast is Eggy Bread. The only problem I can foresee is the renaming of French Knickers...
Quote Reply
Re: Sad day for France... [Francois] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Screw the French. Chirac is a coward! The only thing we need France for is a place for Lance and Team U.S. Postal to ride. Perhaps they should bone up on their German or Russian. Next time perhaps we won't liberate their country. As Patton said "I'd rather have the German army in front of me than the French army behind me."

Craig
Quote Reply
Re: Sad day for France... [snaildoc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
you are a smart dude :-)
Quote Reply
Re: Sad day for France... [snaildoc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply

this is from www.frogweenies.com, support our troops, put U.S. flag stickers on your Mavic and Corima wheels:

anyway:

France's disgraceful behavior at the UN has been laughable. France is jealous of US world influence and is attempting to block, veto and prevent the US-lead military action in Iraq. France's actions amount to an enemy and not an ally. France’s anti-American rhetoric and disgusting, ill-mannered behavior on the World’s stage should be condemned in the strongest terms possible.
Each day France is permitted to continue their “pro-Saddam” charade, American citizens, the American economy and American soldiers are put at tremendous risk. Make no mistake about it; the performance you’ve been watching from France has nothing to do with hating war. It has everything to do with hating Americans. Show your support for the American troops overseas and your fellow citizens here at home by participating in the Official French Boycott.


Quote Reply
Re: Sad day for France... [Gary in SD] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
also as much as we are being accused of our desire for oil being the true motive of George W., France and Russia are protecting the huge oil contracts they signed with Saddam. He has cleverly used that resource to drive the current wedge between our countries. Curious as to why France has deployed their largest battle group to the Persian Gulf two weeks ago. It sucks that it had to come to this!!!

Brian
Quote Reply
You really would have been better suited to [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
living in / or during the Wiemar Republic. Your Xenophobia is really to much to bear.

I understand that this is a concept difficult for you to grasp but Germany, France and Great Britain are democracies.

The governent is determined by the will of the people. The people that voted the governments in to office in those three countries do not want to go to war. So it would not really be truly democratic if the governments in those countries chose to go to war against the will of the people. It would be like the US governent going to war against the will of it's people. I am sure you have been "Pro" every war the US has fought but what would you think if 70% of the US population was opposed to a war and the government went anyway?

It is also ironic that you as an American complain that another democracy does not agree with you, a country founded as a democracy does not like other democratic countries when they disagree with them.......thats great........
Quote Reply
Re: Sad day for France... [pedalincoastal] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Excellent point.. the US motivations have much to do with the Cheney whitehouse and the company he used to head, Haliburton. Anyone heard of them? They rebuilt Iraq's oil industry after the last US incursion, on the order of billions of dollars. Is Iraq really a legtimate threat to Americans or a nuissance? Does this have anything to do with Haliburton's numerous contracts to support our troops in the Gulf.. and the huge amounts of money they stand to make? It all revolves around money.. the French, Russians, and Germans know this.. they are protecting their interests. Afterall Iraq is sitting on the worlds 2nd biggest oil reserve. If the administration wanted to really do something about our dependance on fossil fuels and all the trouble associated with maintaining the supply (in a very unfriendly part of the world) we'd all be driving hydrogen powered cars in a couple years.. that won't happen. Why? Because big business has their hands in all aspects of American politics.

The worst part of all this... American soliders are putting their lives on the line for some very questionable motivations.
Quote Reply
Re: You really would have been better suited to [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I am not "Pro-war" but I am Pro action to protect American citizens. Saddam has proven to be a liar and a cheat. He needs to go and we can do that without any help. Next will be the mad men in North Korea and perhaps Iran. I have NO quarrel with anyone Iraqi, Korean or Iranian. Indeed I have friends of those and other nationalities. I do have a problem when they threaten their neighbors or us. War sucks and should be avoided at all reasonable costs. The deal in Iraq is not a new war but a finish to the Persian Gulf war to which Saddam agreed to do certain things and he has not done them. This is not the first thing France has done to anger little old me. Remember our '84 flights to Libya? I say to heck w/France, Germany & Russia. Just don't be looking for anything friendly from us ever again. I sure hope the French task force is there to help, for their sakes.

