muddysmind.com

Well, they don't gain my vote.
WE call the french cowards...well maybe they were.

But where was the US during the second world war?
We had blacks riding in the backs of buses because they were not considered equal to whites.

So some of these African Americans fight for this country which had treated them like *edit* up until then. They free the French from the Germans and guess what???

The French let them enter their restaurants, eating at the same places white french people eat, they look at them like heroes.

What happens to some of these heroes when they return home? They are killed because they are black.

The Nazis and the Japanese laughed at the Americans who preached so sincerely of democracy and equality and justice for all...because the rhetoric did not match the practice.

Japanese AMERICANS were placed in internment camps...what about all those German-Americans?
They had the right kind of looks thats why.

So before we start calling names and poiting fingers and acting as if we have a GOD-GIVEN right, choosing jew over muslim, we should examine our past.

And now we may do the same to Arab Americans..we already have by asking them to check in...as if all Arabs are terrorists!

What about the uni-bomber or Timoty McVeigh...
look at the majority of sex-offenders, pedophiles, the columbine incident? We try and blame the evils of the world on the "other" as Sartre would have called it because it is too frightening to realize that the evil is part of you. That it eats at your table and lives on your street.

There is only one group of terrorists that uses suicide bombing: Islamic Jihadists. Almost all Islamic Jihadists are Arab. Our last terrorist attack from from Islamic Jihadists. Makes more sense to look for them among Arabs.

Segregation was wrong. Internment of Japanese is wrong, looking for terrorists in general only among Arabs is wrong. But telling Arabs who are not citizens of this country to check-in and get finger printed...what's wrong about that? I want to know why we don't at least finger print every new immigrant when they enter the country!

We are mainly looking for Arabs, so it makes little sense to look for White people when the suspects are Arab. That's like getting a description of a murderer that was hispanic and only looking for asians!

We are being absolutley rascist towards Arabs...have them all fingerprinted? Not all Arabs are terrorists. That is like saying all Germans are Nazis..and no one thinks that. And why not look for white people...terrorits come in many shapes and colors and not all of them are from the middle east.
How many jokes about towel heads have I had to endure?
Its pathetic...and now french jokes.
It is no wonder this country and all the rest can't settle for diplomacy they are acting like
3rd graders.

Oh, you want diplomacy? Tell me, when has diplomacy worked in the middle east? It's a joke, that you can't laugh because of some horrible incedent in your child hood involving a joke isn't anyone else's fault.

I want you to go, read the original cease fire agreement from 1991 and the subsequent 17 UN resolutions and tell me who the burden of proof that he has no weapons is on? And tell me why we shouldn't enforce these resolutions? Tell me how our agreements and future UN resolutions won't be worthless if we do not enforce them?

For the record, I like most French people, Nico is probably the nicest Frenchman I've ever met. Normal people sometmes react to frustration by joking about it. If Americans are currently frustrated by the French leadership, what's wrong with us joking about it? There were jokes going around the world throughout the whole Clinton administration...

"Do you know it only took Germany three days to conquer France in World War II? And that's because it was raining," said John Xereas, manager of the DC Improv.

I support the fingerprinting of Arabs. It is not racist, it is common sense. Norwegians are not hijacking planes and flying them into buildings. Swedes are not fighting for the Taliban. Italians are not funneling money to Al-Quaeda. Spaniards are not training in terrorist camps under bin Laden. Irish are not fighting US soldiers in Afghanistan. ARABS ARE. I'd rather be practical than PC.

Germans were Nazis during the second world war...
Where were the German Internment camps then...

Why didn.t we have a backlash against midwestern hicks after the Oklahoma City bombings?

Yeah. Racism.
And the French jokes get old really fast...

I just realized something. Here everyone during this particular period of time talk about how WE did this, or THEY did that. For some reason we take credit for all the good things and deny responsiblity to the bad ones. At the same time we conveniently blame THEM for all the bad things, and overlooked their good things...or bad things, based on the timing.

Who are WE?
Who be THEM?

Well let me tell you. More than half of US who did all the GOOD things, and more than THEM who did the bad things, are PRETTY MUCH ALL DEAD.

Let's take in consideration folks, when judging our perceptions of the present, with a skewed history of the past, and a bastardizing of our true identities.

And once again, I want to add that any ideas that may be taken as offensive, or anti-AmerePecan are to be brought to my attention for debate. In fact, I don't even think I should actually type anti-American. Look, it's not there anymore.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it.

Anyhow. My grandfather, was in Germany. He had a bullet richoet off his helmet. He ran through a field at night, and ran through corner of a green house. He old moldy cheese.

Can these stories be elobrated to make for good listening? Can the be edited to make for more enjoyable telling? Who knows? But who cares?

Am I saying my grandfater is tougher than anyone who actually took a bullet in the past for the problem of some other time? No. My grandfather is just lucky he was wearing a helmet at that particular day, and just happen to stumble through several panes of glass, just the right way.

Folks, my grandfather has a tremendous amount of respect for ALL THE NATIONS OF EUROPE and HE CONTINUES to HAVE RESPECT FOR THE FIGHTING MEN AND WOMEN OF THIS COUNTRY. This respect is was built on actual events of the past. Not because of accomplishments grander, but on resilience and persistence through survival of a world war.

Now, am I saying that the years of when were better. Absolutely not. There was more open prejudice which has dissolved from the "allowable" state. (But this can be a whole nother topci.) There was more disease, harder work, less clean water, no public transporation, no internet, no Playstation, NO CSPAN, and no pron...no good pron at least.

There also was no MSNBC.GOV, FOX.EDU, YALE.FORSALE. Of course, I'm just playing. I could never get into one of those places, and I am not going to knock the rich. I just simply don't like to study.

(Damn. I'm babbling) Sorry Muddy.

Something that my family in the states have to remember, and this is this: A good chunk of the Samaritan ideals of the United States may die with our grandparents.

But my friends in the European Union. We are all the children and grand children of those who suffered, those who survived, and of those who prevail. Let us remember convictions of our grandparents, while living the acceptance of the people we truly are today.

Any how, later and peace out. Let's cross our fingers while the powers of the world have a pissing contest. Let us home that we don't succumb to the attacks from those of the world that hate us. And always encourage honesty from the ones who love us.

Amen brother. Salem alay cum (spelling?), Sa'laam (spelling/meaning?)

To my foreign neighbors. My simple apologies for not understanding your language. It could be of my laziness, but more likely it is my lack of affinity to beautiful peotry, great novels, and wishful prayers, all splashed with sounds and pronunciation that can be like music to the foreign ear and the trained mind.

