France and the War on terror

I felt a reply to this post from another thread warranted a seperate thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Btw, our terror alert seems quite efficient, since we (=France) arrested our own algerian terrorists in the 90's, and avoided many attacks in the last 2 years.

---

From the outside this appears more like a case of France catering to certain Islamic/Arab interests against other developed nations. Perhaps this is incorrect, but that is the perception. The "shoe bomber" flew from France didn't he? It would be an extreme blunder for the terrorists to attack France since they have nothing to gain politically from such an attack. Divide and conquer works better for them. They managed to get Spain to essentially surrender through a terrorist attack, quite an accomplishment. From the terrorist point of view keeping France neutral or even seen as a "collaborator" by the Anglo population would be in their best interest.

---

Firstly, the 9-11 terrorists flew from the USA, remember? ~;)

More importantly, it may have gone somewhat unnoticed by the outside world, but France was the first western country to be hit by a wave of 'islamic' terrorism on it's home soil, dating back to a terrorist wave in 1986. If there are any Anglo-Americans that doubt France's resolve in her fight against terror, who think she is neutral, they're probably unaware of the following:

In 1994, seven years before 9-11, an Air France Flight was hijacked by four islamic terrorists intending to crash the plane on Paris.

They didn't succeed. And why? Because France collaborated? Gah! In Marseille a special operations team of the French military stormed the aircraft and utterly destroyed all hijackers.

In 1996, nine years before London, there was a terrorist attack on the Paris metro (underground, subway, whatever).

Again, we fought back. Not by randomly invading, say, Yemen or Tunisia, but by relentless action against known terrorists, the toughest anti-terrorist laws in Europe, well-funded intelligence and, indeed, an open dialogue with the islamic world.
By trying to befriend the masses, to be able to isolate and destroy the extremists. Estranging them only gives the extremists a breeding ground.

There are a billion peace-loving muslims that did not bomb London yesterday. We need to talk to them. The people that did attack our friends in England need not expect 'neutrality' from France. Only a relentless hunt to bring them to justice. For proud, stubborn, arrogant France has no mercy for those attacking her friends.

Even if they do suck at cooking. ~;)



Here's a great ARTICLE from last week's Washington Post.
Some excerpts and highlights to wet your appetite:

'Ganczarski is among the most important European al Qaeda figures alive, according to U.S. and French law enforcement and intelligence officials. The operation that ensnared him was put together at a top secret center in Paris, code-named Alliance Base, that was set up by the CIA and French intelligence services in 2002, according to U.S. and European intelligence sources. Its existence has not been previously disclosed.'

'even as Rumsfeld was criticizing France in early 2003 for not doing its share in fighting terrorism, his U.S. Special Operations Command was finalizing a secret arrangement to put 200 French special forces under U.S. command in Afghanistan.'

'Alliance Base, headed by a French general assigned to France's equivalent of the CIA -- the General Directorate for External Security (DGSE) -- was described by six U.S. and foreign intelligence specialists with involvement in its activities. The base is unique in the world because it is multinational and actually plans operations instead of sharing information among countries, they said. It has case officers from Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Australia and the United States'

'French intelligence officials like to note dryly that France first realized it had become a target of al Qaeda-style jihadists when a group of Algerian radicals hijacked an airliner with the intent of crashing it into the Eiffel Tower in 1994. They viewed the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as another, if much larger, part of the jihadist campaign against Western civilization.

So it did not surprise many intelligence officers when, in the days after the attacks, President Jacques Chirac issued an edict to French intelligence services to share information about terrorism with the U.S. intelligence agencies "as if they were your own service," according to two officials who read it.

The steady, daily flow of encrypted messages increased. "We saw a quantitative and qualitative difference in the degree of detail in the information," said Alejandro Wolff, the second-in-charge at the U.S. Embassy here, whose portfolio includes fighting terrorism.

One CIA veteran with knowledge of the U.S.-French intelligence work estimates that the French have detained about 60 suspects since the end of 2001, some with the help of the CIA. "They do as much for us as the British and in some ways more -- if you ask them," said a recently retired senior intelligence official who worked closely with France and other European countries.

