Forums | MacLife

people are blindly defying France and starting to sling mud at them simply because they disagree with Bush's policies.

Talk about an oversimplified misrepresentation.

Then please explain why these forums, and news reports, and columnists, and politicians didn't really start insulting the French until they started playing a starring role in the anti-Iraq war drama.

I look forward to your explanation.

I've been ragging on the French for quite some time, especially since the Anti-Americanism has been rampant even before Bush took the oath of office.

people are blindly defying France and starting to sling mud at them simply because they disagree with Bush's policies.

Talk about an oversimplified misrepresentation.

Then please explain why these forums, and news reports, and columnists, and politicians didn't really start insulting the French until they started playing a starring role in the anti-Iraq war drama.

I look forward to your explanation.

Thats a silly question Shnicky.  Everyone I know has always hated the French.  I think it has something to do with their overweening arrogance and generally unfriendly attitude.  Which I believe they are simply demonstrating more clearly in the current political situation than they normally do.  Sarcasm aside, I have never met anyone who came back from a trip to France with anything good to say about its inhabitants.  They are, in general (obviously there are exceptions), a disagreeable group.  Its somewhat of a running joke, at least it is here in the US.  I dont know about Canada.

... after they started thumbing their nose at Bush.

You're ignoring the other European countries that are supporting the UK and the US.  France is acting more unilateralist than the US.

I dont understand the proof issue, I think you are misinformed.  It is not the case that anyone has to prove that Iraq has WMD, it was the decision of the UN that Iraq has to prove to the international community that they have none and are no longer dangerous.  The French voted for that resolution.  And now for their own reasons (as you pointed out) they have decided that because Iraq says they have no WMD and no one can provide direct evidence that they do we should just take their word for it.

The burden of proof has become completely misconstrued by everyone.  The Bush administration says Iraq has WMD and they cant tell us all the details to prove it.  Everyone complains loudly the administration is not to be trusted and should come up with clear convincing proof.  Iraq says that they have no WMD but offers no evidence to prove this claim as they are clearly required to do by international law.  No one has a problem with this.  You continue to state that they are not a danger until it has been proven.  You seem to be under the misconception that Iraq is presumed innocent until proven guilty.  Not true.  They have already been found guilty of invading Kuwait and are serving their sentence.  There is no presumption of innocence.  They have all the same rights as an inmate in a penitentiary: none.  Does a prison guard need proof of wrongdoing to enter a prisoner's cell and search.  If the prisoner resisted the search, what would happen?  The guards would go in hold the prisoner down and search to their hearts content.

What is happening now is that one of the guards is saying we need to go in their together and look for the knife and some of the others are saying he seems ok (even though he is a convicted murderer)  and we dont see anything looking through the bars so lets not get ourselves mussed up by going in there to look because he said hes going to fight it.  Bad decision.

No, actually, as far as I am concerned how the UN handles Iraq is up to them.  The UN is in charge of that inspection, etc, not the US.

Isnt the US a member of the UN?  Would that not give us the right to question how the UN is handling the situation?

If it's Iraq's responsibility to prove to the international community their innoncence, then surely you will accept that the UN Security Council can vote on the issue, as they are representative of the international community, and as you probably know, the US is in the minority in that vote.

I would be more than happy to accept the UN Security Council's vote on that issue.  And I believe they actually have voted on that issue.  15-0 : Iraq is in material breach of its obligations under the relevant UN resolution.  UN is doing nothing about it.  Inspectors have indicated that nothing has changed in the 3+ months since that vote.  What now?  France wants to send more inspectors.  Hasnt worked for 12 years why will it start working now with a few extra people? Hans said himself that the only solution is Iraqi cooperation.

So if the US chooses to wage war on it's own, then they better have a damned good reason.

The US is hardly on its own.  A majority of Nato members are with the US.  And the UN security council is evenly split.  US, UK, Spain, Bulgaria, Mexico - France, Russia, China, Germany, Syria - rest not commited yet.

Thats a silly question Shnicky.  Everyone I know has always hated the French.  I think it has something to do with their overweening arrogance and generally unfriendly attitude.  Which I believe they are simply demonstrating more clearly in the current political situation than they normally do.  Sarcasm aside, I have never met anyone who came back from a trip to France with anything good to say about its inhabitants.  They are, in general (obviously there are exceptions), a disagreeable group.  Its somewhat of a running joke, at least it is here in the US.  I dont know about Canada.

I was under the impression that it was only in centres like Paris that you're likely to encounter hostility. I also know that Aussies get a fairer go than americans or english.

Sarcasm aside, I have never met anyone who came back from a trip to France with anything good to say about its inhabitants.  They are, in general (obviously there are exceptions), a disagreeable group.

Howdy.

Now you have.