French Morals: Lesson 1.

It has the plurality, T. Of course, the poll wasn't exactly meant to be objective: three options are versions of the same theme.

Then again, if three conservatives ran against one liberal, the liberal would win. Lash wasn't thinking strategically when she designed her poll, perhaps...

Are you claiming voter fraud?


I think we can safely call it 14-7 at this point.

A few more examples of French morals (hard to type French and morals in the same sentence)...The outcome: Kofi Annan released a statement saying "it is vital that the investigations be speeded up." Meanwhile, according to Le Nouvel Observateur, an effort to investigate the atrocious killing of at least 20 civilians in Ivory Coast by French soldiers operating under a U.N. mandate is being opposed by a member of Chirac's party.
http://permanent.nouvelobs.com/etranger/20041202.OBS2853.html

In New York, Kofi himself is the star of the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food scandal, of course. The world's biggest humanitarian heist is playing to amused readers in Paris. Le Monde reports that every European's favorite bureaucrat (along with the sacred bureaucracy for which he works) was under fire from the likes of Sen. Norm Coleman, National Review, and a roster of conservative allies. Since the French role in the scandal has been largely unreported, Le Monde's story has a taint of the witch-hunt about it.
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3220,36-389335,0.html

Besides, according to an AFP report on expatica.com, Chirac and Schroeder are behind Annan 100 percent. (Annan is frantically looking for his wallet.)
http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=58&story_id=14666&name=Chirac+and+Schroeder+back+embattled+Annan

Above links courtesy of NRO and Denis Boyles - Soiled Rotten

oliver north.

No. No strategy. Just a little fun.

But, there can't be anyone surpised here that a liberal woulf beat three conservatives. Diametrically different to the sad end of the Dem Presidential candidate and most of his like-minded Congressional minions...

The French have morals? LOL

I decided this post was too childish, and deleted it.

not just your comment, but this whole thing about the french...

what the hell?? the right wing has made a vocation of pitchin' a bitch about the french... the germans... the russians...the canadians... ooohh...

amazing. you guys are spending all of this energy being totally pissed off at a bunch of people that have done nothing to you. let's not play games about how those countries didn't throw in with the bush team and act like patriotic americans. it's crap and you guys all know it.

why not stand up and be real. wanna be pissed??? try being pissed at the jerks that did do something to us.

ya'll never even mention the islamists. too busy pouring that merlot in the gutter. like that's gonna do anything but deprive you of a good glass of wine. and since you seem to have about the same opinions about california, maybe we'll keep the napa to ourselves and you can drink good ol' boone's farm.

why don't you complain to your president and demand to know why he hasn't come back with bin laden's head on a freakin' platter?

The "marks" never recognize a "con job" until the "perps" have absconded with the pickin's.

step right up, sir. everyone's a winner.

It isn't crap, it is fact. France in particular has gone well beyond mere disapproval in opposing our attempts to transform the Islamic world. This is both unfortunate and hypocritical in view of the substantial French role in the colonialism of the Arab world that did so much to cause the curent situation. The Baath Political party that was the foundation for Saddam's rule was formed and grew ot of the resistance to the French attempt to reestablish their colonial rule in Syria and Lebanon after WWII.

In case you haven't noticed we are fighting the Islamists.

French Morals #2.

Chirac has a scandal ridden past while in public office. <not so shocking>
Chirac can't be dragged into any court, be forced to answer any questions, as long as he can hang on to his Presidency. <pretty damn shocking>
Journalists in France can't even report on the multitude of scandals. <incredible!>
Chirac has been up the ass of TotalFinaElf for years. <not so shocking>
TotalFinaElf has been fingered for complicitity in the OFF program. <he must go down>
Chirac is an self-righteous crook, who argued on the world stage to keep Saddam in power, so as not to interrupt his money flow.<intolerable>

Google TotalFinaElf- Chirac- Oil For Food if you're interested in why all the hub-bub about France.

Its not that they didn't agree with us, DTOM--and you should know that by now as many times as its been discussed. Its how they did it--and why they did it.

Read all about it.

<There was a rather large element of kidding when they first went against us about Iraq. Bashing France became a hobby for me--but it was definitely tongue in cheek. Its not funny anymore.>

Ah, yes. Nothing like a great old burgundy ... or bordeaux. Some fine paintings have come out of France, and Impressionism surely change the face of art. Personally, I rather prefer Santa Barbara premiums to the standard Napa labels. Unfortunately, my diabetes has prevented me from enjoying a fine glass. Of course, the quality of wine has absolutely nothing to do with our opinions about politics ... its about climate, ground, grapes and the vintners skill.