But again, I just don't need to learn it, so I think it's more because I am lazy, or should I say, not chronologically situated to my best interests.

All right folks werd owt.

I forgot to add. I agree that people who use themselves as bombs to attack non military targets are *edit* up. And I take into consideration nothing of race, skin color, political or religious beliefs. I based that solely on the fact that you wear bombs on your back to kill unsuspecting people. I don't know them, nor was I there, so I cannot say who was innocent. But I will bet that most of the people who die in such events, are definately unsuspecting and primarily civilian.

If anything, not even being a miliary man, I would say that it is truly an inefficient and cowardice act. You don't beat the armies of those whom you believe are oppressing you by blowing up the people who are not directing doing the oppressing. When you attack the unsuspecting victim, your cause loses all logical meaning. You simply ended the life of someone who either didn't care, or was in no position to do any thing about it, in either direction.

I realize money can buy courage, and fanatacism can blind a cause. Let's just realize this and deal with it.

"We must be the change we wish to see." -Ghandi

Of course, I don't want my neighbors to die by the hands of someone who may hate our leaders and send others like us to kill us. So, I guess this is why I'm not in this business.

The only thing we could learn from the French is how they handled their leaders extramarital affairs. We drug our leader through the mud for everyone in the world to see. Mitterrand had his mistress and everyone knew about it, they just had the good taste not to talk about it. That's the only compliment possible, the arrogant cowards.

Someone said the French jokes get old fast. I disagree. They continue to be funny, and repeated, because of the French approach to matters on the global stage.

I'm not laughing about them because of the average people of French origin, I am laughing because decade in and decade out the French government is what it is.

I do not hate the French, I just hate hypocracy at a national level. The French have never been great leaders geo-politically and they have always treated Americans like dirt. They have thumbed their nose at us many times and yet we they needed us, we have always been there for them. de Galle was Jacque Chirac mentor and his idea of French glory was seated in Anti-American practices. Gallist policies is a practice in perpetual failure and Chirac better learn this or he will be the failure his mentor and his "personal friend" has been. And by the way, his "personal friend" is Saddam Hussein.

See:http://www.lexnotes.com/misc/jacques_iraq.htm

As a Frenchman, I would like to reply to some of your comments.

1) It took Germany 3 weeks - and not 3 days - to conquer 1/2 of France in 1939, while it took Japan a few hours to destroy the US Pacific armada in Pearl Harbor in 1942 : as far as horrors and sufferings of war are concerned, we should all remain humble...
1 million "coward" Frenchmen died during World War I, and hundreds of thousands "coward" resistants faced up to the German SS and Gestapo during 4 years until the Americans, British, Canadians and French - yes! - troops land in Normandy. I believe the French people learnt enough what war means...

2) The French have never been treating the Americans "like dirt" : we admire many aspects of the American civilization, and we perfectly know what we owe you, but this doesn't prevent us from saying what we think and criticizing the USA when we think they deserve it. I believe it's just the most valuable proof of respect. Ons shouldn't confuse "alliance" and "alienation", even by vertue of past sacrifices!
Conversely, I unfortunately observe that many Americans are treating France, the French people and the French civilization "like dirt", just because we dare not to be in accordance with the US government. Is it a capital sin not to agree with Bush ? This is all the more disappointing since it infers that many Americans are probably censoring themselves because they think that disagreeing with their government is an insult to their nation. On the contrary !

3) beyond France and the French, did you notice that most of the world (including the UK, Spain, Italsy and Eastern Europe) is opposed to the current American warmongering ? This is a totally new phenomenon in the human History!
Eventhough the so-called rest-of-the-world might be contemplated by the Great America as an unsignificant quantity, or even as a kind of barbarian suburbs of the USA, don't you think this situation is worth being questioned ?

4) As an attempt to incite the USA to reflect before going to war, let me give you some facts :
· with 5% of the world's population, the USA concentrate 1/3 of the wealth, which corresponds to the cumulated GNP of the 215 poorest countries who account for 2/3 of the population;
· New-York is almost as rich as China (1.3 billion inhabitants), Los Angeles is richer than India (1.0 billion inhabitants), and Chicago than Argentina;
· The USA military expenses (5 times higher than the world's 2nd military power, Russia) correspond to the GNP of Taiwan or Argentina, and exceed those of Switzerland, Sweden and Russia;
· In its great generosity, the American government grants 0.1% of its GNP to the third-world's development, representing 30 times less than its military budget.
Don't you believe, citizens of the USA, that this is the very ferment of hates, resentments, fanatisms roaring among the most vulnerable populations all over the globe ? Does the solution to this shame of humanity reside in a new war, a new foundation for inextinguishable rancour, a supplementary source of destabilization of a world at the brink of chaos?
Don't you see that mankind is being sacrificed on the altar of tough liberal-capitalism ?
The raising anti-americanism, although excessive, shouldn't be under-estimated by the USA : it has nothing to see anymore with a kind of fashion, with purely intellectual movements, but is a massive and durable phenomenon surrounding what is perceived as an opulent and arrogant citadel. And the American governement is inconsiderately stirring up hates by opposing the Western countries to the islamic countries in a so-called "crusade" against them!

5) Finally, let me tell you to what extent the current debate over Iraq is of such a dramatic importance. It is indeed the confrontation of 2 principles :
· the "preemption" principle, on behalf of which the USA intend to make war;
· the "precedent" principle, according to which any mighty country in the close or far future will become legitimate to invade any other country as soon as it considers it as a potential threat! In a century from now, the USA won't probably be the world's first power anymore : who then will be tempted to apply the preemption principle to take control over such and such disturbing country ?
Don't open the Pandora Box by creating a "precedent". It will blow at your face one day or another.

No ideal can justify violence, otherwise it just becomes fanatism and tyranny.
Nobody can avail himself of his good reasons to invade a country, otherwise many others will then try do so.
Democracy cannot be ordained. It's a people's intimate process. Just like love.

PS : this being said, I find French jokes quite funny!

Frogs&Snails I wanted to first off thank you for taking the time to participate in this discussion.
Second I'd like to make some points.
On point 1. the U.S. Pacific fleet was not destroyed. All aircraft carriers were untouched and many destroyers and some cruisers remained. The battleships to the brunt of the attack.

As I've stated in my articles the French resistance and most soldiers are as brave as most, however as I've also stated it's the French leadership that has been the military's downfall. (As the American Government let down it's soldiers in Vietnam).

On Point 2.
Oh come on man, give me a break.