France was also an early and willing collaborator in other parts of the world, allowing the CIA to fly its top-secret, armed Predator drone, still controversial inside the Pentagon, from France's air base in the former French colony of Djibouti. Its mission was to kill al Qaeda figures on a classified CIA list of "high-value targets." On Nov. 3, 2002, CIA officers operating remote controls from the air base took their first shot, killing Abu Ali al-Harithi, the mastermind of the October 2000 attack on the destroyer USS Cole'

By trying to befriend the masses, to be able to isolate and destroy the extremists. Estranging them only gives the extremists a breeding ground.
Yes its a better approach than they tried with the Pogrom at the startof the '60s , where in their fight against terror they managed to annoy just about every citizen of France who looked slightly Algerian , they even manged to annoy Italy and Spain as their citizens looked a little bit too dark of skin and black of hair . ~;)

Theres no doubt in my mind that Chiraq is more a collaborator then a help to the war on terror.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Efrem

Theres no doubt in my mind that Chiraq is more a collaborator then a help to the war on terror.

---

That I agree with. France's war on terror looks more like a diplomatic war with the U.S., just being French I suppose. I'll never be accused of being a Dubya supporter, but France played right into his hands with Iraq. I used to be a Francophile. No more.

This thread is hilarious.

Way to go, France!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat

I felt a reply to this post from another thread warranted a seperate thread.

Firstly, the 9-11 terrorists flew from the USA, remember? ~;)

In 1994, seven years before 9-11, an Air France Flight was hijacked by four islamic terrorists intending to crash the plane on Paris.

They didn't succeed. And why? Because France collaborated? Gah! In Marseille a special operations team of the French military stormed the aircraft and utterly destroyed all hijackers.

---

Actually, I'm not completely unaware of France's prior troubles with Islamic terrorists. Now, how exactly did those special ops get on the plane in the air...oh, yeah, they didn't. It was on the ground, and the terrorists had already executed some people. The terrorists learned from their mistakes (little things like learning to fly, and dispensing with negotiations, and landing, etc.)

Do you honestly think that France would have foiled a 9/11 type attack under the same basic circumstances? Were the crew and passengers trained to struggle with the attackers, or comply? The flight that didn't hit its target is the one in the U.S. that struggled with the hijackers. You would have been relying on security to prevent men from boarding with no serious weapons (simple box cutters.) Do you think French airport security was that good--yet let the shoe bomber on board a flight after 9/11?

Might I also remind you that the U.S. had much earlier learned how to handle hijackings? Well before the incident you mention. The problem had been largely resolved for the tactics the U.S. had faced. Yet it was this very system that the terrorists manipulated by relying on compliant passengers and crew to conduct their attacks. I was never fond of the ultra passive approach as it is contrary to my nature and I felt it was very vulnerable to the kind of committed homicidal that was at the core of 9/11.

France was lucky that it was no longer in the cross hairs. Had it been, I suspect we would have been outraged by an horrific attack on Paris rather than New York. I won't defend the U.S. screening system, it was weak. However, it was weak for a simple reason: domestic air terrorism was no longer an issue. And even if screening had been far better, it is unlikely that those men would have been stopped. They exploited loopholes that existed at the time. If they were to try the same today their chances would be about nil. Even if they passed through intelligence checks and through security, passengers would have subdued them. U.S. passengers have subdued and even killed unruly/dangerous passengers since 9/11 with regularity (at least three incidents that I've read of, no I don't have links.)

As a French living in England, it is the 2nd time I experience terrorist attack for Muslims Nazi Extremists.

Chiraq (c) is more a collaborator then a help to the war on terror: Well that is your point of view, based on nothing except on basic anti-French feeling. But you can’t hate France and blame her when she refused to follow the orders… :dizzy2:

France's war on terror looks more like a diplomatic war with the U.S: Right, the War against Iraq, it is quiet obvious now, wasn’t part of the war against terror. It was G. W. Bush revenge on a bloody dictator. We can debate about this, but please stop to try to fool people in mixing the two problems. ~D

Let me remind you few facts: I just here copy an article from the Independent, British Newspaper, day after the bombing (8th of July):
“Paris was one of the first Western cities to experience terrorism at the hands of Islamist extremists, when a series of bombs was detonated at Metro stations in 1995. Those believed to be responsible were based in Britain, but the refusal of the British courts to allow the extradition of the man thought to be behind the blasts, currently being held in Belmarsh prison, has angered the French authorities.
The affair has been portrayed in France as a symptom of British laxity towards extremists. French anti-terrorist judges are also said to believe that –pre 11 September- there was a policy in London to turn blind eye to Islamist activity so long as there was no direct threat to Britain”.

