Jusunlee.com Forums Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Show all 21 posts from this thread on one page

Jusunlee.com Forums (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/index.php)
- Debate (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=19)
-- F the French (gov) (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=11931)

Posted by Spartan on 04-25-2003 05:14 AM:

F the French (gov)

Why should the French have any part in rebuilding Iraq? Did they spend their hard money? Did they sacrifice their sons, daughters, fathers, mothers? Did they even support us at all? Now they want a good image by looking like they help the Iraqis. Fuckers.

I geuss the Iraqis could use any help they could get now. I'm still pissed at the French. Those goddamn cowards. Freedom's price is blood. The French have a debt.

__________________
**rei ayanami is hot**

Posted by .aS.|5p!7f!|23 on 04-25-2003 05:27 AM:

uhh they did put troops and money into iraq.

Posted by Crazydeb8ter on 04-25-2003 05:40 AM:

Re: F the French (gov)

quote:
Originally posted by Spartan
Freedom's price is blood. The French have a debt.


Not quite. Given that abstract notion, the French still have a lot of surplus to work with.

I agree, the French government does have a lot of nerve to try to reinsert themselves into this effort- but in this day and age, we should welcome such aid- international cooperation and unity (which was shattered by all sides: the US, French, etc.) can only lead to good things.

__________________
ni pour ni contre; ça m'est égal

"The weight of this sad time we must obey,/ Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say./ The oldest hath borne most; we that are young/ Shall never see so much, nor live so long."
King Lear (V.3.300-304)

Posted by .aS.|5p!7f!|23 on 04-25-2003 05:58 AM:

they were already helping with the afganistan fighting. france was gonna fight if iraq used chemical weapons but i guess was somwhat of a total bitch ass when it came to lending support. also gettin back into the war effort should be allowed. free money i guess.

Posted by aznkid1008 on 04-25-2003 04:38 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by .aS.|5p!7f!|23
they were already helping with the afganistan fighting. france was gonna fight if iraq used chemical weapons but i guess was somwhat of a total bitch ass when it came to lending support. also gettin back into the war effort should be allowed. free money i guess.

...dont u get it the french r a bunch of backstabbin bastards. if it wasnt for us they would still be germany. the american, canadian, british and other nations' men and woman gav their lives 2 free them. and yet when we were plannin on doin the same for the people in iraq wat do they do? they promise 2 veto any of our plans in the UN. and the only reason they would hav helped if iraq used chemical weapons is because they would hav been proved wrong since they hav been sayin that iraq has been disarming chemical and biological weapons.
they should not hav 1 word in this, i agree they did NOTHING but bitch about all this because they get most of their oil in iraq and hav stocks in it. 2 them it was all about money. but u kno wat im glad we didnt take the french wit us. only time i would hav bet them winning a war is the French revolution.

__________________
the fool is the one who thinks he is wise, yet the wise one is the one who thinks he is a fool

Remember the heros
Remember the lives
Remember the day
God bless

Posted by PsychoSnowman on 04-26-2003 11:45 PM:

i can't see why such expletives are being thrown about.

The french didn't want to go to war becuase they didn't agree with the notion to do so. Simple as that. They don't want to destroy a country, but why not help rebuild it? it's the best thing to do at this time. It's not hypocritical, it's not cowardly, it's advocating what they think is best, and this is the best course of action.

People need to stop discriminhating against France. Welcome help when it is offered. Any debt is illusory and it's feeble to act upon any notion based upon its mere "existence"

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Posted by Crazydeb8ter on 04-27-2003 12:31 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by aznkid1008
.dont u get it the french r a bunch of backstabbin bastards. if it wasnt for us they would still be germany...only time i would hav bet them winning a war is the French revolution.


which verifies that you don't know shit about the french or their history.

__________________
ni pour ni contre; ça m'est égal

"The weight of this sad time we must obey,/ Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say./ The oldest hath borne most; we that are young/ Shall never see so much, nor live so long."
King Lear (V.3.300-304)

Posted by Spartan on 04-27-2003 02:31 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by PsychoSnowman
They don't want to destroy a country, but why not help rebuild it?


Gee... freeing people from a tyrannical government, where people were constantly attacked and tortured and murdered. That's sure destroying it!