We're NOT pissed at France for not agreeing with us. I would respect Chirac if that were the case.
The problem here is Chirac has been giving the world lip service saying he believes in peace and he thinks Saddam can be disarmed with inspectors.
That is all Crap, pure smelly crap.
Fact is France is Iraq's biggest trading partner. If the U.S. and our partners go into Iraq and remove Saddam and put in a Democracy who do you think they will be more friendly towards?? France who wanted to let them suffer for their own greed or the U.S. who liberated them??
That is why Chirac is opposed to removing Saddam, any other excuse is total rubbish.

On Point 3.
Bandwagon is what I call it, in fact a independent reporter went to several anti-war rallies around the world and you know what? The people there just wanted to jump on the bandwagon and scream and shout and have a good time. They were clueless as to what is really happening in the world. This reporter asked them if we don't remove saddam by force what should we do? You know what they said? "Just love him", "Leave them alone they never hurt anyone", and one clueless fool actually said that Saddam was peaceful and we were the warmongers!, hahahaha.

On point 4.
Russia is NOT the 2nd largest military power, if you actually went and looked at their planes, tanks and vehicles... their all rust buckets that could not take a shot from a 9mm hand gun let along military hardware.
Concerning us not giving any money out, we pay out so much money it's stupid. Give me a break man, the reason these 3rd world countries are 3rd world is largely due to two reason. 1 the fact their normally is some type of revolutionary war, and 2 because they were or are controlled by a colonialist regime.

Your suggesting that the anti-American sentiment is due to our so called liberal-capitalism is silly at best. When you have one guy on a street with a big nice house and lots of toys and one who has nothing do you think the guy that has nothing might be envious and resentful? Yea, they do and that is what is happening.

On point 5.
Oh please, let's all be adults here bro, it's about money, France's Money. It's about Saddam giving the world the middle finger. It's about the torture and raping of Iraqi women and the mind numbing torture of Iraqi children. It's NOT about our wanting to make war, no one in their right mind want's war. Sometimes it's all you have left.

Dear Muddy,

happy to read your answer.

Would you allow me to reply again to some of the points you've raised?
After my apparently irritating diplomatic standpoint, I will be as pragmatic as you.

You seem to believe that France and Chirac don't want to get rid of Saddam Hussein : this is a big mistake. The current disagreement between France and the USA is absolutely not on the objective, but on the means to reach it.
Never in the human History will you find an example of a democratic system being brought to a country from outside, like a birthday gift. Democracy is often a very long process, with deep cultural roots, and when it arises through a revolution, it has - by definition - to be lead by the concerned people. Killing thousands of persons on behalf of democracy is always a bad start that is paid one day or another (in France, the Terror period in 1792 after the 1789 Revolution finally gave place to an Emperor in 1804...).
As far as Iraq is concerned, here are a few examples of major difficulties the USA would / will encounter to put a democracy over there:
-the 30 million Kurd people split between Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq, who claim their independence, which doesn't please Turkey, nor Iran;
-the antagonism between the Shiite and the Sunnite religious movements, that could easily spread all around the Muslim countries;
-the unbearable impunity of Israel, implicitly supported by the USA in their occupation and colonization of Palestine, and their institutional bombings of innocent people;
-the moral obligation for the USA to invade subsequently the following non-democratic countries in the world : Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Kenya, Somalia, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Congo, Angola, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Vietnam (again), Cambodia, China (oops, big fish) and, of course, North Korea. You should be over with this Lesson of Democracy within a few centuries.
The world is not simple, and surely not as binary as good & evil, democracy & dictatorship, developed & wild, ally & enemy. if you don't take this complexity into account, you just contribute to radicalizing the world.
I advise you to travel outside your boundaries. You will understand that the center of the world is... everywhere.

If France is Iraq's biggest trading partner (which, by the way, is wrong), what about Saudi Arabia for instance? This marvelous country, where women are highly respected, where Christians feel much secure, a strong and long-lasting ally of the USA, one of its major oil suppliers, is also the very country which has been funding Al Qaeda! Hard case for the USA... And in fact, that's the reason why the US government decided to put the emphasis on Saddam Hussein: Bush wants to short-circuit and weaken Saudi Arabia without attacking it, by taking over the Iraqi oil. Is this kind of calculation what you call "putting a democracy"?
Just remember when a certain Ronald Rumsfeld signed a military cooperation agreement in 1983 with... Saddam Hussein himself, aimed at providing Iraq with chemical and biological arms, including anthrax, in order to defeat Iran.
At that times, for the same purpose of "democracy", Union Carbide, Dow Chemical, Honeywell and many other US companies made a lot of money with Iraq related to dirty mass-destruction arms which are now frightening - on good grounds! - Mr Rumsfeld himself and his colleagues.
At that times, Saddam Hussein seemed to be a nice and respectable interlocutor, although he already was a crazy dictator.
The so-called axis of evil - including Ossama bin Laden - has simply been generated by the US government and intelligence services strategic experimentations in the 1980's (Afghanistan vs USSR, Iraq vs Iran, Israel vs Palestine, etc.). And this brings the proof that the USA are definitely unable to anticipate and control the reactions and consequences of their more or less occult interventions in the Middle-East. Be it for money, for democracy, or to try to repair past mistakes. This is typically a "Frankenstein syndrome". My monster is out of control: let's create a bigger monster to kill him!
No, really, that's enough. Stop playing with countries like in a chess game. It's true blood.

Concerning what you call bandwagons, I suggest you to consider the declarations of the Arab League, the African Summit, the Non-Aligned Countries, but also various polls in European countries and huge demonstrations in... England and Australia. At the eve of a war, I think nobody can lie on his opinion.
If you grant no credit to people's opinion, if you believe that war is one of these serious topics that can only be addressed by few people at the top of the power, then you are ready for the United Soviets of America.

When you attribute the situation of the Third World to colonialist regimes, I fully agree with you. Nowadays, the most efficient colonial system is run by the USA! And what Bush wants to do in the Middle-East is precisely to implement a colonial regime, defined by a military presence, an economic domination and a cultural absorption. France, which used to be a colonial empire, like Great Britain, at least learnt this lesson.

As to the anti-Americanism and the liberal-capitalism, your answer is a typical illustration of my standpoint: getting richer and richer without caring of the consequences on the rest of the world is exactly the state of mind I’m blaming. Being envious of his neighbor’s house is something, but getting poorer or even dying because of him is something else.