So, until it was just French blood, UK (and also US) considered the Muslim terrorism just as a expression of Freedom of Speech, when the Imams could freely call their followers to put bombs and kill people in France…
The Islamic terrorist network was destroyed in France in 6 months, due to a great Intelligence gathering (well, probably because the French Muslim community provided police officers and Intelligence officers who infiltrated the network, allegedly).
If I understand the Newspaper, the French told the British Authority that a terrorist was free to recruit and to get money in the UK. Because the guy was clearly innocent of what the French accused him, the UK put him in Belmarsh jail after 9/11. That makes sense, isn’t it? :furious3:

Now, the US (not true, some in the US) blame France of the lack of cooperation (even YOU claim that France is accomplice) in the war against terrorism. Where was your help when we were under daily attacks? Don’t remember…

Do you honestly think that France would have foiled a 9/11 type attack: No, I don’t. That was an unexpected move. They created the unexpected, and did what they did…
Now, how exactly did those special ops get on the plane in the air...oh, yeah, they didn't. I don’t see where it was suggested in the thread…

France was lucky that it was no longer in the cross hairs: Amazingly enough, wasn’t a French tanker which was attacked in Yemen not so long time ago?

Honestly, you can dislike or hate France as much you want, publish the anti-French jokes, call us frogs (or whatever other insults or qualifications) as much you like… But there is one thing you can’t is to accuse the French to be pro-Islamic Terrorists. We, French, kicked out Kaddafi out of Chad. Not the US bombing, but the French troops put a halt to his desire of expansion. As the US, we lost soldiers in Lebanon from Amal, Hezbollah and other Muslim Extremist Groups.
And yes, because we learn from History, we know that the fight against terrorism isn’t a military problem, but police problems.
When I say we, I wasn’t personally involved, but sometimes I allow myself a bit of nationalism-patriotism… ~:)

American paranoia in regards to France is taking new proportions. Soon hell will be identified as the French country side.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

American paranoia in regards to France is taking new proportions. Soon hell will be identified as the French country side.......

---

This thread ONE post (now two) by an American...your bias is showing again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Efrem

Theres no doubt in my mind that Chiraq is more a collaborator then a help to the war on terror.

---

That's uncalled for. People who want to blame France for not cooperating in Iraq simply aren't being mature about all of this. I'm no big believer in world government, and I don't always like the way the France forces other countries to delay actions on critical problems, as with the security council.

But I would never ever accuse them of being soft on terrorism, or worse, collaborators. A shitload of our intelligence about who the 9/11 hijackers were and where they came from came from the French intelligence service. They also helped track down where all the cells in Europe that supported them were located (no easy feat). There's also all the instances Meneldil & Brenus bring up.

I won't argue France's agenda and the US's diverged a while back, and our foreign policy goals are different, and for national interest reasons. But how are you going to get pissed at France for doing what it believes is in it's own best self-interst. They SHOULD, as should we (and we do). We sound like children when we bitch and moan that the French are looking to their own interests first and it needs to stop.

Black Ship , if you want to talk about bias , then hows this for a statement from a "newscaster" on a fair and balanced no spin popular American "news" channel ...

"If they had picked France instead of London to hold the Olympics, it would have been the one time we could look forward to where we didn't worry about terrorism. They'd blow up Paris, and who cares?"

So while France is fighting Al-Qaida in Afghanistan , some people get all upset because the French didn' believe all the bullshit yours and other governments were sprouting about Iraq .
So it would be OK if Paris gets bombed insead of London would it ?

But still , he gets well paid to make stupid statements on TV , Efrem made his stupid statement free of charge .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

"If they had picked France instead of London to hold the Olympics, it would have been the one time we could look forward to where we didn't worry about terrorism. They'd blow up Paris, and who cares?"

---

Honestly, what hope do we have of fighting a common enemy when people are throwing mud like this? It saddens me. We Welsh were conquered by the English becasue we would rather fight ourselves than co-operate with each other and stand against the English as one entity.

Yes, I know that was a long time ago, but the parallels are a bit scary.