__________________
**rei ayanami is hot**

Posted by aznkid1008 on 04-27-2003 04:53 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Crazydeb8ter
which verifies that you don't know shit about the french or their history.

that was sarcasm wit WW2 and the rev chill
maybe i should but *sarcasm* from now on....
hey the french back in the day were a strong force i kno but just tryin 2 j/k

__________________
the fool is the one who thinks he is wise, yet the wise one is the one who thinks he is a fool

Remember the heros
Remember the lives
Remember the day
God bless

Posted by PsychoSnowman on 04-27-2003 07:32 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Spartan
Gee... freeing people from a tyrannical government, where people were constantly attacked and tortured and murdered. That's sure destroying it!


um..there'd be no need for rebuilding if we didn't "destroy" part of a country. It's unwise to ignore the effects of war and let the positive objective of it cloud over the mal effects. Whatever positive light you put war in, there's going to be something that's "destroyed." I don't see how you can possibly deny that on what seems to me on a basis of nothing more than feeble comparative advantage (i.e. well we freed them, and that's greater than destroying part of their country, so them being destroyed really just goes away because we freed them and that's so much better of a thing).

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Posted by Spartan on 04-28-2003 02:41 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by PsychoSnowman
um..there'd be no need for rebuilding if we didn't "destroy" part of a country. It's unwise to ignore the effects of war and let the positive objective of it cloud over the mal effects. Whatever positive light you put war in, there's going to be something that's "destroyed." I don't see how you can possibly deny that on what seems to me on a basis of nothing more than feeble comparative advantage (i.e. well we freed them, and that's greater than destroying part of their country, so them being destroyed really just goes away because we freed them and that's so much better of a thing).


So the French didn't want to get their hands dirty.. but are perfectly willing to look good in the international spot light.

__________________
**rei ayanami is hot**

Posted by PsychoSnowman on 04-28-2003 04:50 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Spartan
So the French didn't want to get their hands dirty.. but are perfectly willing to look good in the international spot light.


refer to my first post. I'm amazed you can't realize that "looking good in teh intl spot light" isn't the main cause of them doing this, it's just an effect. again, refer to my first post for more details which it doesn't seem like you've read.

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Posted by Alchemist on 04-28-2003 05:02 AM:

Re: F the French (gov)

quote:
Originally posted by Spartan
Why should the French have any part in rebuilding Iraq? Did they spend their hard money? Did they sacrifice their sons, daughters, fathers, mothers? Did they even support us at all? Now they want a good image by looking like they help the Iraqis. Fuckers.

I geuss the Iraqis could use any help they could get now. I'm still pissed at the French. Those goddamn cowards. Freedom's price is blood.


Hummel!!

Posted by Spartan on 04-29-2003 08:41 PM:

I'm sure the French intentions are pure. ha!

My point is that they didn't help them out of a tyrannical government.. we did. But now that they want to help because they want to look good too, because now the Americans look like liberators.

__________________
**rei ayanami is hot**

Posted by PsychoSnowman on 04-29-2003 10:24 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Spartan
because now the Americans look like liberators.


or imperialists.

I think you missed the point of my post yet again. I understand yours. It's not that they want to look good first and foremost, it's that they are doing this because they feel it is best form of action to take. They aren't nearly as concerned with the international spotlight as you make them out to be. That's blind....blinded by the spotlight you are.

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Posted by aznkid1008 on 04-30-2003 01:09 AM:

dude spartan everyone will take the action they think best. i agree wit u that france shouldnt hav a say. personally i think they shouldnt even be askin for a say since they havnt helped at all in this. they actually were against this and threatened 2 veto any plan of war against iraq. interestin how they want to hav some say in this now.....
well movin on on the world view of this iraq is NOT ours. we do not control it and nor should we. anyone that wants 2 help iraq should be able 2 or let the iraqis decide its now their nation and their freedom. as a strong powerful nation in the world we should police the actions though and make sure the iraqis get wat they want and need, not some scam by a nation for their oil.