France. Well there was The Terror, where hundreds of thousands were guillotined for Political Correctness. Then there was the Napoleonic dictatorship which plunged the world into the first war that might be called a world war. In the wake of Napoleon, France couldn't decide whether to be a monarchy, a republic, or an empire. The Battle of Sedan was pretty typical of French arms for over a century. This is the country a jewish officer, Paul Dreyfus, was railroaded for spying to cover-up the guilt of a politically connected brother officer. Secret French covenants and treaties helped plunge the world into the Great War. They did make great sacrifices in that conflict, but without the British and Americans Germany would almost certainly have prevailed. French colonialism deepened as they expanded their imperial powers at Versailles, especially in North Africa and Southwest Asia. The French believed that the Maginot Line would protect them, so they were willing to let Hitler run amok through the rest of Europe. During WWII, Charles DeGuall was one of the great burdens carried by Allied Command. His arrogance and obstructionism were out of all proportion to the Free French contribution to the war effort. In the wake of WWII, France became increasingly anti-American and their snobbery became ever more insufferable to much of the world. They screwed up big-time in Vietnam, and the U.S. had to fill the void. French colonialism failed everywhere, but so did every other colonial power. The French attempt to suppress the Algerians was just as brutal as anything ever done in the name of colonialism. The French insisted on having nuclear weapons, but they also harbored a strong Communist Party sympathetic to the Soviet Union. France became home to large numbers of people fleeing from lost colonial possessions, but the French never really accepted any of them as full citizens. France repeatedly violated the imbargo against trade with Iraq, and made millions for a few powerful politicians by selling goods of military value to Saddam. Rather than risk not collecting on the huge debt owed by Saddam, the French did everything they could to keep Saddam in power.

I can't imagine why anyone might be critical of the French.

Perhaps here, in this thread you haven't seen postings critical of the international radical Islamic terrorist organizations. That doesn't mean that such criticisms haven't been made, in spades, elsewhere. Many conservatives, myself among them, strongly favor the use of overwhelming military force against radical Islamic terrorists wherever, and whenever possible. They were badly damaged in Afghanistan, and the fight that is now being waged in Iraq is in our opinion more than justified. This is a different sort of war than we've become accustomed to. This enemy isn't a nation expressing it's political will by conducting military operations in conformance with international law using uniformed soldiers. This is more like the drug wars, or the Roman campaigns against the Germans, or the Indian Wars of the 19th century. These are the sort of conflicts that take a great deal of time to prosecute, and are very difficult to evaluate as to effectiveness.

What is certain is that during the last several years the international radical Islamic terrorist organizations have been badly damaged, their networks disrupted, and their sanctuaries made less secure. The enemy has been driven further underground, and the battle is being wage on their turf, not the soil of the United States. Their numbers are being daily reduced far out of proportion to their ability to recruit, train and make operational new terrorists. Their leadership has been decimated, and those who remain alive must hide as deeply as possible to avoid death or capture. They've pretty much lost Afghanistan. They are pressed by the Pakistani government into remote regions. They appear less active in Indonesia. Winning the battle to defeat an independent Iraqi government is essential to the terrorists, and they are pouring as much of their resources into the battle as they can. We will help them to paradise. They can not afford a long battle of attrition, we can. The one thing the terrorists believe in is that a campaign of terror, of kidnapping, murder, and bombing of civilians will so repel Americans that we will cede our victory to them. Fa.

I read some declassified papers of Kennedy's and Johnson's advisors and cabinet members re DeGaulle. You aren't kidding. He was an asshole of the highest order. Even they said he made everything difficult just to have somebody give a **** about what he said. Chirac must've learned his 'statesmanship' under that wacko.

Also. The Maginot Line: A ditch. Even the children playing war outside construct better defenses.

The Maginot line was a military contractor's boon... conceived in response to the "external threat" of Germany, the French were conned into paying thru the nez for perceived "Security".

The vast expenditure made the French people feel less insecure (ineffectual as it turned out to be) as it made the contrators wealthy.

(Sound familiar?)

When it comes to Politics, Public Perception always trumps reality... or, as P.T.Barnum said:
"There's a sucker born every minute".

uhh - huh -huh... magus said "nez"...

Well, I don't know when and where you visited it the last time.


source: "Maginot Line" Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service.<http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9049999>[Accessed December 6, 2004].

LOL the Maginot line. It was a superb defense for the past war, the one that Generals insist on fighting. I think the most striking feature of the Line was that the concrete walls facing France were substantially thinner than those facing Germany so that when (probably not if) it was captured it would be easier to retake. Now THAT'S planning ahead, n'est-ce pas?

Well, there are some (original) plans online ...



... but even the more detailed plans in books like the one by William Allcorn (The Maginot Line 1928-45, Oxford, 2003) don't exactly prove that :wink:

you make a good point, george.. but don't you think that we are being regarded by the iraqis as attempting to do as the french did?

saddam's a total meglomanical, failure as a human being. but, he sure as hell wasn't going to tolerate a bunch of religious zealots threatening his good thing.

a mission in iraq could have waited till the afghan mission was completed. or we could have continued with sanctions, enforcing them in a better way, and waited for the bastard to drop dead. seems to be what the policy has been with cuba. castro's no mother theresa either.




yeah, but the al qaida connection with iraq previous to the invasion has not held up. either has the wmd assertions. in fact very little that was handed out as fact has proven to be true. nope, not a slam dunk at all.

doesn't it bother you that because we are spending american lives and hundreds of billions on a pig in a polk?

i mean, jeeeezzzz, because of the iraq "money pit", we aren't checking incoming frieght containers, trucks, etc. they x-ray the baggage and make ya take your shoes off to get on a plane, but they don't examine the cargo containers on the same plane !!

we have inadequate security around nuclear sites. the borders leak like a sive, while we are being told that terrorists are being trained to pass themselves off as mexicans, ca's or sa's.

there's more, unfortunately..

but these failures of security are certainly affected by throwing money at iraq.

remember that we were attacked on 9/11 by terrorists launced from within the american borders.