That some broadcaster can spout such bigotry and not be brought severely to task is a sad endictment of how bad things have become over the political infighting in the wake of the Iraq war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Efrem

Theres no doubt in my mind that Chiraq is more a collaborator then a help to the war on terror.

---

Any chance that you might let us know why there is no doubt in your mind? Seriously, I would be interested to hear what information you have that has allowed to be so sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

That's uncalled for. People who want to blame France for not cooperating in Iraq simply aren't being mature about all of this.

---

No it's not uncalled for. And the post you quoted referred to CHIRAQ, not France. The French and their defenders have been quick to point at him as well. It's a bit hollow though...he may not represent France as a whole, but like Dubya he does appear to represent some sort of majority opinion.

I don't see any lack of maturity at pointing out that France has been a bigger pain in the rear over the past several years than any other Western nation with regards to fighting Islamic extremists. We've got people dying daily in this fight. Where the hell is France? Sniping at us from the rear, that's where. Had they not sent the wrong signals to Saddam, there is a fair chance we wouldn't have had to invade. Yes, I'm downright angry at the French govt over this, just as much as at Dubya.

You are welcome to your opinion but I also have mine, and I'll place blame squarely where I see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

I don't see any lack of maturity at pointing out that France has been a bigger pain in the rear over the past several years than any other Western nation with regards to fighting Islamic extremists. We've got people dying daily in this fight. Where the hell is France? Sniping at us from the rear, that's where. Had they not sent the wrong signals to Saddam, there is a fair chance we wouldn't have had to invade. Yes, I'm downright angry at the French govt over this, just as much as at Dubya.

---

Someone buy this man a beer. Excellently said.

I've been too flustered since post one of this thread (which seemed to imply that if the US did what France does, we'd never have had a 9/11) to engage in rational debate.

Why are you picking on France?

A lot of countries did not go to war with Iraq, why don't you pick on them.

Who said that the thing they didn't like about France was them not invading Iraq? What on earth are you reading that gave you that impression?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Chiraq (c) is more a collaborator then a help to the war on terror: Well that is your point of view, based on nothing except on basic anti-French feeling. But you can’t hate France and blame her when she refused to follow the orders… :dizzy2:

---

My feeling was far from anti-French before the Iraq flare up, so that theory is going down in flames. I actually had a trip to France planned about the time of the start of the war, but cancelled it because of travel concerns and anti-US rhetoric coming out of France. There is a big difference between "following orders" and being an enemy. I don't expect France or any other nation to "follow orders." France's actions leading up the Iraq war were entirely counterproductive to preventing a war. France made every effort to lead an anti-US coalition. That is the source of a great deal of my anger. France gave Saddam some hope that he would not have to let weapons inspectors back in, that sanctions would be lifted, etc. In France's actions I see only a "what's best for France" approach. Some ally. Ironically, their opposition guarranteed that Dubya got his war. I'm willing to listen to criticism of US policy, and agree with some of it. However, I'm also watching other nations actions as well.

Quote:

---

Now, how exactly did those special ops get on the plane in the air...oh, yeah, they didn't. I don’t see where it was suggested in the thread…

---

It was quite clearly suggested in the thread that France was better prepared, yada, yada, yada... What I pointed out was that the partially foiled attack (partial since folks were executed) differed immensely from 9/11.

Quote:

---

France was lucky that it was no longer in the cross hairs: Amazingly enough, wasn’t a French tanker which was attacked in Yemen not so long time ago?

---

The French govt made quite a few efforts to keep it quiet. I heard a number of denials from French officials trying to claim it was not a terrorist attack in the first day or two. At any rate, it was a tanker attack, quite a bit different from the homicide attacks. Appeared to be an effort to cause some disruption of shipping in general rather than a national target. I could be wrong, I haven't studied it in detail, I just recall the reports over several days when it happened.

Quote:

---

Honestly, you can dislike or hate France as much you want, publish the anti-French jokes, call us frogs (or whatever other insults or qualifications) as much you like… But there is one thing you can’t is to accuse the French to be pro-Islamic Terrorists.

---

I don't "hate France", nor am I interested in calling the French frogs. And I wouldn't call the French terrorists--have no idea where you got that... :dizzy2: (I do admit to enjoying well crafted French jokes more so than I did in the past.) However, it will take some time and deeds before I can seriously consider France an ally again. More like a semi-hostile neutral similar to Russia. France alligned herself against the U.S. and has led an anti-US diplomatic coalition. I won't soon forget that.