__________________
the fool is the one who thinks he is wise, yet the wise one is the one who thinks he is a fool

Remember the heros
Remember the lives
Remember the day
God bless

Posted by Spuzzter on 04-30-2003 03:26 AM:

In my mind, France has been operating under the stand European mantle of 'balance of power' international poltics. Recent years have seen more of an equilibrium amongst world powers than the second half of the twentieth century. In that mindset, I see the future stage of international politics not as one of unilateral dominance or bi-lateral dominace, but instead a multilateral 'balance,' with major players being the United States, EU, Russia, Japan, China, and possibly the South Asian subcontinent (gotta show the love). As the world hopefully moves away from a dependence on oil, these countries with a more diversified economy will have an even larger share in the oligarchy to come.
That being said, we are still in the here and now. France wishes, as any country does, to distinguish itself. I don't find it surprising that any dissent would occur in any democracy, UN included. Unfortunately, when a country with the influence of the United States cannot pursue an agenda due to intrasigent opposition, unilateral action tends to follow. I love France, and am a great admirer of French culture. However, I don't find their actions to be entirely altruistic, unlike Germany's.

Don't be hating on the French, or the British who tried to contain the Nazis. If anything, they were more conscious of their inability to stand up against the Third Reich than anyone else. The United States made it clear time and time again that we would not distinguish between victim and aggressor in another European War. And what about De Gaulle and the rest of his administration? Did THEY give up and give out? Ah, but there's so much else.. learn a bit before you slam a people; I may not disrespect.

__________________
"Wave of mutilation."
-The Pixies

Posted by Spuzzter on 04-30-2003 03:39 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by aznkid1008

well movin on on the world view of this iraq is NOT ours. we do not control it and nor should we. anyone that wants 2 help iraq should be able 2 or let the iraqis decide its now their nation and their freedom. as a strong powerful nation in the world we should police the actions though and make sure the iraqis get wat they want and need, not some scam by a nation for their oil.


With that logic, a tyranny of the majority would very much be in order. There is no single, amalgamated Iraq. The idea of a nation-state democracy doesn't really fit in a region where different ethnic groups - often in conflict - exist. This is a country without a technocratic elite to run a government, nor an established democratic tradition. Given a free run of things, I hardly believe that a liberal democracy in which an adequate civil structure bolsters the losers in a contest for power will magically appear in Iraq. Should we therefore utilize the opportunity to create grand project of 'nation-building' to serve as a model for the rest of the volatile Middle East, or should we instead turn a blind eye and live and let live... like we did in Afghanistan.

I am perfectly aware that Western style Democracy is not universally applicable, and I don't think that any one power has the moral authority to arbitrarily implement it as such. However, I don't like to see the freedom of indivduals die in a country without rule of law.

__________________
"Wave of mutilation."
-The Pixies

Posted by aznkid1008 on 04-30-2003 10:10 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Spuzzter
With that logic, a tyranny of the majority would very much be in order.

wat do u think republicans and democrats r then in america.....the 2 major parties in america. in a democracy the majority rules. tyranny? i dont get wat ur sayin wit tyranny. of course the majority would be in order but can u explain where u get tyranny from or is that an assumption thats wat would happpen again.

__________________
the fool is the one who thinks he is wise, yet the wise one is the one who thinks he is a fool

Remember the heros
Remember the lives
Remember the day
God bless

Posted by Spuzzter on 05-04-2003 07:13 PM:

What's unique and endearing about Western-style democracy has, and always will be, an enduring civil structure that supports the losers in a contest for power. Checks and balances chums; the minority can still have an active and vocal voice in politics: Though American democracy is geared towards a two-party system, third parties that can capture a significant portion of the voting public can gather momentum for their agenda: Historical examples include the Republican party (operating on an anti-slavery platform in the mid 19th century..they used to be liberals), the Progressive Party, The Free Silver Party, and in modern times, the Green Party.

Today, even though the Republicans control both houses and the presidency, that does not mean that the future of the control will be moulded to the dictates of the right-wing. People know this, and that's why we don't have a mass emigration of leftist intellectuals and sympathizers.

Majority may rule, but how far should that statement be carried? For example, was the wholesale slaughter of the French aristocracy following the Revolution warranted, merely because the majority willed it? Or the condemnation of the Russian intelligentsia? Pol Pot?

Such is a tyranny of the majority, where the minority(ies) are unable to protect themselves from the majority. In other words, mob rule. While the majority may not be by any means monolithic in its whims and desires (such as the Shiites in Iraq today), those who take it upon themselves to represent the majority may decide otherwise, in the name of the majority. As such, a theological state may be established, even though many Shiites, from vendors to clerics, oppose it.

__________________
"Wave of mutilation."
-The Pixies
All times are GMT. The time now is 02:36 PM. Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Show all 21 posts from this thread on one page