So let’s go to the final point: making war to Iraq.
I will simply quote the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Dominique de Villepin, during the recent UN session. “Why should we go to war NOW, at the very moment inspections are progressing? Why should we destroy the efforts made to press Iraq to disarm peacefully? Who could tell what the shortest and less bloody way to democracy is between war and diplomacy?”
Disarming Iraq is all what the 1441 Resolution is intended to.
I will add one argument: preemptive war is a poison given to our children: they will live in a world permanently exposed to any kind of unilateral decision to make war, coming from Russia, China, or any future major military power. I don’t think democracy will be stronger thanks to that.

As you said, sometimes war is all what you have left.
Sometimes not.

Kind regards,

PS : Russa is still the world’s 2nd military power, 5 times smaller than the USA for sure, but much bigger than the UK (3rd) and France (4th).

Frogs&Snails, I'm about halfway through your last comments and I must say we're going to have to agree to disagree on some points. :-)
I can fully agree with you on the point that the American Government has a bad recent history of supporting the wrong people. Our problems are so many they outnumber the stars in the sky.

I'm not "pro-war" but I fully support our troops when they head into battle.

Your right that we've no idea what this will bring to future generations. Your also right that Saudi Arabia is just as evil. There are as you pointed out many countries that would benefit from a free society and form of Government.

Let me ask you this however, in resolution 1441 it says "13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of it's continued violations of it's obligations."

What does serious consequences mean to you?
Do you think that Iraq will actually disarm?
Do you think that Saddam is going to step down?

I do not want our troops to die, however Saddam has clearly NOT disarmed. Now the resolutions previous to this and 1441 say he MUST Disarm now.
They do not say, we'll send in inspectors to play hide and seek with you. I understand what you are saying, I'm saying the U.N. wrote this, not me.
Yet only half the U.N. is going to back this up.
I also understand that 1441 does not give a time frame, however I think 12 years is long enough, how much time do you think they need?

Also I'm wondering what the French definition of "inspectors" is? In English an inspector inspects they are not investigators.

What the U.N. should have sent to Iraq was Sherlock Holmes.

I do not write this to be disrespectful but to inform. I agree with you on many points, but this is about 1441, not America's bad foreign policies.

As far as putting in a new Government in Iraq, that's Bush's crazy idea's. 1441 says nothing about it. If the Iraqi people on large scale ask for help in getting rid of him that is something else completely different.

Regards,
Muddy

The fact is that a U.N war means 70% american 20% british and the rest well....moral support i guess. some give money, but all the real players are with us anyway.

Frist we ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY, we ARE A REPUBLIC
that is why we vote for Representatives....

Second this war will NOT be preemtive....Sadaam lost the Gulf war and agreed to the conditions under which he has been breaking for the past 12 years.

Boycott France bumper stickers and T-shirts at:

http://www.cafepress.com/obnoxious_bs

An old saying:

Raise your right hand if you like the French....
Raise both hands if you are French.

The poors look up at rich guy with all his toys... Then the rich guy goes bankrupt. And who's going to help him ?

I hope the USA won't need help from the rest of the world in the coming months, because they have a back track record.

I think the real question at stake with this Irak stuff, is not Irak or weapons of mass destruction or anything.
THe question is : who's the boss in here ?

Now the USA come in and say we've got big muscles and we can kill any of you and or have you die of hunger or go bankrupt... So if we say we do something everybody in line please.
At least this is the way the Bush administration is perceived.

French leader is saying : go ahead, do your bully stuff. We won't cover you. You want to prove you're the toughest, you'll just end up being alone.

And I say : if there is a war I bet anything with any of you that the US will go bankrupt, that the dollar will stop being the international trade currency and that the rich guy will start to realize that at one time it has to pay for everything he's bought on his credit card.

Believe me Irak, and everything is just a pretext. And the french say US go there for oil, and the US say french don't go there for oil ... AH AH AH

WHo's the boss ? You tell me.

French people want the UN to be a collective place where people discuss and come to terms. They want a democratic process same as what we have inside europe, better if possible.

USA don't want that because they don't want anything that can harm their interests.
This is what is at stake.

Question is not : how to replace Saddam. We don't care this lousy dictator with poor means.
Question is : how to tame Bush.
He's the dangerous guy, vetoing the kyoto process (u know global warming) the antimissile treaty, the treaty allowing poor countries to produce cheap treatments for diseases.

Sometimes I would like to be able to invade the US to create a democratic regime there, you democracy, power to the people, not to oil companies ... :-)

definetelyfrench: You are scary.

Saddam agreed to disarm. He hasn't. He completely snubs the idea!

Get over it, you are wrong. You've ignore history, and you're supporting a mad man! You sound like a child who has yet to read a history book. Specifically the section on World War II. Go read Winston Churchill's "The Gathering Storm" and see if you changed your thoughts.

???
"saddam agreed to disarm." I like the idea of agreement. He was asked to he said he would, he has not or not completely.
but so what. It still is not the point.
One can discuss wether there should be war or not. The point is Bush does not want to discuss anything. He says so the other should agree. ANd this is this boldness, this I know what s right and I'm the toughest so you follow that is creating all the trouble now.
THe false documents used by the british and false proofs advanced by Secretary of state have done a lot to harm the USA reputation in the UN.

Elliot, in response to your post on Feb. 21 about the french jokes; i have one question for you. What are you, French?

one more to definatelyfrench. you are a complete *edit*. think logicly here, saddam says he has no weapons, then agrees to destroy a few. where did they come from? he obviously had them to begin with. saddam says he has no nuclear program, the risk of that statement being a lie is too great to ignore. if saddam develops nuclear weapons, we won't have airplanes crashing into buildings, we'll have some whack job putting a nuke in a van and blasting an entire city. also, what about all the tortured people under saddam's regime? the people he starves and murders and uses as guinea pigs for biological weapons? what about them? and what about the rest of the free world? tyrannical dictators bent on destruction of the free world are not exactly the type we need running around with biological and chemical weapons, not to mention nukes. saddam has had twelve years to disarm, he had his chance for peace, that chance has passed. if we let france run the show the entire world will end up like france in WWII. i think you french have forgotten that you're free today because of America.

"saddam says he has no nuclear program, the risk of that statement being a lie is too great to ignore. "
Nope ... THe UN inspectors stated clearly that he has no nuclear program and that the US administration or english people lied to them and had them work uselessly on false information about pretended nuclear imports...
"if saddam develops nuclear weapons, we won't have airplanes crashing into buildings, we'll have some whack job putting a nuke in a van and blasting an entire city. "
Remember no links what soever has been made bet Irak and al quaida.