As for Libya. Reagan shut up Qaddaffi. Bombing his house got the message through fairly clearly--rein it in or you could be next. And it has been awhile since I studied the warfare in Chad, but I clearly recall an article about how the anti-Libyan forces were using light four wheel drive trucks to run circles around the Libyan heavies. They cut the Libyans to pieces in sand storms and the like. It has been a long time...but I don't remember it being French forces doing the fighting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinus

Why are you picking on France?

A lot of countries did not go to war with Iraq, why don't you pick on them.

---

It was France leading the anti-US faction, that's why. I'm not "picking on them." France went far beyond not joining the fight. France's actions were dubious, especially since France, Russia and others were working to get sanctions dropped and make business in roads with Saddam. Meanwhile, the US was stuck there enforcing the sanctions, no-fly, etc. The US found itself in a position where action became increasingly necessary (I still think it could have waited, and WMD was not really needed, but there was no practical way to withdraw leaving a defiant and dangerous Saddam in power.)

While I don't connect Iraq and terrorism, I don't have any trouble seeing France's moves on Iraq as a self serving gesture to less savory elements while stabbing the US in the back.

Erm, yes, and i won´t soon forget that the US and GB didn´t help us in WW2, Hitler wanted them to join us, but instead they made an impression of being enemies... :dizzy2: Now I´m confused and I hate them all, because they didn´t help us conquer the world and establish a superior race. :dizzy2: :help:

If you go into a shop to steal something and I say I won´t help and stay outside, don´t wonder to be imprisoned alone. If you go to make war in Iraq and we say we don´t want to, don´t wonder to be the only to lose soldiers.

I´m not french, but Germany didn´t go to Iraq as well, together with France. And I don´t see any problems with france giving Saddam any hope, hope couldn´t save him.

Quote:

---

I´m not french, but Germany didn´t go to Iraq as well, together with France. And I don´t see any problems with france giving Saddam any hope, hope couldn´t save him.

---

I dont want to bash France here, every country does whats in its own best interests, and having Saddam in power was in their best interest as far as business goes.

But, both France and Germany should have recognized what it meant to live under a Stalin-esce dictator and at least passively support his removal.

Even if they didnt like president Bush, they should have thought in terms of their own history and recognized that the Iraq war was a good opportunity to remove the same kind of dictator that they lived under.

Thats just my opinion though, im about to go camping so I dont want to leave anyone offended.. ~D

Though i dont agree with France's stance on some things, i dont think it is fair to attack them or anybody for not going to war with iraq.

From day 1 i thought it would be a bad idea. It has lead forces away from the real problem and a stable democracy in Iraq is hopeful at best. Iraq reminds me alot of vietnam.


Finally, i dont think anybody should decide what type of government another country has. If some Iraqies had started some kind of uprising trying to make a democratic government then i would have fully supported the war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Honestly, you can dislike or hate France as much you want, publish the anti-French jokes, call us frogs (or whatever other insults or qualifications) as much you like… But there is one thing you can’t is to accuse the French to be pro-Islamic Terrorists. We, French, kicked out Kaddafi out of Chad. Not the US bombing, but the French troops put a halt to his desire of expansion. As the US, we lost soldiers in Lebanon from Amal, Hezbollah and other Muslim Extremist Groups.
And yes, because we learn from History, we know that the fight against terrorism isn’t a military problem, but police problems.
When I say we, I wasn’t personally involved, but sometimes I allow myself a bit of nationalism-patriotism… ~:)

---

Actually the Americans helped in Chad as well. The United States sent three military advisors to help the government of Chad. They were sent to help in training with 25 Redeye I-Sam's though the batteries apparently didn't work so they were never used. The Americans also sent some aircraft to Sudan (8 F-15's). It was perceived by the Americans that Libya's objective was the ultimate penetration of Sudan, thus threatening the southern border of Egypt.

The Libyan military threat was seen as substantial, including approximately 3000 tanks, 550+ modern combat aircraft, 30+ armed helicopters, 20 tank battalions, and 55,000 men.

