Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

simonjames · Mar 15, 2003, 05:12 PM

There is so much hatred on this board from Americans directed towards the French. I assume this anger comes from pro-war types who want to seek revenge on France for veto-ing the invasion of Iraq.

So why not Germany? Why not Russia? They too have said they will veto the final resolution.

The same people posting this hatred have also stated that the US doesn't need to have UN backing to be ' the policemen of the planet' (or some such rubbish) so if you don't care for what the UN says why are you so against the French?

euphras · Mar 15, 2003, 05:17 PM

First: Germany has no veto right.

Second: Why another thread on this crap?

Mastrap · Mar 15, 2003, 05:18 PM

A mixture of xenophobia, ignorance and national stereotyping that borders on the racist.

While the Germans are frequently given some obscure credit for having had military might during their recent history the French are belittled for having been at the receiving end of that war machine. Add to that idiotic prejudices about personal hygiene and eating habits from people who think that pasteurised cheddar and yellow mustard qualify as food and there you have your answer.

simonjames · Mar 15, 2003, 05:20 PM

Why another thread? Because I am sick of reading anti-French crud from Americans who can't see outside of their country. Thats why.

Adam Betts · Mar 15, 2003, 05:24 PM

We saved France's a$$ lot of time so normally we expected them to pay us back by helping US out.

S Monkey · Mar 15, 2003, 05:24 PM

I'm surprised too. I really thought we were irrelevant (no irony here). And suddenly our opinion matters.

NormPhillips · Mar 15, 2003, 05:48 PM

I think it's more than just France having the right to veto which is making Americans pissed. Chirac's government threatened some eastern European nations from being able to join the European Union if they supported the United States, Great Britain, and Spain.

S Monkey · Mar 15, 2003, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by NormPhillips:
I think it's more than just France having the right to veto which is making Americans pissed. Chirac's government threatened some eastern European nations from being able to join the European Union if they supported the United States, Great Britain, and Spain.

That would be a good reason. Most french thought it was a stupid comment.

snotnose · Mar 15, 2003, 05:59 PM

i have had it!!! i am boycotting everything french! except for french women! hehehe

pooka · Mar 15, 2003, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by S Monkey:
I'm surprised too. I really thought we were irrelevant (no irony here). And suddenly our opinion matters.

Honestly, to most Americans the French are irrelevant. We simply don't care about France, Germany, China, Russia, Poland, Britain, etc. Hell, most Americans don't care about their next door neighbors. We're too busy being pissed over who ate all of our Frosted Flakes (they're Grrrrreat!). Or who's dog keeps shitting in our yard. We don't like being bothered much and try our best to keep to ourselves. Hell, the only way you can get us to elect our "leaders" is to play it up like it's some huge game with two teams fighting for some national championship. And even then most only vote because they have money riding on the results.

As for the hatred expressed on this board...

Well, you're on a board for people who spend waaaaay too much money on chunks of translucent plastic. I'd say they're pretty bitter from the get-go.

S Monkey · Mar 15, 2003, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by snotnose:
i have had it!!! i am boycotting everything french! except for french women! hehehe

Be careful, these girls like designer clothes and champagne. You will end up buying more french products than before.

snotnose · Mar 15, 2003, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by S Monkey:
Be careful, these girls like designer clothes and champagne. You will end up buying more french products than before.

hehehe too funny! good stuff. didn't think about it like that. well do me a favor, send me over the french chick that starred in The Beach. i will call a complete truce if you can pull that one off!!!

khufuu · Mar 15, 2003, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by snotnose:
i have had it!!! i am boycotting everything french! except for french women! hehehe

No more French Fries for you!

You could still have French Toast though as it's not really French at all. You might want to avoid it anyway though...just in principle.

S Monkey · Mar 15, 2003, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by snotnose:
hehehe too funny! good stuff. didn't think about it like that. well do me a favor, send me over the french chick that starred in The Beach. i will call a complete truce if you can pull that one off!!!

I think we've found the ultimate anti-boycott argument : Virgine Ledoyen !

snotnose · Mar 15, 2003, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by S Monkey:
I think we've found the ultimate anti-boycott argument : Virgine Ledoyen !

is that the girls name? i know nothing of french talk at all

S Monkey · Mar 15, 2003, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by snotnose:
is that the girls name? i know nothing of french talk at all

Yes. But I typed too fast. it's Virginie, not Virgine.