I agree Saddam is a dictator. All the dictators should be replaced. Why him, why now, why on decision of the US. Why not a conference of the free world to decide how and when to replace all the dictatorships in the world... except for the too dangerous ones like china and North K.

I don't see the point between the USA intervention in 1941 and Irak ... Do you mean France should keep quiet because of it 42 years later ? Sounds rather like dictatorship no ? Thought this was free world ... N e way. If you go on this way, I will thank the japanese for moving your butt cause you took your time to decide to intervene... But your president at the time was great. He created a lot, fought a recession ... He was courageous. This one seems like someone who desesperatly wants to do something to hide its stupidity ...
n e way.

It's fun to discuss...

Funnies part would be if some arab countries would oppose US intervention if the war is not backed by the UN...

I think sometimes it's good to realize that what is good is what has been voted good. Not ones opinion.

I hope a compromise will be found in the 2 coming days and if none, then I wish u good luck.

I’ve always thought that it was funny how France fortified its borders just before WWII. They put large artillery guns only on the borders they shared with Germany, and didn’t put them on turrets. The giant guns couldn’t move left or right. All they really did was force the Germans to go around them. I don’t think they minded too much. Of course, most of their army just went through northern countries and marched through France in a couple weeks. How’s that for French wisdom?

HA HA the joke is on the Americans...I love

seeing how are tax dollars are being spent in

changing "french" fries to "freedom" fries. That

to me is ludicrous.

So Does france equal FREEDOM...HA! guess so

Also, Bush wishes to Impose democracy on Iraq.

Yeah...let that sit with you for a bit...

Sounds a little oxymoronic to me. Democracy

starts from the bottom up, it looses being

its meaning once a government goes into another

country and institutes it.

Silly, silly americans.

dees sister is hot

definately french, al quada is not the only terrorist organization in the world. and there have been links found between iraq and terrorist organizations. and no, what is voted good is not always good. apparently the french voted not to do anything about the germans just before WWII. look what that got for them. and what's this crap about thanking the japs for moving our butts cause we took our time to intervene? are you actually complaining that we took too long to bail your butts out? how bout you defend your own freakin country you patsy. see the funny thing about history is it tends to repeat itself when people are too stupid to learn from it. we ignored the iraqi military buildup in the late 80s and look what happened. you ignored the german military buildup throughout the 30s and look what happened. the stakes are too high, if your country is too foolish to see that, that's your problem. i think the real problem, however, is your country is more interested in its economic ties with iraq than peace. and the only way for peace right now is war. that may be too complicated for you to understand, so i'll give you an example. saddam is the equivalent of an armed man waving his gun around in a crowd of people. would it be logical to object police involvement? once again i'd like to point out the fact that saddam has had twelve years to disarm, and recent production of a few weapons to destroy in a show for the UN proves that he has not. and he is NOT complying with UN demands in any way. if he wanted to comply with the UN he would bring all his bombs and bio/chemical weapons to an empty lot and destroy them on the spot, not dodge inspectors and give just enough to appease them for a little while longer. he is obviously buying time, time we can't afford to sell him.

no, dee's sister is not hot. she wears too much make-up and not enough clothes. and erika, you are a complete *edit*. how can a democracy start from the bottom when all who oppose the current government are KILLED. the only way to bring them democracy is to remove their dictatorial regime. what i suggest for you is to go and get yourself some intelligence. they hide that stuff in book.

the french fought next to the americans during the revolution...obviosly they are not griping and bitching about how we owe it to them blah blah blah...but baby bush is

Iraq: It's our own fault that Hussein is still in power. The elder Bush seriously *edit* up by not finishing the job back in 91 and we've been paying for it (literally and figuratively) ever since. The actions and tone of this administration have brought into question the credibility of any claims they make toward Iraq. Anyone outside of the administration will tell you North Korea is a much greater threat than Iraq. But not according to Bush and company. If we had any hard evidence on weapons violations we would have seen it by now. If we had any hard evidence that linked Hussein to Bin Laden we wouldn't even be talking about it because we would have already taken the *edit* out. There wouldn't have been any of this UN *edit*. We would have just done it. Bush has totally *edit* this up from the beginning. He as much admitted on national television ("he tried to kill my dad") this is a personal issue for him. Now he's putting 150,000 troops in harms way, globally ostracizing the US, and will most likely destabilize the entire region all to settle a personal score, but then again it's our own fault for sending a nearsighted simpleton and a Texas oil man to the white house.

France: Sure we had to bail their *edit* out on several occasions, but don't forget if it wasn't for the French it's quite probable we would still be British subjects and not Americans citizens.

We cannot claim that for ten years the United Nations remained "spineless" when for over 20 years American corporations have been selling biochemical weoponry to Iraq. And what exactly did Iraq do that was wrong...attack Kuweit? They had been attacking the Kurds a long time before but this was not a humanitarian enough cause for the US to intervene.

Yes, I think the United States should protect itself. But under the United Nations Charter, Article 51...the conditions listed have not been met. Either the Security Council must convene and agree that there indeed exists a threat or the defending nation must be attacked...an armed attack. That has yet to occur. Ossama bin Laden does not count...he is not even liked in Iraq.
An attack on Iraq without UN support would break international law...of course, who cares, America is not known to abide by these laws.

How can the UN get anything done when the United States considers it a "tool" manipulating and bribing member nations to wage wars of self-interest?
An official ranking of powers in 1989 and 1990 by Army Intelligence stated that Iraq was the fourth country in terms of military might. Yet, in reality the threat in terms of strength and actual danger was North Korea. Of course, we did nothing to a country that even Army Intelligence, 10 years ago and now, considered a danger. N. Korea has presently denied inspectors entrance to their country while Hussein seems to be complying with UN requests.

Hussein was even an "Ally" to the US whereas one can view North Korea as NEVER having been anything to the United States but an enemy.(I am not supporting an attack on N.Korea, merely expressing the mixed up reasoning that the US employs)

Obviously, North Korea lacks one thing: The keys towards leadership in the oil market...oil.
American interests are obviously economic as they have always been so why mask them in morality and an attempt to save the world from terrorism? PUBLIC SUPPORT, that is why.
In the three years the United States was in Korea, more men were lost than in Vietnam. No one wishes to relive that. Of course, Donald Rumsfield claimed that it would be possible to fight 2 wars at the same time...one in N.Korea and one in Iraq.Nevertheless, we are sure not find Rumsfield fighting for truths he so passionately believes in.

Of course, no administration since 1953 has forged war on N.Korea. Maybe because they lack that one vital ingredient that is so important to the present administration:oil.

