Why do Americans not like France today?

[dilloduck]

bad faith, hypocrisy : your way you use for the others is not the way you use for me....


I 'm proud of France for her opposition for Iraq war, illegal war.
And proud for several and several other things.

Are you happy now ?

Yes Thank you for responding to me. Now can you tell me why France opposed the war?

 

[padisha emperor]

no problem

of coursen, one of the reasons is probably the interests in Iraq. It would be hypocrite if I do'nt say it.
But also for the illegality of this war.
I know, you'll say to me "USA shouldn't listen to foreign countries to protect themselves".
But USA sign the UN charter. USA agreed with the UNO.
So, they have to respect the US security council advice.
THis council didn't allow USA to go in Iraq.

the french population doesn't care about french interests, the french people disagreed and still disagree because we found this war illegal.

What will USA say if France, tomorrow, would attack a country because France wants it ? It would be a violation of the international laws and treaties.

DO you understand my point of view ?

You must be at ar with a country to attack it, and you have to get the Un approvement.
USA were not at war with Iraq.

 

[Comrade]

no problem

of coursen, one of the reasons is probably the interests in Iraq. It would be hypocrite if I do'nt say it.
But also for the illegality of this war.
I know, you'll say to me "USA shouldn't listen to foreign countries to protect themselves".
But USA sign the UN charter. USA agreed with the UNO.
So, they have to respect the US security council advice.
THis council didn't allow USA to go in Iraq.

No, actually we don't have to respect the advice. Or follow it. Congress would never allow it. Nobody ever follows the UN if they don't want to, and were not a country of suckers.

the french population doesn't care about french interests, the french people disagreed and still disagree because we found this war illegal.

What will USA say if France, tomorrow, would attack a country because France wants it ? It would be a violation of the international laws and treaties.

Well if it's a democratic ally we'd just kick your ass, otherwise, have at Syria, your former colony. We'll look the other way, until we have to bail you out from defeat there.

DO you understand my point of view ?

I think you're expecting us to believe what you say about the UN and especially the French role in the world is supposed to make sense.

You must be at ar with a country to attack it, and you have to get the Un approvement.

Because you say so.

USA were not at war with Iraq.

And firing at our jets in the UN 'no fly zone' was perfectly fine to you as long as France could sell the missiles, and profit from illegal (UN wise) kickbacks to Saddam.

Stop your whining Frenchy! We're not some saps you can come preaching to about the stench at the UN. Save it for the families of the dead in Rwanda and Sudan.

 

[eric]

of coursen, one of the reasons is probably the interests in Iraq. It would be hypocrite if I do'nt say it.

Not one of the reasons, THE REASON !!!!

I know, you'll say to me "USA shouldn't listen to foreign countries to protect themselves".

Damn right !

But USA sign the UN charter. USA agreed with the UNO.
So, they have to respect the US security council advice.

Exactly, respect the advise, not necessarily follow it !

What will USA say if France, tomorrow, would attack a country because France wants it ? It would be a violation of the international laws and treaties

We would condemn France's actions. The USA didn't WANT Iraq, just to get Saddam out of power.

As far as the so-called illegality of the war, what about all the UN Resoultions that were disobeyed, time and time again, that carried the threat of force ?
The problem is the UN is all bark and no bite and Saddam knew that quite well, he played them for fools. So the US stepped up AGAIN on the worlds behalf and did something about it besides talk. Left to the UN, nothing would have ever been done, there was just too much money being made. Real shame !!!!

DO you understand my point of view ?

NO I DO NOT !

 

[NightTrain]

Oops! I haven't been on for a few days, forgive my tardiness. Thanks for picking up the slack, Comrade

So, now, shut up boy...
the french army lost quickly, but fought against Germans !
Sedan, and lots of others battles....de Gaulle, who won against Germans because he was unsing their tactics.

Boy? Other than whipping your ass for you, what about me makes you think I'm a boy?

