Forums | MacLife

while i dont agree with strongarming france and germany into agreeing, that is the funniest thing i have heard in like a minnit.

It'd be way to easy?  

While it's humorous, and I did laugh, I think that it's dumb to agree with politically.  Asking France to be grateful is futile for one, and second, why should the US expect France to be our bitch because of WWII?  It's over and settled.

What's more disturbing is that the righties are trying to discredit France and Germany by any means possible and in this case, they are changing the subject from War to wine.  It's a laughable distraction tactic.

I'm surprised that the hawks haven't started rallying support to invade France.  I mean, clearly they are going against the US grain just like Iraq is, so why not just invade them too?   

I think maybe you missed the irony in this humor.  And it is very funny and sad as well.  The parallels in the two circumstances are substantial.  A war, aggressors lost, cease fire/peace agreements, sanctions on standing armies and weapons, willful disregard for sanctions, aggressors lead by authoritarian figure who is/was clearly several bricks short of a full house, policy of inaction and appeasement by international community.... now all we have to look forward to is the final phase where the leader uses the weapons he is not supposed to have to cause problems for the international community.  Perhaps Iraq will never approach the level of death and destruction that was engendered by the Third Reich, but to assume that they will never cause any death or destruction with the status quo UN policies in place is incredibly naive.

I think the point is that France should remember history and learn from their mistakes not that they should be our yes man because we saved them from the Germans.

I think the point is that France should remember history and learn from their mistakes not that they should be our yes man because we saved them from the Germans.

I didn't get your post.  I don't see the dirct correlations that you are talking about.  Just because Germany conquered France and we liberated them in WWII doesn't mean that Iraq is going to do what Hitler did.  It is such a far-fetched conclusion.

Hm... I see your point.  Iraq has never tried to invade its neighbors.  It has never been subject to sanctions and has never disregarded those sanctions.  Iraq is of course lead by a stable and sane man in the tradition of Nelson Mandela. [/sarcasm]

The point you seem to be having a hard time with is not the invasion of France by Germany and their subsequent relief by Allied troops.  It is the policy of inaction supported by France and other countries then and now.  The players are very similar and if you cant see that then you need to take your blinders and rose-tinted glasses off.  We have a person whos behavior(not to mention his sanity), in a moral and ethical sense, is clearly in question, in possession of weapons and/or troops the he is not allowed by international law because his country had previously invaded its neighbors.  A policy of inaction (or insufficient action) by the international community.  In the past those circumstances lead to WWII.  Hopefully they will not lead to a similiar problem in this case.  However, repeating the mistake that was made then: not making every effort (including ocupation and force) to control Hitler,  does not seem like a very intelligent course of action.  Europe sat back and hoped for the best then.  It turned out to be a mistake.  They are advocating a similar strategy now.  Seems like they should have learned from past mistakes.  Or perhaps this time they just dont really care because its not in their backyard.  In either case the sarcasm is directed at their inability to learn from past mistakes and the lack of humility that it exhibits.

They made a big mistake in not controlling Hitler more tightly and had to be bailed out at great cost.  Now they are advocating a similar strategy in dealing with a similar problem and are thumbing their noses at the entity who bailed them out last time and who would like to try to head the problem off before it gets out of hand.  I dont understand how you cannot see the irony here.  You seem to be very closed minded on this particular issue.  Its strange because I have always thought you were a farily open minded person based on your posts on other topics.

I disagree 100%.  I think it's a huge stretch to compare Hussein to Hitler, and this is why I don't see France's desire for patience to be the same thing.  I don't think Hussein has the means to do what Hitler did, and though Bush seems to think there's a threat, he hasn't yet convinced me nor France, nor Germany, nor the majority of the UN Security Council.

While we're on analogies about the past though, here's one for you:  The German people supported Hitler's plans and assumed that he knew what he was doing.  I see this same mentality in the US today.  In fact, it's exemplified by this very thread in which the Frence are made to be scapegoats.

You are saying that GWB and Hitler are similar in mind and purpose? And you say comparing Saddam to Hilter is a strech.     Bush is certainly far from the best president we have had but he in no way comes close to being compared to Hitler.

I dont think that comparing Saddam to Hitler is that great a strech at all.  Ultimately their goals are the same: power and domination.  Saddam is a much smaller and less powerful individual but in these times of chemical, biological, and radiological weapons, no less dangerous to the world.  Both tried to invade their neighbors, both have no qualms about exterminating those they see as unfit to live, and both have access to weapons that make them dangerous.  Just because Saddam hasnt been as successful as Hitler was doesnt make him any less dangerous.

Your analogy is also extremely flawed.  Many US citizens do not support GWBs policies and speak loudly in that regard.  GWB is under many many constraints that neither Hitler nor Saddam felt/feel.  He is limited in power by checks and balances, limited in his length of office by law, and limited in his control over the American public by a much greater freedom of information in the US than in exsits/existed ineither of those countries.  The situations are not even close.  If you cant see that consider your own comments.  In Nazi Germany or present day Iraq I would give you a lifespan of about a day or so after some of the things you have said.

Whether or not this is a non sequiter attempt to discredit France, it's still scary.

Damn self-righteous Europeans.  They refuse any genetically engineered food, even when it would be incredibly beneficial, but they're fine with spreading BSE.

Hey, they make really great crispy things!

They refuse any genetically engineered food

For good reasons such as GE foods are patented, besides you are quite wrong. They do not "refuse it" they do however demand that products containing GE ingredients be properly labeled. In America, the citizens have no choice in the matter. We have been force fed the stuff for quite some time now. In addition, the GE Industry is heavily subsidized in America.

Certain alcoholic beverages, such as wine and beer, typically go through a clarifying or fining process to remove impurities and improve their cosmetic appearance by making them clear. Although earth-based agents, such as bentonite clay, diatomaceous earth, or activated carbon, may be used, particularly with less expensive brands, animal-derived agents are commonly employed, especially with more costly European wines. These include egg whites, whole milk, casein, gelatin, or isinglass (made from the bladder of sturgeon fish). Isinglass is used predominately by German wineries, although other European and a few American wineries also use this substance. Wines from some Mediterranean countries may be clarified with the blood of large mammals; however, this process is prohibited for use with wines produced in France and the United States.

http://www.vegsource.com/joanne/qa/qabeer.htm