Operation Manta, the French contribution, began on August 10, when elements of the 8th R.P.I.Ma. (Régiment Parachutiste d'Infanterie de Marine), crossed the Chari River into Ndjamena from their base in Kousseri, Cameroon, where they had been stationed some weeks previously to be able to assist in the evacuation of foreigners from Ndjamena should the need arise. As the French had done in march of 1980, evacuating 400 westerner's from the capital by French military aircraft, including West Germans, Dutch, French, Lebanese, and all the members of the American embassy staff, including the American ambassador.

This is the same unit BTW, that would be involved in the parachute drop into Kosovo in october of 2004. Additional reinforcements from the same regiment and from the 1st R.I.Ma. (Régiment d'Infanterie de Marine) also arrived that same day. The operation was described by the French as a training execise, and soon French Transal C.160 transport planes began to arrive in Ndjamena with forces, food, supplies, and weapons. Those forces, and others which began arriving in Chad at that time, were equipped with individual weapons, anti-tank missiles (HOT, Milan), rocket launchers (STRIM 89,SARPAC), mortars, tactical vehicles (VAB, AML, AMX 10), and the Olifant radar system, which is a ground surveillance radar. The force soon grew to to involve some three thousand French troops, as well as Mirage jets and Jaguar strike aircraft.

EDIT; BTW, if you want to know how looney things have gotten in the US, someone phoned into the Larry King Show and suggested it wasn't Al Qaeda that bombed London but the French in retaliation for not getting the 2012 Olympics!

Please stop bashing us sometime;

Can I remind you terrorism exist before 9/11 ? No? Yes it is true!
correct me if i am wrong, but terrorism is born with indepedence wars. France have learned thet in east asia and north africa first. UK know that still michael Collins in Ireland and USA began to learn in vietnam.
In 30 last years europa was most attack than never. red terrorists supported by Ussr in the 70th mainly in Germany and Italy. during the eighties in France even by an Armenian liberation army ?? (ASALA) yes it is true stop laughing,
just like a jersey liberation army in UK or a hawai lib. one in USA.
In lebanon French soldiers are dead the same nigth as US soldiers, you are never blame us for that? Why you don't do it. just because we are with you.??
If you are not with me, you are against me?? strange way to have friends!
No guys! stop to be black or white. OK guys, it was good times when it's red or dead. But now times have change

in the 90' France was attack to; but now it was a islamic terrorism. And US GI based in Germany aslo targeted. Someone remind?

What does it means, first terrorism is an act of war for the poor when is happen in an independance war.
second, it's an act for struggle and frighten countries when it's coming from "terrorist stzates" or organisations like Al qedia.

Yes France will not follow orders in anyway(surely an insurrectionnal tradition). Chirac is an Idiot TRUE.
But please remenber, bombs are divided family rather before the 9/11.
Some French collaborate with nazis TRUE, but when I read we can collaboratte with fanatic muslims GAHHHH. :furious3:
Men you're out of space! we're bad rules but nor stupid! go to hell!!

Sorry i'am nervous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by william the bastard

Please stop bashing us sometime;

Can I remind you terrorism exist before 9/11 ? No? Yes it is true!
correct me if i am wrong, but terrorism is born with indepedence wars. France have learned thet in east asia and north africa first. UK know that still michael Collins in Ireland and USA began to learn in vietnam.
In 30 last years europa was most attack than never. red terrorists supported by Ussr in the 70th mainly in Germany and Italy. during the eighties in France even by an Armenian liberation army ?? (ASALA) yes it is true stop laughing,
just like a jersey liberation army in UK or a hawai lib. one in USA.
In lebanon French soldiers are dead the same nigth as US soldiers, you are never blame us for that? Why you don't do it. just because we are with you.??
If you are not with me, you are against me?? strange way to have friends!
No guys! stop to be black or white. OK guys, it was good times when it's red or dead. But now times have change

in the 90' France was attack to; but now it was a islamic terrorism. And US GI based in Germany aslo targeted. Someone remind?

What does it means, first terrorism is an act of war for the poor when is happen in an independance war.
second, it's an act for struggle and frighten countries when it's coming from "terrorist stzates" or organisations like Al qedia.

Yes France will not follow orders in anyway(surely an insurrectionnal tradition). Chirac is an Idiot TRUE.
But please remenber, bombs are divided family rather before the 9/11.
Some French collaborate with nazis TRUE, but when I read we can collaboratte with fanatic muslims GAHHHH. :furious3:
Men you're out of space! we're bad rules but nor stupid! go to hell!!