Craig
Quote Reply
Protect American Citizens from what? [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Just make it crystal clear to me what going in to Iraq is going to do in terms of offering protection because while SH may have promised to do things post 92 and might not have, he also has not posed ANY threat at all to the US.

As far as lying and cheating go, I hardly think that the US has a foot to stand on if that is going to be your argument. Lets face it, if the US has been unable to present evidence to the security counsel and all the coutries other than the US, including Britain are still trying to resolve this another way I dont think we can count on the US having been entirely truthful about its motivations for wanting to go in to Iraq.......
Quote Reply
Re: You really would have been better suited to [snaildoc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I will try to set the record straight here, because I have noticed something interesting...what we hear on the french news, and what is being translated in the US news on channels like Fox are very different...
Fox is so much pro GWB that they BS the translations...I guess I understand french much better than any journalist at Fox.

anyway, here it is:

1. Chirac is not against war. Nor is he for Saddam. He (as well as French people, Russians, Germans etc...) want Saddam out, but they are all against a resolution whose only consequence is war.

2. the only thing that Europe (I count Britain with Europe as the only english for war is Blair..all the others are against...) wants is to get rid of Saddam in a peaceful way without going to war. As long as there is a way to achieve this, why do you want to put in jeopardy the lives of american soldiers, civilians in iraq (for info civilians in iraq are as innocent as all the people that were in the WTC on 9/11...)

3. if there is no other alternative, then the UN will go to war (that was in the talk of Chirac...) but in the meantime, SH is destroying weapons, so things are working...better have him destroy weapons under a war threat than really going to war...remember Gary...YOU are not going, YOU will still be riding your bike when US soldiers will be fightng...it's pretty easy for you to say "let's go to war" as you are not going...

4. ultimately, going to war without the agreement of the UN will lead to one thing: more planes crashing in towers, lead by fanatics who will hate the US even more. A deepening of the gap between Europe and the US. the next time a conflict will arise, everyone will say "screw the UN" we'll do it alone, this will lead to a WWIII and then, you will give a rat's ass about stupid triathlons etc...when the planet is about to explode because some thought the only solution was war....
Quote Reply
Re: You really would have been better suited to [snaildoc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It took 11 years to figure out that Saddam is such a HUGE threat?? In those 11 years, has his evil-doer, axis-of-evil regime posed a threat to Americans? Powell is having a hell of a time making a case of this in the UN. Did you see the pictures of the smoking-gun drone.. what kinda Jr High science project did that turn out to be?

Ameican alienation is a bad thing. Once the EU gets its act together they will offer some serious competition to America's capitalist machine. Only a matter of time before the UK joins the team.

mike
Quote Reply
100% agree, Europe and what was [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Eastern Europe could become a monster in terms of economic power.

Its really funny when the US imposed steel tariffs to protect the US steel industry they imposed them on Britain. The UK response was if you dont relax the tarrifs we will put tariffs on Florida OJ, PA Cotton T-shirt and Harleys made in WI. Three swing states. A commentator noted about this that it should teach Bush not to bring a knife to a gun fight..................apparently the less was not learnt.

Its so funny that Powell can not convince one country on the security counsel that Iraq poses and threat and all of the countries he is trying to persuade are a damn site closer to Iraq than the US..........
Quote Reply
Re: You really would have been better suited to [Francois] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm still unsure of where I stand on this whole issue. Usually I'm one of the war drum beaters, but for some reason not in this case. There's something about this one that doesn't sit right with me.