Yes, they did indeed lose quickly. Stupendously quickly. The roar of thousands of unfired French military rifles hitting the ground simultaneously was deafening across the Atlantic.

More troublesome was the following sound of hundreds of thousands of White Flags ripping back and forth through the air as you surrendered. That meant that the USA would have to fight (again) to give your country back to you.

De Gaulle didn't win. We fought and liberated your country for you and De Gaulle was a morale operation to inspire the millions of cowering French to fight. We had to do SOMETHING to get the French to fight!

Pretty nifty trick, eh?

I read a book about the WWII, and for the 1940's invasion, th auathor say : "a great defeat make forgotten braves fights."

Patton said, "I'd rather have a German division in front of me than a French division behind me."

I wonder if he was a De Gaulle admirer?

What about Dunkirk, boy ? dare to say that here, French didn't fight !

Again with the 'Boy' routine. Do you have a boy fetish?

Yes, you did indeed fight then. It must be a great source of pride for you that France fought at Dunkirk.

The world wonders... where have you brave, successful, heroic, fight-to-the-death French soldiers gone? Were all the courageous genes removed from France's gene pool during that campaign?

You hate France, so for you we are bastards. And we lost all the wars. Read the thread "frenhc military victories"....you'll see, my dear....
Anyway, you'er a close-minded dumb, i could show you the evidence, you would always deny...

Actually, I'm just disappointed in your dismal wartime performance, even though you always seem to be a major factor in any war that comes about. I just thought I'd discuss it with you since you seemed to believe that France is a military power to be reckoned with, contrary to the opinion and experience of the rest of the world.

What I'm pissed about is your backstabbing and passing confidential intelligence to Iraq that cost American lives.

For that betrayal, you are unforgiven.

 

[padisha emperor]

Night Train, for your question about the french who fight to the death :
during the WWII, they were still here, but :

thr french HQ was really bad, he did war like in 1914-1918, and the war had changed from 1918 to 1940.
the French soldiers were good, but the HQ used bad tactics...

All the French who fought the Germans aof the italians in the FFL (free french forces) fought with honour and courage, until the death : Bir Hakeim is myabe one of the more perfect example for it.
The Resistance and FFI fought also with courage...

Read some books about the Indochina war(1946/1954), or Dien Bien Phu (1953/1954).In all, you will see that the french soldiers, the french forces fought here with maybe more and more honour and panache than any other soldier in the modern history.
In the victories (Hoa Binh, Cao Bang, Vinh Yen, Dong Trieu....) they were great, from the french para to the rifleman from morocco. they fought like the greatest heroes.
And in the defeat (Dien Bien Phu), they were really heroic. 15,000 against more than 100,000; under the fire of the ennemy artillery, during several monthes of Hell, but they resist. more than 5,000 french lost their lives during the battle, 7,000 after, in the camps.
the Vietmih loses are unknown. Maybe 8,000 during the battle, maybe 50,000...who knows ?
(in Vinh Yen : 5,600 dead, 6000 wounded, 420 prisoners for the Viets, less than 100 deads for the french.)

even the Radio of Moscow, who said all and nothing against the french during Dien Bien Phu, stopped her insult when they saw that the French were heroic.

So, this kind of french is not dead...




But it is not the subject.

To answer to the others :
Eric :

Not one of the reasons, THE REASON !!!!

and after, you dare to tell me i'm stupid when I say that OIL is ONE reason of the US intervention....not The reason, moron, one reason for the french GOVERNMENT.

Exactly, respect the advise, not necessarily follow it !

you'r really stpuid...
So, for the laws : you respect the laws, but not necessary follow them...you respect the fact that you shall not kill, but you kill to steal althe same...

It is the same thing.
if you respect something that you do'nt follow, it 's like you don't respect it...

So, USA don't respect UNO (you meant it, don't say no)

We would condemn France's actions. The USA didn't WANT Iraq, just to get Saddam out of power.