10 years of sanctions imposed on Iraq has led to the death of 1 million Iraqis. Maybe one day we will see this as genocide. While republicans blame Clinton for doing nothing but imposing sanctions, Republicans are no less guilty. Dick Cheney was defense secretary during the Gulf War and followed the same gameplan as the democrats.

10 years ago Saddam was not beaten down...if you call that a beating? Our intersts have increased and thus the "beating".

Rumsfield never felt bad about the Iraqi use of chemical weopons against the Kurds, since they were no interest to them and America was making a profit selling them to Iraq. During the Gulf War, Iraq knew better than to use these types of weapons on the American troops.

After the invasion of Kuweit, the US changed its policy towards Iraq. Why? Its interests had been threatened.
Many other Arab countries had invaded their neighbors...examples, invasin of Golan Heights and Gaza strip, Turkey's invasion in 1974 of Cyprus, and the invasin of Sahara by Morrocco. There is NO legality to any of these occupations. The United States may act as the cop of the world, but only when it gets rewarded in donuts at the end of the day. All the above invasions promised no reward and so why bother.

The 1994 House Banking Committee hearings showed proof that American corporations during the 70's and 80's had sold Iraq biochemical weopons.The American Culture Type Co. sold a variety of deadly weapons to Iraq. Copanies like Eastman Kodat, Dupont, Honeywell and Hewlett Packard were also shown to have aided in providing the Iraquis with the tecnology to create many of the worlds most dangerous weopons.

So why are we on orange alert?
There is no need since if Iraq does have any weopons they would not be in working conditions...we're not speaking of a rich capitalist nation here with access to new technology. It would not benefit Iraq to attack the US or support terrorist groups. Iraq is not stupid and neither is the US who sees this as an opportunity to control the world market with regards to oil. Dick Cheney, was once CEO of Halliburton Oil Srvices which in the past has made deals with Iraq exceeding 73 million. But yeah...this isn't about oil.

Saddam may have started this ten years ago, but one fact is certain he did not start it alone.

Jay, the point is not a personal vendetta with Iraq, the point is the fact that Saddam is an immediate threat to the free world. And erika, nice attempt at intelligence, but making up bullcrap lies doesn't count. i quit reading your post when i got to America selling biological and chemical weapons to iraq. Oh yeah, i'll buy that one erika, along with some waterfront property in Florida and a katsup popsicle.

the discussion is getting hot and informed I like that..
dunno what to add...
I'm hoping France will propose a compromise an alternative resoluion that could get a majority of the votes...
"Saddam is an immediate threat to the free world." I don't believe this. And OK France will have to invest more in its military budget.

If you had the choice would you trade some months of delay against a global support ?
Don't understand why Bush does not want that.

Muddy:
America didnt do anything about Sadaam when he went in and killed thousands of Kurds.

When we bombed the *edit* out of Vietnam...you think we made sure "no civillians" were harmed...

And if you guys don't know about Iran-Contra...look it up. The hands of your mightly leaders werent as clean as you would expect.

You guys truly believe we dont sell chemical weopons. HA! We are the capitaliat giant of the world and you don't think yet that we would have control over all markets...even just our toes in the weopons industry...

Please skywalker

Like you actually care about some

foreigners...

don't give me that

Anyone as war happy as you will be glad

to see a million dead...

DID YOU KNOW...the majority of the male population

in Iraq id under 15 years of age? Look it up

if you don't believe me....which you don't.

definetelyfrench, it's called summer in the desert.
Think about wearing a bio suit in 100+ degree temps trying to fight. Think you might pass out from the fact your body can't breathe and if you body can't cool off then you will either pass out or die from heat exhaustion.
That is why we can't wait, we should have attacked last month.

yeah. That's a hell of a good point. Sorry saddam sorry world ... We have to attack it's the weather.

Where's the hurry ? If not this month ? Why not next year ?
Nos think if you can... what if you give 4 months to inspections... You get a world wide support because there seems to be weapons and Irak does not want to hand them over. And in september you can launch an attack with 15000 US troops and 150000 world wide troups (yes even french ones, but not many and poorly armed of course you'll put them in front) and you get countries to pay for your intervention.

But no.

so whY ?

Can you tell me why ?
Why march alone and not september together ?
(if saddam has not complied, which I do not believe)

I dunno definetelyfrench... hell it's been 12 years why not just wait till he dies... after all he'll only continue to kill, torture and rape his own people until he's removed. Why should the French care, it's not their people, screw the Iraqi innocents. I say we all give up war, destroy all weapons and go hand out peace flowers at airports.

You kill me man, do you think 12 years is long enough? I mean, if we had waited 12 years to get the Nazi's out of france the world would be a different place bro. In fact had the Nazi's had more time we might not have been able to get them out. I don't know if you have studied war or history but they had some intense weapons in the works had they had more time. In fact they were getting close to an Atomic bomb. I'm not here to cry about France owing us anything because it's a lost cause now. However my point being saddam has had over 12 years now to disarm, 17 UN resolutions and multiple inspections. Do you think he's going to disarm if we wait 6 more months? No, No and No.
He won't, I would assume your smarter than to believe the hype that the inspectors can disarm him. That's wishful thinking.

I don't want our boys or anyone at all to die, however there comes a time to do what's right.
I honestly don't think I'll ever understand France, your perfectly willing to go to the Ivory Coast and fight rebels and yet you won't let us go disarm Saddam.... that's bizarre.

Because it's already been 12 years and every day we wait, the more people who are going to die! Sides, your country isn't going to join us, they've made that pretty clear. If we waited until September, the situation would be exactly the same except that Saddam would be in a better position to defend Iraq and thus kill more of us and more civilians will die too.

In response to Skywalker's comment dated Feb 21st..."I want to know why we don't at least finger print every new immigrant when they enter the country!"

When's the last time you've done any research on immigration into the United States? I went through the immigration process to bring my husband to live and work in the U.S. (he's a Nordic European). For the record they -do- take everyone's fingerprints who are immigrating here. And a police background check from their home country to boot.

about these 12 years. My opinion is :
1 inspections should never had stopped. They were working good. Clinton seemed to need a diversion from his *edit* affairs ... so he launched the whatever their name attacks... desert fox.

2 Things would have been made easier if America had not spied on Irak through the UN (which is documented and gave saddam a pretext to oppose inspections) and if it had provided a way out of the embargo.
You disarm, you get the right to sell oil. But no.
So then suddenly Irak becomes a priority and everybody should approve... And Nothing is settled between kurds and turks but who cares, and nothing is settled between chiites and sunnites but who cares and unclear is who will pay for the mess...
Come on.