S Monkey · Mar 15, 2003, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by khufuu:
No more French Fries for you!

You could still have French Toast though as it's not really French at all. You might want to avoid it anyway though...just in principle.

I think French Fries are from Belgium.

snotnose · Mar 17, 2003, 12:54 PM

belgium fries has a certain blah to it

macvillage.net · Mar 17, 2003, 01:30 PM

The reason why the French take the heat is simple... They never viewed Hitler as a problem until Hitler occupied there land... even then not everyone was convinced.

France historically took a neutral stance during various encounters with Communism including the Cuban Missle Crisis.

Nothing has ever been considered a threat to France. France has never learned from history.

Between WWI and WWII... The germans, while prohibited from a military developed planes, and tanks... The french dug a trench...

The Germans flew over the trench... and drove around in tanks.

French = Unable to take advantage of historical lessons.

dillerX · Mar 17, 2003, 01:35 PM

Aria Giovanni. Definetly NOT French!

spacefreak · Mar 17, 2003, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by simonjames:
There is so much hatred on this board from Americans directed towards the French. I assume this anger comes from pro-war types who want to seek revenge on France for veto-ing the invasion of Iraq.

It's not the opposing views of the French that disturb Americans.

It has more to do with the fact that France, as an 'ally', could have been expected to voice its doubts about American policy, then graciously step back and abstain in a Security Council vote. But France has chosen to undermine the United States. Rather than increase pressure on Saddam to disarm, French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin focused last Friday on refuting every American claim about the threat posed by Iraq. Then he hop-scotched across west Africa to seek the votes of Angola, Cameroon, and Guinea against the American-British deadline for Iraqi disarmament.

France's active, global anti-American campaigning is the primary reason for this resentment.

snotnose · Mar 17, 2003, 01:46 PM

the french should thank us that all their childen aren't speaking german right now

Troll · Mar 17, 2003, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by snotnose:
the french should thank us that all their childen aren't speaking german right now

And you should thank the French that you aren't speaking British right now!

benb · Mar 17, 2003, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Troll:
And you should thank the French that you aren't speaking British right now!

Peter · Mar 17, 2003, 03:01 PM

Ameria dislike the French becuase didn't Germany & Russia say they would go along with US if France went with the US. Or somthing weird like that.
<LAME JOKE>
Whats the difference between Toast and the French

You can make soldiers out of toast.
</LAME JOKE>
Ummm yeah

Troll · Mar 17, 2003, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It's not the opposing views of the French that disturb Americans.

It has more to do with the fact that France, as an 'ally', could have been expected to voice its doubts about American policy, then graciously step back and abstain in a Security Council vote. But France has chosen to undermine the United States. Rather than increase pressure on Saddam to disarm, French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin focused last Friday on refuting every American claim about the threat posed by Iraq. Then he hop-scotched across west Africa to seek the votes of Angola, Cameroon, and Guinea against the American-British deadline for Iraqi disarmament.

France's active, global anti-American campaigning is the primary reason for this resentment.

First point is that this isn't a description that applies exclusively to France. Most of the countries on this planet have criticised American policy on Iraq and a lot of them have campaigned actively against the US policy. Most countries don't see a reason to invade Iraq at this point.

Second point, being an ally doesn't mean doing whatever the other wants you to do. Does the US, as France's ally, do what France wants it to do? I don't think so. When you impose steel tariffs or refuse to sign treaties on the environment and other things that are contrary to the French interest, do French people lash out in the racist, xenophobic way the Americans are now?

The French are not undermining efforts to put pressure on Saddam. They're undermining efforts to ATTACK Saddam. The French voted in favour of 1441 because it put pressure on Saddam and they said they were in favour of the presence of troops because of the pressure they put on Saddam. They threatened to veto a resolution authorising force before the weapons inspectors had said that they had failed in their mission.

As for de Villepin rebutting the US claims, that is what democracy is all about! The Bush administration hasn't made their case to the international community. They haven't given us any justification for a war. They have presented dodgy evidence (now there is even and FBI investigation into forgery) that failed to persuade anyone least of all the experts on the ground that there was any MATERIAL breach of Resolution 1441. Blix called the US intelligence lies in the nicest possible way. Blix also said that the weapons inspectors have got a lot done in Iraq since 1441 and they would be able to do a lot more if given the chance.