Sorry i'am nervous

---

Its obvious that English isn't your first language, but you make some excellent points.

Good to see someone with a little passion stand up for themselves in here.

Well done william ~:cheers:

ichi :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Someone buy this man a beer. Excellently said.

I've been too flustered since post one of this thread (which seemed to imply that if the US did what France does, we'd never have had a 9/11) to engage in rational debate.

---

Don't buy the man a beer. His comments bespeak a "US central" attitude that frankly Prol, yours do too.

Look, if France thinks cozying up with Saddam is in their best interest, they have every right to keep him in power. It's what we would do. Your anger stems from a sense of betrayal at what you believe an ally should and should not do.

The United States and the Republic of France are two Western 'democracies' on friendly terms. That is it. Any sense of allegiance we feel for them or they feel for us is misguided and wrong. And it's where these hurt and angry outbursts come from. Much like China, France has to find it's way in the world in the way that is best for France. As do we. We need to stop looking at France and saying "Why didn't you do what we wanted you to" because I can tell you the answer to that, and I'm as pro-America as they come "It's not good for France".

An alliance implies each side will take it's knocks and do their best to help the others within the alliance. France has made it more than clear they do not view us as an ally anymore, and we need to stop treating them as one. Friendly, similar (but not same) cultural references, sure. But our paths have split. Quit whining. Deal with it. They're not asking for us, don't ask for anything from them. They are free to do as they see fit, as are we.

Fine, we're not allies anymore, so next time Germany invades you're on your own. ~;)

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Fine, we're not allies anymore, so next time Germany invades you're on your own. ~;)

Crazed Rabbit

---

Unless we AGAIN decide it's in our best interest to fight Germany, you're absolutely right. Because make no mistake about it, that's why we did it both times we chose to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King of Atlantis

Though i dont agree with France's stance on some things, i dont think it is fair to attack them or anybody for not going to war with iraq.

Finally, i dont think anybody should decide what type of government another country has. If some Iraqies had started some kind of uprising trying to make a democratic government then i would have fully supported the war.

---

You and others seem to be totally missing the point. It is not the fact that France did not participate. (That I have no problem with.) It was their anti-US fight that really has me and other US citizens angry at them. It is one thing to be neutral. It is another to actively work against your ally. I remember France bullying and threatening other nations who were seeking EU membership, all in an effort to undercut us.

Let me make this more clear. It is one thing for someone to tell you they are not going to help you do a job. It is quite another for that person to hide your tools, trip you, etc. to prevent you from doing the job. See the difference? If a friend does that to me, he is no longer a friend.

Your final paragraph has huge problems both in logic and history: the people of Iraq had zero opportunity to choose any other govt without outside intervention. They actually tried an uprising after the 1st Gulf War, but Bush Sr. failed to do anything to support them, and they were crushed. Bush would have had to go out on a limb to do it. The reason Saddam was left in place was because of the irrational fear many at home and abroad had of a destabilized Iraq. His neighbors wanted a weakened Saddam and protection from him, but did not want to risk the unrest. It was folly, Saddam had already created the conditions so the destabilization was inevitable. Any rational person could see he couldn't be left in place, but international politics made doing anything about the real problem nearly impossible. It isn't that the concerns were unrealistic, it is that the problem was not going to go away through inaction. Better to address a problem sooner than later.

Red,
You're a reasonable guy. Read my lips. They are not our ally. They stopped being such in the early 1960's when DeGaulle told us to get the "F" out. End of story. They have their version of events, we have ours. But stop whining about it, they are not our allies, and we should not be theirs.

If the Republic of France has decided that Saddam Hussein makes sense as the leader of Iraq from their policy standpoint, shouldn't they take action to prevent us from taking him out?

If they decide that they need to start selling weapons systems to China to bolster Thales and their other defense contractors, do they not have that right? Of course they do!

What has you, Proletariat, Panzer, and other Americans upset is you don't realize the equation has changed. NATO is long gone, and France was never really a part of it to begin with. They are more than free to pursue their policy goals, without regard to our welfare, as we are to pursue our own without regard to theirs. Any sort of informal alliance we ever had with them is long gone. Allow them to do what is best for them and allow us to do what is best for us.