I do believe one thing is very clear though. None of the "progress" or new "compliance" that the world is witnessing by Iraq and Saddam "sharing" information and destroying some of their irrelevent weapons would ever have come to pass if it were not for the immense pressure currently being exerted by the US. So while the current diplomacy may be working, it is only working because of the threat of war that the advocates of diplomacy are trying to avoid.
Quote Reply
Gary you're back... [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
it is fascinating to see that each time you post here you are very good at bringing the discussion to its lower possible level. You're scary and I'm happy not to know you.
Quote Reply
Re: You really would have been better suited to [Pooks] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I still believe that it is better to have SH destroying weapons because of a threat than having american soldiers (or other countries if there is eventually no alternative) risking their lives, and throwing bombs on iraqis (which is unlikely to decrease the number of terrorists who hate the us...)
Quote Reply
Re: You really would have been better suited to [Francois] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
For the threat to be taken seriously, it must be a serious threat. If we (the US or a coalition) actually were not willing to send in troops as has been the case for the last 10 years, then Saddam would do nothing to meet the demands of the U.N. as has also been the case for the last 10 years. I agree with you that I'd rather have SH destroying weapons then to have others dying, but the two are obviously not completely independent of one another. Apparently to get him to do anything, we must have people who are willing to risk their lives and on the verge of going in. Right now, I guess I agree that the current situation seems to be working. The White House seems to think differently. I can be convinced, and if there is a real threat here or progress is actually not being made, I wish the White House would make a case to convince me. Because they do not leads me to believe they cannot. Truth be told, I kind of hope they find some smoking gun or something that justifies to the world that we need to go in and take care of this. (Sorry, now I'm getting a bit scary) But until there's an obvious threat or reason, I remain very hesitant.
Quote Reply
Democracy & such [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I too would like to be convinced beyond a doubt, but me & my opinion are irrelevant. We (like the French, Germans & Brittish) live in republics where we elect leaders to make these and other important decisions. The threat comes from who SH can give his WMDs to, Bin Ladin & such. SH destabilizes the whole region. And I'll admit that lots of the problem relates to oil and the survival of Israel. The fact that we kicked out the Palistinians and recreated Israel are reasons, arguably reasonable ones, why Americans are hated among the islamic peoples. If you think Iraq is a problem just wait till it is time to deal with N. Korea.

Craig
Quote Reply
Re: You really would have been better suited to [Pooks] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The whole logic behind the concept of using inspections to force a country to disarm is inherently flawed. The ONLY value behind inspections is to verify that a willing participant is truly disarming. The belief that we can just keep 'inspecting' until SH has totally disarmed is simply a joke.

300,000 troops at his border, essetially a gun to his head, he throws out a few crums for the world to see, and the world declares 'See, It's working!'

Before 9/11, folks would have thought we would be crazy to invade Afganistan. After, how many said "What did we know and why didn't our government do something to prevent this tragedy?" We have much more now on SH than we had before 9/11 on Al Queda, and folks are still saying where's the threat?
Quote Reply
Re: You really would have been better suited to [JustCurious] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"We have much more now on SH than we had before 9/11 on Al Queda"

As far as knowledge of intent and plans to attack and kill Americans, we had mountains more information and evidence on AQ than we do on Iraq. This is not my opinion, but fact.
Quote Reply
Re: You really would have been better suited to [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrew,

Two words, three names:

Viet Nam, Andrew Jackson, Samuel J Tilden, and Grover Cleveland.

Brian
Quote Reply
Frenchness [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It is all about politics.

France's only concern is to show its power so that it can set itself up as a real power in the EU. They are using their veto to hold the US down and put their country in a favorable/powerful light ... to show other EU countries that France is a powerhouse ... to be the new EU leader. Im sure the french have no problems ousting Saddam or going to war but they want to be the ones to make the decision. See, years ago the French played a role in international events. They were part of the big picture. They tried to stop us from bombing Lybia as well.

Its not about oil, its not about Saddam, its not about peace ...

Its all about politics.
Quote Reply
Re: You really would have been better suited to [Pooks] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
As far as knowledge of intent and plans to attack and kill Americans, we had mountains more information and evidence on AQ than we do on Iraq. This is not my opinion, but fact.


So if the plan is to attack and kill Americans, we act. If the plan is to attack and kill some other humans, we don't?
Quote Reply

Prev Next