Here are some reasons I think the focus is on France. First, the French have a reputation for being different. By focussing on France, the administration is trying to persuade the American public that the objection from the rest of the world to its policies is nothing more than a few strange Frenchies throwing their toys. Instead of admitting that most of the rest of the world is against them, they are reducing the opposition to one country.

Second, Chirac is trying to gain political support from this. He could easily have said, "It's not just us," but he chose to allow the American media to focus on France because if the war doesn't happen, France will take all of the credit on its own.

voodoo · Mar 17, 2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by benb:

Awww.. the litle guy doesn't get it. How embarrassing.

macvillage.net · Mar 17, 2003, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by dillerX:
Aria Giovanni. Definetly NOT French!

or sleeping with me

BlackGriffen · Mar 17, 2003, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by voodoo:
Awww.. the litle guy doesn't get it. How embarrassing.

Indeed, Washington and Lafayette would be ashamed.

BG

Anomalous · Mar 17, 2003, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by benb:

I believe he is referring to the support that the colonists received from the French during the Revolutionary War.

OAW · Mar 17, 2003, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It's not the opposing views of the French that disturb Americans.

It has more to do with the fact that France, as an 'ally', could have been expected to voice its doubts about American policy, then graciously step back and abstain in a Security Council vote. But France has chosen to undermine the United States. Rather than increase pressure on Saddam to disarm, French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin focused last Friday on refuting every American claim about the threat posed by Iraq. Then he hop-scotched across west Africa to seek the votes of Angola, Cameroon, and Guinea against the American-British deadline for Iraqi disarmament.

France's active, global anti-American campaigning is the primary reason for this resentment.

So in other words the fact that France is a permanent, veto wielding member of the Security Council is just "window dressing". They should, as The Rock would say "Know their role!" and simply be a yes man for the US position on everything?

OAW

talisker · Mar 17, 2003, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by snotnose:
the french should thank us that all their childen aren't speaking german right now

Why? What the hell did you do? By all means be grateful to the soldiers of many different nationalities (including, eventually, the USA) who fought the Germans in WW2, but why exactly should they thank present day America? How dare you sit on your smug little arse and think that in some way you helped liberate France just because you are American.

finalfantasy · Mar 17, 2003, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by talisker:
Why? What the hell did you do? By all means be grateful to the soldiers of many different nationalities (including, eventually, the USA) who fought the Germans in WW2, but why exactly should they thank present day America? How dare you sit on your smug little arse and think that in some way you helped liberate France just because you are American.

so the french should not recognize the fact that america is the reason that they are still "France".

I mean the French are being complete idiots. They even sold Iraq materials for enriching Uranium.

talisker · Mar 17, 2003, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by finalfantasy:
so the french should not recognize the fact that america is the reason that they are still "France".

I'm sure they recognise that America is ONE of the reasons that they are still France. That doesnt mean that they are in any way in debt to modern day America.

OAW · Mar 17, 2003, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by finalfantasy:
so the french should not recognize the fact that america is the reason that they are still "France".

I mean the French are being complete idiots. They even sold Iraq materials for enriching Uranium.

And the US sold Iraq chemical and biological weapons. And not only did they not give a sh*t when they used them on Iranians ... they also encouraged it by supplying Iraq with satellite photos of the Iranian troop positions.

So please. If the French are being complete idiots ... then they have plenty of company with the US.

OAW

daimoni · 10:57 AM

.

shmerek · Mar 17, 2003, 09:42 PM

What a bunch of crap. The french don't owe you ****. STFU ! Oh the french don't agree with us BOO HOO what a bunch of babies I am hoping that this thread isn't representative of what most americans think ... pathetic

MacOSR · Mar 17, 2003, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by simonjames:
There is so much hatred on this board from Americans directed towards the French. I assume this anger comes from pro-war types who want to seek revenge on France for veto-ing the invasion of Iraq.

So why not Germany? Why not Russia? They too have said they will veto the final resolution.

The same people posting this hatred have also stated that the US doesn't need to have UN backing to be ' the policemen of the planet' (or some such rubbish) so if you don't care for what the UN says why are you so against the French?

The US and GB have actually been trying to give validity to the UN. France has single-handedly undermined the worth of the UN.

France stated that they would support no resolution that had any consequence of force no matter what the time frame is. Then why in the world should Sedam even listen to the UN? He cares so little for his people that over 10 years of sanctions ment nouthing to him.

The reason the US did not push for a new resolution is for the sake of the UN...not the US. If the US pushed for the vote and France did vote agains the resolution then the UN would be on record saying that it is not willing to put actions behind its words.