I say 4 months would be great to find allies and have a plan for post saddam, a plan that soul do sth about the kurds. At the same time this administration should push for an Israeli liberation of the occupied territory. Saddam would then have no legimity what so ever.

first of all, why would iraq care about the US letting them sell oil? the french have been trading with them all along. you know why? because the french are spineless cowards who base all their decisions on what is economicly best for them. and incase you're going to say america is greedier than france, no, my friend, we're not. think of the reasons we've gone to war. our freedom, to maintain our union, to protect our frontier, to save france's lame butt, to save france's lame butt, stop the spread of communism, stop the spread of communism, stop a tyrannical dictator, to snuff out terrorism, and now once again to stop a tyrannical dictator. go to http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html to see a history of french wars, they were nearly all fought for economic reasons. i gurantee you if iraq cut off economic ties with france france would be leading the charge. of course, they would all get taken prisoner and we'd have to go liberate them, but they french would be in it, that's for sure. you think bush is a war monger, you're lucky i'm not president. fi i were president i'd send the statue of liberty back loaded with nukes and send france back to hell. but that's just me.

First of all...even if Iraq is trading with France they are not as stupid as Ney in the Whitehouse who recently changed the name of french fries.

This is to show my deep disregard for any action that Senator Ney's ever makes in the future. The senator is a moron....for changing the name of french fries to "freedom fries".

1. French fries have no ties to the country France. To "french" something, with regards to the culinary arts, is to thinly slice it before frying. Now, please explain to me how this cooking procedure is associated with France. Could not the senator have taken some time to RESEARCH this topic...I am sure that he had a computer with internet access available to him.
Well, I hope next time he changes something he looks it up.

2. Even IF French fries had anything to do with France who cares? Grow up. I am assuming a college education and a political career have done much more than teach one how to name call, and do a mediocre job at that!

I am sick and disgusted to have this senate, this ceo acting as representative of what this country is supposed to be. With regards to OLD Europe, at least OLD Europe is past its adolescent stage.

Joe, I understand you frustration. However you'll win nobody over with a speech like that. :-(

Actually it was changed to honor the vets and Brave troops over there now. They all feel let down by france so Bob Ney of Ohio (yea!) ordered up some Freedom Fries to let our men and women know we're behind them.

``It's a symbolic gesture,'' said Ney, the House Administration Committee leader, who is of French descent and speaks French fluently. ``Not to slap the French around, but people are not hot on the French government right now. This is just to send a message to the troops to say that here in the Capitol, we are not happy.''

Oh and BTW Erika, just to correct your typical mis-information... Bob Ney is a Congressman not a Senator. :-)

Man those anti-war protestors are morons for exercising their right to assembly and free speech. Their college educations, trust funds and non-careers have obviously not taught them much more than how to name call.

Even if they have a legal right to do that, who cares, they aren't changing anything with their opinions. Maybe they should grow up.

*cough* satire *cough*

Mr French, Please, for the love of God, spell Iraq correctly! I can excuse not spelling definitely correctly, that's a common mistake actually, but Iraq?!

Iraq is spelled Irak in french. the sound is the same in english so it's hard for me to think of changing the letter. This for skywalker sorry if it shocks u.

LOL, I told him it's prob spelled that way in French.

Sorry Mr French, I did not realize that you spell the country's name differently in French. My apologies. However, I see your corrected your name. :-) *applause*

Makes me curious as to how they spell it in Arabic. ;-)

why should he spell iraq correctly if the preseident of the US can.t?

COngressman, senator....sorry.

But look up the fries..its true.

I guess the time for debate is over. By the way, Foxnews.com ran a story a few days ago that really made me laugh. Seems that the plan for post-Saddam Iraq is being laid out by the US Army Corps of Engineers and they are soliciting bids from American companies to aid in post-war reconstruction. Well, it seems that a number of French and German companies are rather miffed about how they've been left out of negotiations... it's there somewhere.

Anyways, regardless of how anyone looks at the issue -- war is upon us.

yeah it's pretty unfair.

No, frenchy, it's not too bad. What would be too bad is if we left Saddam to continue murdering the Iraqi people and developing ways to kill hundreds of thousands of people in a short time. It's also too bad that you lack the intellect and perception required to see the threat Saddam poses. People think we're going to war because we like war; well that's a pile of bull crap. Nobody likes war. War sucks, lives are lost, nations are destroyed, money is wasted, however more lives would be lost, more nations destroyed, and more money wasted if we left Saddam Hussein to his own devices. I truly don't understand how you can be so foolish as to think that we should leave saddam alone. He's not a honeybee, this isn't a 'don't bother him and he won't bother us' situation, it's a 'he's devising ways to destroy the free world' situation, and we have to stop him. That's the bottom line. And Erika, yeah, so he called them freedom fries. whoop de freakin doo, it was to lift the spirits of the troops, not to piss france off. well, i have to go eat some freedom fries then make some freedom toast and give my girlfriend a freedom kiss, later.

Joe your other post prior to your latest said something like this:

" because the french are spineless cowards who base all their decisions on what is economicly best for them. "

Well, newsbreak here for you..The Americans do what is economically best for them to, within their borders as well as outside of them.

Of course, we moved our Native population around so much and gave them land that is incapable of being farmed. Well, do you think we are in Iraq for the sole purpose of our security? Of course not be a bit more realistsic. It is NOT all about oil, but when the price of we pay for barrels of petrol gets ready to plummett, who will remember our semi-bad economy? No one because the economy will go up.

"whoop de freakin doo, " that is nice ...How did it boost mora. Last time I checked soldiers werent glued to the latst news via radio. Their too busy doing their jobs.

Period. The Freedom crap was a way to undermine France.Although I am sure the French are glad their name is not soiled with the crappy American food now... bye, gotta go dink some FRENCH wine since that Napa valley stuff is poo

Yeah they had a great special on the rest of your people in Middletown, CA...the BBC did a special on it and that's part of Bush's 62%.
You JOe should check it out. Take a break from all that corporate news, you know you watch one channel you.ve seen it all.

They actually use complex sentence structure on the BBC.

Speaking of the news... there really is no one source that reports the news without their own twist.. whether liberal or conservative.

Choose your own poison.I wonder is they will allow flights into Iraq after the war?
That would make for a good documentary...hmmmm
sounds like a honeymoon plan.

because the french are spineless cowards who base all their decisions on what is economicly best for them. and incase you're going to say america is greedier than france, no, my friend, we're not. think of the reasons we've gone to war. our freedom, to maintain our union, to protect our frontier, to save france's lame butt, to save france's lame butt, stop the spread of communism, stop the spread of communism, stop a tyrannical dictator, to snuff out terrorism, and now once again to stop a tyrannical dictator. go to http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html

should I answer that ? Is this civil or intelligent ?
Poor joe.