SO, you - USA - make things but you don't want that other make them also...
You are hypocrite : "Let us doing war, we want it", but after, to other countries : "hey, why are you doing war ? you have not the right"....

And if, like you sad, the USA only wanted to get SAddam Hussein out of the power, why didn't they use special forces ? not a war, and the world would applause....You are so proud of them, the Seals, Delta Forces...why don't use them ? are you affraid ?
Instead of that, you did a war, which was ugly, and cost to Iraq thousands of civilians, and to USA lots of poor young soldiers.


So, the main US's aim was not Saddam...OIL, probably....

 

[dilloduck]

Night Train, for your question about the french who fight to the death :
during the WWII, they were still here, but :

thr french HQ was really bad, he did war like in 1914-1918, and the war had changed from 1918 to 1940.
the French soldiers were good, but the HQ used bad tactics...

All the French who fought the Germans aof the italians in the FFL (free french forces) fought with honour and courage, until the death : Bir Hakeim is myabe one of the more perfect example for it.
The Resistance and FFI fought also with courage...

Read some books about the Indochina war(1946/1954), or Dien Bien Phu (1953/1954).In all, you will see that the french soldiers, the french forces fought here with maybe more and more honour and panache than any other soldier in the modern history.
In the victories (Hoa Binh, Cao Bang, Vinh Yen, Dong Trieu....) they were great, from the french para to the rifleman from morocco. they fought like the greatest heroes.
And in the defeat (Dien Bien Phu), they were really heroic. 15,000 against more than 100,000; under the fire of the ennemy artillery, during several monthes of Hell, but they resist. more than 5,000 french lost their lives during the battle, 7,000 after, in the camps.
the Vietmih loses are unknown. Maybe 8,000 during the battle, maybe 50,000...who knows ?
(in Vinh Yen : 5,600 dead, 6000 wounded, 420 prisoners for the Viets, less than 100 deads for the french.)

even the Radio of Moscow, who said all and nothing against the french during Dien Bien Phu, stopped her insult when they saw that the French were heroic.

So, this kind of french is not dead...




But it is not the subject.

To answer to the others :
Eric :

and after, you dare to tell me i'm stupid when I say that OIL is ONE reason of the US intervention....not The reason, moron, one reason for the french GOVERNMENT.



you'r really stpuid...
So, for the laws : you respect the laws, but not necessary follow them...you respect the fact that you shall not kill, but you kill to steal althe same...

It is the same thing.
if you respect something that you do'nt follow, it 's like you don't respect it...

So, USA don't respect UNO (you meant it, don't say no)




SO, you - USA - make things but you don't want that other make them also...
You are hypocrite : "Let us doing war, we want it", but after, to other countries : "hey, why are you doing war ? you have not the right"....

And if, like you sad, the USA only wanted to get SAddam Hussein out of the power, why didn't they use special forces ? not a war, and the world would applause....You are so proud of them, the Seals, Delta Forces...why don't use them ? are you affraid ?
Instead of that, you did a war, which was ugly, and cost to Iraq thousands of civilians, and to USA lots of poor young soldiers.


So, the main US's aim was not Saddam...OIL, probably....

Go get yourself drunk on some of your oil for food profits :finger:

 

[padisha emperor]

nice reply, dillo.....

and what do you think about the fact that the leader of the inspector in Iraq - I don't remember his name, an American, not Blix - say in his report, which is old of one or two days, that there is no WMD in Iraq ?
About the fact that before he believed that Iraq had WMD, but now says that Iraq was UNABLE to have or build WMD... ?
He says in his report that Iraq of Saddam Hussein could not have WMD.......and I say it again : he was one of the numerous men who believed that Iraq had such WMD....

so....Again one person shows that WMD was not the reason of the war.
I think that a country like USA have an intelligence serive able to detect WMD...so, again a proof about the lie about WMD...