As far as the argument of giving Sedam more time...more time for what? He has had years to disarm!

voodoo · Mar 17, 2003, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by MacOSR:
The US and GB have actually been trying to give validity to the UN. France has single-handedly undermined the worth of the UN.

France stated that they would support no resolution that had any consequence of force no matter what the time frame is. Then why in the world should Sedam even listen to the UN? He cares so little for his people that over 10 years of sanctions ment nouthing to him.

The reason the US did not push for a new resolution is for the sake of the UN...not the US. If the US pushed for the vote and France did vote agains the resolution then the UN would be on record saying that it is not willing to put actions behind its words.

As far as the argument of giving Sedam more time...more time for what? He has had years to disarm!

It's <Saddam> you ignorant hick.

BlackGriffen · Mar 17, 2003, 10:01 PM

The U.N. has always been a paper tiger. A thinly veiled mask to give the permanent members of the security council the illusion that they speak for the whole world. Give me a real international governing body, one that has real autonomy, the ability to pass binding laws, a court, and teath. Start with a core group of advanced nations (European nations [most of them], Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Russia, and maybe the U.S., we have to wait and see how the next dozen or so years play out). Make it so that the member nations have only limited autonomy... This is sounding a lot like the EU. I'm imagining something with more muscle, though, and I've been imagining such a thing globally for a long time. I'm just morea realistic about the implementation now. I would also have to insist that the law making body be elected by the people, not appointed by the member governments.

Oh well, I doubt it will happen any time soon, the leaders of nations would much rather rule their petty states than give up any power.

I seem to be getting more cynical as I get older.

I remember when I actually believed that the process would be as simple as the migration between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.

BlackGriffen

Edit: clarity

tintub · Mar 17, 2003, 10:01 PM

I would like to suggest a boycott of Australian products as well, as the majority of Australians are against this war.

voodoo · Mar 17, 2003, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by tintub:
I would like to suggest a boycott of Australian products as well, as the majority of Australians are against this war.

You have products?

(j/k, I swear by Lindemans)

Michel Fortin · Mar 17, 2003, 10:35 PM

And don't forget to put your vote on this pool from TIME Europe:
http://www.time.com/time/europe/gdml/peace2003.html

MacOSR · Mar 18, 2003, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by voodoo:
It's <Saddam> you ignorant hick.

Stop taking your medication

Powerbook · Mar 18, 2003, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
The reason why the French take the heat is simple... They never viewed Hitler as a problem until Hitler occupied there land... even then not everyone was convinced.

France historically took a neutral stance during various encounters with Communism including the Cuban Missle Crisis.

Nothing has ever been considered a threat to France. France has never learned from history.

Between WWI and WWII... The germans, while prohibited from a military developed planes, and tanks... The french dug a trench...

The Germans flew over the trench... and drove around in tanks.

French = Unable to take advantage of historical lessons.

Yeah, us Germans are so keeeeewl. Don't know how it could happen our country is just half the size it was?!
And for these fschking "Surrender" jokes - have no fear having to defend the French again - they built enough nukes to burn the whole planet.

PB.

Troll · Mar 18, 2003, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by MacOSR:
France stated that they would support no resolution that had any consequence of force no matter what the time frame is.

It would be nice if you processed some of the propaganda you're fed before simply regurgitating it verbatim here. We can all watch Fox News! I'd like you to run off and find me a quote where 'the French' said this. You won't find it because that's not what they said. They said they would veto any second resolution until such time as 1441 wasn't working. Only the coalition of the warmongers thinks that 1441 wasn't working. Chirac was at pains to say that they might support the use of force if Iraq was in MATERIAL breach of 1441. In any event, this thread is about determining why the French are the target. That second resolution didn't have enough support to even get off the ground at the SC. France was not unique in opposing it.

Originally posted by MacOSR:
The reason the US did not push for a new resolution is for the sake of the UN...not the US. If the US pushed for the vote and France did vote agains the resolution then the UN would be on record saying that it is not willing to put actions behind its words.

I think there were two reasons they didn't push the resolution. Firstly, they knew it would fail and they wanted to avoid embarassment. Secondly, if the resolution had been voted on and rejected, the case for the proponents of an illegal war would have been stronger. The SC would then have voted recently against a measure introducing a force element. That would have made arguing that the SC supported military action more difficult.