You'll tell me what good we had out of the 4 years of WWI ...
I spoke too fast ... seems there is some trouble starting to happen in the fights in Irak...
Some soldiers killed... Some supply under attack...

I Hope you'll do well.

And I hope you'll hand over to the UNO as quickly as possible.

Alright Les, for starters your posts make no sense. Somehow i thinkg that if the BBC does use complex sentances, you wouldn't be able to understand any of it. And honestly your saying that America is at war for oil holds no water. If we were that worried about oil we'd rape alaksa before we went to war, we aren't the french. And definatelyfrench, the french were in WWI because THEY GOT INVADED, NOT BY THEIR DECISION. and if we look at history, they apparently realized that fighting back doesn't do them any good because they still need the americans to win, so they just gave up when WWII came around. and no, poor you, frenchy. you see, i'm an american and you're a frenchy, so it's quite obvious that you are the unfortunate one.

French: civil and intelligent is muddy's nice way of saying don't cuss, and don't take the insults to far - for instance calling an author a member of the kkk.

"if the BBC does use complex sentences..."

So you are not sure? You do not watch/listen the BBC? Before you make an assertion that is based on loose foundations why not do some research and watch the BBC for a bit.

Joe, I am sorry you are a moron. Sorry muddy. But if you are just you will note the direct attack on my person by Joe and I just have to defend myself. That is an American concept is it not?

And Joe, it is a matter of where you are at in geographical terms.
Since we live in a country where we do not import the most of our goods, in comparison to Great Britain and the rest of Europe...also look at the size of America in relation to Europe.

We have the CAPACITY to fight war. WE HAVE THE RESOURCES. Did you ever think of that? Thank your GOD that your people stole the land from the Indians and you have such a country to live in.

I wouldn't be able to use complex sentences?

I find that quite humorous and do not feel I have to prove anything to you. But before you blame France For god knows what, think that your country has the physical means to go to war, the man power, since we have a greater population in comparison to Europe. It is not that we are "braver" compared to the French.

And I would much rather be from a country that has magnificent arts, a great history a culture in comparison to the United States where we live in a society of under achievers. The brilliance that was America is gone. Where is the ingenuity that America was once renown for? It is dead.

And definatelyfrench, the french were in WWI because THEY GOT INVADED, NOT BY THEIR DECISION.

False. The story goes like this. Austria invades serbia. France and Russia declare war to austria. Germany then to both of these (thay had an alliance) Great britain comes up because of the alliance + Belgium neutral country.

and if we look at history, they apparently realized that fighting back doesn't do them any good because they still need the americans to win,

poor guy.
Who say we NEEDED you in WWI. How can you know what would have happened ?
In fact it was great that you came because Russia just had resigned (communist revolution at the time, remember)

so they just gave up when WWII came around.

Did not just gave up.
They fought. Badly. Lost. And then some stupid right wingers of your kind thought well better hitler than the commies it's all the socialist falts, let's surrender and we'll be able to take power out of the evil socialist and jewish people.
and no, poor you, frenchy. you see, i'm an american and you're a frenchy, so it's quite obvious that you are the unfortunate one.

I would say the opposite. French people have great culture, food, beautiful things, nice movie industry, plenty of vacation, social security and retirement... you have TV fat people everywhere, chips and chewing gum, stupid series and movies Fox TV, bush (we have chirac though) Jr and Sr... no vacation no security no real right to strike less than 45% people voting, presidential elections made by business and TV ads, level of political education zilch, Enron retirement plans, highest level of crime of civilised world, debts, skywalker and you ...
And i forget god on your bills (what a joke) creationists, political correctness, common law (far inferior to roman law), no right to abortion or abortion pill...

So please keep your country. I want none of it. I just spit on its right wing christian deugma and the lack of reaction of your TV addicted citizens.
Get poor. Get a revolution.

French: You're gone.

I know.
But soon you'll go. And learn.

Many when you go and see death face to face and how some of youwill never be fathers will never be mothers, will never return, you will change your mind.

Erika,
can you PLEASE get over the "french fries"
issue?

rika it isnt just fries?

It goes much deeper than that.

Did the NAZIS actually FINGERPRINT innocent people??
That is the question.

Viva Brazil

there are not as many jokes on french people these days!!

support US troups (to come back home alive)

acually they should have named it french coward fries.

no really, who the heck cares about the fries. last time i checked, people still call them french fries.

ya the french helped in the revolution, only because the US was fighting against the english, not because of sheer kindness.(due to prior azzkicking on the french by the british)

Man would i have liked to be an American soldier after the liberation of france. Meet all the french women that i can. Those french women were practically throwing themselves on the American soldiers. Man parties, get togethers, festivals, finshed with one event and go another ho.

hmm.. with all them American soldiers partying with all those french women...some of you french people may have some American blood running thru yer veins...definitilyfrench. hahahhaeheh

Ah, O_o your a fine American, please don't procreate. I'm surprised by your comments considering your in southern California. I thought your part of the state was rife with liberals, socialists, and general America haters.

"I'm surprised by your comments considering your in southern California. I thought your part of the state was rife with liberals, socialists, and general America haters."

Actually, muddy...*I* thought that was just in Hollyweird. Besides baby, I'm sure not ALL of Californian's are like that. Look at Kevin.

I hope people like O_o do procreate...in fact i'm sure they try often! :-)

But seriously, having been to california...most of california isn't as liberal as Hollyweird and Sanfransissie and Sacramento. For some reason though, Liberals love to congregate in large cities - take Atlanta for example. Our city council is so ridden with corruption and liberals that it isn't even fair. City council races in ATlanta are BASICALLY decided int he democratic primary.

One year later. Still at it.
But if you look back... Then what. No WMD, just as foretold.
Huge costs for the US and a big mess within Iraq. Just as foretold.

Rather more terrorists post invasion than before .... And USA now hated in most parts of the world ...

Meanwhile democracy is still to build.

Talk about a success...

But then of course, it may turn right.
Many people want democracy.
The only problem being, once they have it, they ask for ownership of their natural ressources, control of capital flows, taxation of profits and different stuff not precisely in line with what this administration has enforced in Iraq ...

If the world were to be one big democracy, it'll be pretty sure those rich americans (and europeans) would be taxed to support services to the poor countries...
That's why all this democratic talk sounds false.