WHat do you think about it ? Do you think that it is again a lie ? When you would have finish to deny all the truth, you'll see with wide open eyes what think the world, and the fact that this thought is correct...

Friendly, Pad'.

 

[dilloduck]

nice reply, dillo.....

and what do you think about the fact that the leader of the inspector in Iraq - I don't remember his name, an American, not Blix - say in his report, which is old of one or two days, that there is no WMD in Iraq ?
About the fact that before he believed that Iraq had WMD, but now says that Iraq was UNABLE to have or build WMD... ?
He says in his report that Iraq of Saddam Hussein could not have WMD.......and I say it again : he was one of the numerous men who believed that Iraq had such WMD....

so....Again one person shows that WMD was not the reason of the war.
I think that a country like USA have an intelligence serive able to detect WMD...so, again a proof about the lie about WMD...

WHat do you think about it ? Do you think that it is again a lie ? When you would have finish to deny all the truth, you'll see with wide open eyes what think the world, and the fact that this thought is correct...

Friendly, Pad'.

Sorry dish--just getting tired of the same old arguments. Not that it matters but do you think the US should pull out let Saddam take over again and say we are sorry ?

 

[padisha emperor]

No...saddam hussein shal not come back to the power.

But you are again giving the same old arguments too... the war was not for the danger and the threat represented by Iraq.

In 1962 for Cuba, the world belive the USA, because they were right.
De Gaulle said even that it was not necessary to show to him the pictures of the soviet rockets, because he trusted the words of the President of the USA.

But iraq is not the same things : you take the world, the UNO and America for dummies when you said that Iraq had WMD, that it was a danger for the world and that the world should react.

If it was ONLY to free Iraqi of Hussein' dictatorship, the USA would say it BEFORE the war, not after to have reasons...if it was for it, the world would agree...and the USA would use not all the army but only a commando to take Hussein and his family.

So, maybe my arguments are old, but there are the TRUTH.
Veritas odium parit

 

[dilloduck]

No...saddam hussein shal not come back to the power.

But you are again giving the same old arguments too... the war was not for the danger and the threat represented by Iraq.

In 1962 for Cuba, the world belive the USA, because they were right.
De Gaulle said even that it was not necessary to show to him the pictures of the soviet rockets, because he trusted the words of the President of the USA.

But iraq is not the same things : you take the world, the UNO and America for dummies when you said that Iraq had WMD, that it was a danger for the world and that the world should react.

If it was ONLY to free Iraqi of Hussein' dictatorship, the USA would say it BEFORE the war, not after to have reasons...if it was for it, the world would agree...and the USA would use not all the army but only a commando to take Hussein and his family.

So, maybe my arguments are old, but there are the TRUTH.
Veritas odium parit

IF we decide to strike pre-emptively guess what---we don't have to explain it to YOU !

 

[padisha emperor]

ok...so if I follow your mind, the world is the garden of the WHite House, and the USA can do everything...
no, the international relations are not like that.

Even when Europe made war every years, alwxays and always, we - the europeans - respected the following idea : to do a war, we need a war delcaration.
it is always the same thing : you SHALL not attack a country unilaterally, without the other countries' opinion, without the UNO's authorization.

We are not in war, not in Cold War.
You - USA - SHALL not bomber a country because it please to them...

it is logic, good sense.

 

[dilloduck]

ok...so if I follow your mind, the world is the garden of the WHite House, and the USA can do everything...
no, the international relations are not like that.

Even when Europe made war every years, alwxays and always, we - the europeans - respected the following idea : to do a war, we need a war delcaration.
it is always the same thing : you SHALL not attack a country unilaterally, without the other countries' opinion, without the UNO's authorization.

We are not in war, not in Cold War.
You - USA - SHALL not bomber a country because it please to them...

it is logic, good sense.

THINGS HAVE CHANGED SINCE 9/11. If you don't like it TOUGH SHIT. We are NOT going to allow our country to be attacked like this again. You defend your own damn county anyway you like !!

 

[dmp]

good comment.

 

[Comrade]

No...saddam hussein shal not come back to the power.

But you are again giving the same old arguments too... the war was not for the danger and the threat represented by Iraq.

In 1962 for Cuba, the world belive the USA, because they were right.
De Gaulle said even that it was not necessary to show to him the pictures of the soviet rockets, because he trusted the words of the President of the USA.

See, for you, the world is France and France is the world. And apparently you feel that France's role in the Cuban Missile Crisis was important? It was about as important then as it is with America's own war on terror today, which is... ehhh.

(Visualize the Jack in the Box commercial with Jack responding to whether he liked the French)

The fact is either way, you're not that important. And France will do what France wants to do. And France keeps it's allegience up for sale on the market.

But iraq is not the same things : you take the world, the UNO and America for dummies when you said that Iraq had WMD, that it was a danger for the world and that the world should react.

If it was ONLY to free Iraqi of Hussein' dictatorship, the USA would say it BEFORE the war, not after to have reasons...if it was for it, the world would agree...and the USA would use not all the army but only a commando to take Hussein and his family.

Remember Marshall Petain speaking to the USA about Hitler from Vichy France?

"If it was ONLY to free Germany of Hitlers' dictatorship, the USA would say it BEFORE the war, not after to have reasons...if it was for it, the world would agree...and the USA would use not all the army but only a commando to take Hitler and his family."

No, I'm kidding.

Even though he was Hitler's puppet, he wasn't as brash and ridiculous in exposing France's obvious bias against the US with such a comment.

Even your Vichy traitors of yesteryear wouldn't dare go so far as to debase America's motives in their war against a dictator they openly supported upon the armistace.

Apparently France is feeling far more hostile to the US today. Saddam's regime demands protection from ulterior motives America might have in occupying Iraq. Apparently Saddam is not as bad as Hitler is, and obviously a favored trading partner to France's great benefit.

So, maybe my arguments are old, but there are the TRUTH.

How many of these commando missions will the world 'let us' do until we get a better government in Iraq? You've got to be joking! In the real world, commandos may or may not rescue hostages sometimes, or kill terrorists intentionally or civilians accidentally, but even in Hollywood, commandos don't go in and out to kill a dictator to establish any peacefull or stable Democracy as the totalitarian government reasserts itself almost immediately without follow on forces to occupy the nation.

But aside from that, this idea of your that the WORLD would agree to taking out Saddam with a US sponsored assasination is truly out of touch with your own vaunted UN.

THE VERY LAST THING THE UN WOULD EVER AGREE UPON, IS TO SANCTION A STATE SPONSORED ASSASINATION OF ANOTHER HEAD OF STATE.

No, the TRUTH is you make a mockery of yourself by producing such statements. Are you trying to convince us of whether you offer a solution, or are here to condemn the US with senseless maledictions?

 

[padisha emperor]

Comrade, have you the IQ of a mussel ?

See, for you, the world is France and France is the world. And apparently you feel that France's role in the Cuban Missile Crisis was important? It was about as important then as it is with America's own war on terror today, which is... ehhh.

Where do you see that said that France is world and world is France ?...

the De Gaulle quote was only to give an example of the trust of the wolrd to UAS : If France, who were with De Gaulle not so near of USA like UK, or others countries, trust immediatly the words of the USA 's Pres., it show that the other countries, nearer of USA than France, trusted it too.....

It was a comparaison "a fortiori"......

And only also to shpw to you that before, everybody trusted without any discussion the USA's pres. word, but now...things change....the USA are not respected, or if they are, it is because people have fear....not the respect of a big nation....And the situation is here because Bush and his administration did a lot of dumb things


A last thing : why are you always speaking of Vichy and 1940 ? never of other WWII events, where the French were good, or even never of any other historical event....you're really too subjective...only your opinion has worth...

oderint, dum metuant

 

[Comrade]

[/B]

Comrade, have you the IQ of a mussel ?



Where do you see that said that France is world and world is France ?...

the De Gaulle quote was only to give an example of the trust of the wolrd to UAS : If France, who were with De Gaulle not so near of USA like UK, or others countries, trust immediatly the words of the USA 's Pres., it show that the other countries, nearer of USA than France, trusted it too.....

So now if France will trust the USA it shows others will all trust the USA!

That's what keeps me fascinated about this Euro led fantasy of yours.

Actually we won the Cuban missile crisis no thanks to you, and will win the war on terror, no thanks to you. No thanks to France, we defeated the USSR, rose above European leadership, kicked everyone around the block, and still 40+ years ago the Soviets really wouldn't have withdrawn from Kennedy if the French hadn't openly claimed the photos as fakes and that Kennedy was a liar... then again, the French weren't financially and politically joined with Castro like they've proven to be linked with Saddam.

Overall, this dispute is PATHETIC DENIAL of what the world knows to be true of France and it's supportive measures taken to support Saddam over Bush.

Did you forget when I mentioned France sold missiles which shot down and killed Americans? No, you just ignore difficult realities like that, and you prove yourself a coward by doing so brazenly and without reservation.

It was a comparaison "a fortiori"......

And only also to shpw to you that before, everybody trusted without any discussion the USA's pres. word, but now...things change....the USA are not respected, or if they are, it is because people have fear....not the respect of a big nation....And the situation is here because Bush and his administration did a lot of dumb things

I can pull up at least 20 EURO sourced reports on EURO sourced war in Serbia to show you how much trust existed between your Euro far left and moderate left Clinton.

But I won't waste my time.

A last thing : why are you always speaking of Vichy and 1940 ? never of other WWII events, where the French were good, or even never of any other historical event....you're really too subjective...only your opinion has worth...

oderint, dum metuant

Oh sure, you're speaking a dead language like Latin and I can't fucking point out behavior from the French since WWII to illustrate how little America should credit you and yours in the future.

 

[padisha emperor]

So now if France will trust the USA it shows others will all trust the USA!

That's what keeps me fascinated about this Euro led fantasy of yours

What the fuck with your damned brain ?
france was not really near the USa at this time. De Gaulle took his distance with USA...always allies, but...
And this situation with Cuba prooved that even a country who took distance with USA trust the USA. So, the countries who are near near near the UAS, like UK, would certainly trust USA too.

(an other example for you : if you have an ennemy who say to you you're great and pretty, your friends would certainly do the same, because you have more chance to see your friensd saying such things than an ennemy.)

Actually we won the Cuban missile crisis no thanks to you, and will win the war on terror, no thanks to you. No thanks to France, we defeated the USSR, rose above European leadership, kicked everyone around the block, and still 40+ years ago the Soviets really wouldn't have withdrawn from Kennedy if the French hadn't openly claimed the photos as fakes and that Kennedy was a liar... then again, the French weren't financially and politically joined with Castro like they've proven to be linked with Saddam.

Two things :
first : Francer was the first country, in 1962, by the voice of the President, de Gaulle, who said "we will join you if you declare the war against USSR".
France was the first country who said that they will do war with UAS, that they were ready for war against USSR near the USA.
Proof that a country who not always eat in your hand and who is not a dog can be always a good good ally.

Second : USa didn't really win for Cuba : they had to promise that USA will never attack Cuba. They had to withdraw their Rocket "Jupiter" from Turkey, and also others from Europe.

USSR lost nothing, USA lost.
And Kennedy and Krouchtchev seemed to be good people who want not a war.

NOw, we know tha USSR was never able to do a clim of weapons, like USA, because USSR had not the money of USA, ....USSR did a kind of great "bluff".


French is not a dead language, and know that the US english sucks in comparaison with the true english. (and the accent is awful)


You think that France is an useless country.
Lot of European countries thhought that afetr the fall of Napoléon III, during the 1870's.
You can look that they were wrong.

France , like UK, or other european countries , has a thing who is good in the international relations. It can be really useful, to convince others. THis thing, the USA have not so much, they are losing it. It is the prestige.

Oh, a last thing : I've read that in the debate between Kerry and Bush, Bush had a strange thing in his back. Some say that it was to give to him answers, but I read that the conservators said that it was because the costume was bad, a fucking frenhc costume, and all was the falut of the french ?
It is correct ? if it is, it show how some of US guys are dumb..

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Who said you were dogs? You have national low self esteem.

France is good at convincing others? Of course, when you lie and tell everyone what they want to hear, and switch views according to your audience, you have the illusion of being liked by all, when in fact you simply have no moral compass and no set of values. Your nation is morally and ethically bankrupt.

 

[Comrade]

What the fuck with your damned brain ?
france was not really near the USa at this time. De Gaulle took his distance with USA...always allies, but...

A distant ally, I agree!

And this situation with Cuba prooved that even a country who took distance with USA trust the USA. So, the countries who are near near near the UAS, like UK, would certainly trust USA too.

Pointless. The fact of the matter was, if the UK or France didn't believe the photographic evidence of Russia shipping nuclear missiles to Cuba it wouldn't have made a wet squirt of difference whatsoever.

Just like it didn't make a difference with Frances' decision to support Saddam's regime in Iraq.

(an other example for you : if you have an ennemy who say to you you're great and pretty, your friends would certainly do the same, because you have more chance to see your friensd saying such things than an ennemy.)

Um....

Two things :
first : Francer was the first country, in 1962, by the voice of the President, de Gaulle, who said "we will join you if you declare the war against USSR".

In refusing to join NATO, where any attack on one would be considered an attack on all, I can't possibily imagine France would have been taken seriously in saying what you claim.

France was the first country who said that they will do war with UAS, that they were ready for war against USSR near the USA.
Proof that a country who not always eat in your hand and who is not a dog can be always a good good ally.

When was that? Before or after they left NATO?

Second : USa didn't really win for Cuba : they had to promise that USA will never attack Cuba. They had to withdraw their Rocket "Jupiter" from Turkey, and also others from Europe.

Well sure, we didn't 'win' Cuba. And so what?

USSR lost nothing, USA lost.

What if the USSR later disintegrates as a result of our constant investment to oppose the Soviet Union? Did we still lose?

And Kennedy and Krouchtchev seemed to be good people who want not a war.

"We will bury you."

Nikita Khrushchev


NICE! :chains:

NOw, we know tha USSR was never able to do a clim of weapons, like USA, because USSR had not the money of USA, ....USSR did a kind of great "bluff".

If you ask the former officials they will tell you what you need to know.

Reagan forced them into a new arms race, and bankrupted them. Do you know poker?

Reagan bluffed them on 'Star Wars'. The USSR was called on whatever 'bluff' they had, and folded.

French is not a dead language, and know that the US english sucks in comparaison with the true english. (and the accent is awful)

I said LATIN.

You think that France is an useless country.

Not useless, but worse. Capable and actively opposed to American interests.

Lot of European countries thhought that afetr the fall of Napoléon III, during the 1870's.
You can look that they were wrong.

Hitler sure proved you wrong.

France , like UK, or other european countries , has a thing who is good in the international relations. It can be really useful, to convince others. THis thing, the USA have not so much, they are losing it. It is the prestige.

Dream. On.

Oh, a last thing : I've read that in the debate between Kerry and Bush, Bush had a strange thing in his back. Some say that it was to give to him answers, but I read that the conservators said that it was because the costume was bad, a fucking frenhc costume, and all was the falut of the french ? It is correct ? if it is, it show how some of US guys are dumb..

The fault of the French? Where the hell do you get this stuff?