Support NeoGAF

[Lil' Dice]

Now that it's apparent that the war in Iraq is a failure, and that the reasoning behind the conflict was founded on false pretense; do you still hold resentment towards the country that refused to embark on a campaign they had no confidence in?
Will you also still boycotting UBISoft games?

 

[MrPing1000]

If u resented France in the first place then you are a stupid doo doo head.

 

[Xenon]

do you still hold resentment towards the country that refused to embark on a campaign that was against their interests?

fixed.

yes. Had we presented a united front to Iraq things may have been much different. France's open cockblocking of Bush gave GW support to bypass the UN.

France pretending like they are acting for the good of the world is laughable.

 

[ki/oon]

And US pretending they want to "free" Iraq is ?

 

[MrPing1000]

And US pretending they want to "free" Iraq is ?

bingo

 

[fennec fox]

I resent the French because they look good in berets and I don't.

 

[Lil' Dice]

fixed.

yes. Had we presented a united front to Iraq things may have been much different. France's open cockblocking of Bush gave GW support to bypass the UN.

France pretending like they are acting for the good of the world is laughable.

Isn't the US looking out for it's interest as well? I mean someone must protect oil refineries and future business prospects in the region. France OTOH wanted to shield itself from embarking on a futile mission, all the while keeping their soldiers from being blown to smithereens.

 

[Mercury Fred]

I resent them because there was a French girl in my dorm and she'd wear a jean jacket with jeans and comedy/tragedy earrings and a scarf.

 

[etiolate]

France was just protecting its oil interests, just like we were. The only bothersome part is that they acted like they weren't and had the silly notion that they were taking the high road.

 

[Fresh Prince]

France was just protecting its oil interests, just like we were. The only bothersome part is that they acted like they weren't and had the silly notion that they were taking the high road.

And US pretending they want to "free" Iraq is ?

What?

 

[Lil' Dice]

France was just protecting its oil interests, just like we were. The only bothersome part is that they acted like they weren't and had the silly notion that they were taking the high road.

The high road is often the smartest route....

 

[xabre]

The only bothersome part is that they acted like they weren't and had the silly notion that they were taking the high road.

Why are conservatives such blind hypocrites?

 

[Cubsfan23]

When have we ever not resented France?

 

[Fresh Prince]

When have we ever not resented France?

When French troops helped the Americans defeat the British?

 

[MrPing1000]

When French troops helped the Americans defeat the British?

and gave them that liberty statue thingy as a celebrationary pressie

 

[etiolate]

Note to dichotomous political fags:

Not once did I say the US did the right thing or that they had the moral high road. Thanks.

 

[Spike Spiegel]

Now that it's apparent that the war in Iraq is a failure...

I stopped reading right there.

 

[PhlegmMaster]

No nation ever does anything significant that isn't in their interest, or in the interest of its leaders. France was utterly egotistical in its opposition to the US, as was the Bush administration in its decision to launch the invasion. The difference is that the French stance on the Iraq war didn't result in thousands of deaths among American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

Frankly, anyone who thinks "freeing" Iraq has ever been anything but propaganda is a fool. Ask yourself this: If helping innocent human beings truly was a concern for Bush, why hasn't the money that's been used to make this war possible been used to fund medical research, or donated to international aid organisations, or invested in the building of schools and hospitals in under-developed countries, or heck, simply used to pay for the education and health care of a few hundred thousand poor people in the US itself?

Of course, if he'd done that, I'll bet 5 years' salary that Bush would have lost the 2004 elections by an embarassingly large percentage.

 

[Fresh Prince]

Note to dichotomous political fags:

Not once did I say the US did the right thing or that they had the moral high road. Thanks.

Then what were you saying? That the rhetoric from France was worse than the rhetoric from the US? That is what was implied to me, fag.

 

[Foreign Jackass]

I stopped reading right there.

You can READ?

 

[Lil' Dice]

I stopped reading right there.

Don't read it if you have nothing to add.
You strike me as the type who reads with his eyes closed, and listens with his ears plugged.

 

[etiolate]

Then what were you saying?

The only bothersome part is that they acted like they weren't and had the silly notion that they were taking the high road.

All I stated was what bothered me about France. Is there a better/worse comparison to other countries? No.

Reading & Responding.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Now that it's apparent that the war in Iraq is a failure, and that the reasoning behind the conflict was founded on false pretense; do you still hold resentment towards the country that refused to embark on a campaign they had no confidence in?
Will you also still boycotting UBISoft games?

Didn't you post a flamebaiting, trollish post like this earlier?


Edit: Ahh yes .. here it is: http://forums.gaming-age.com/showthread.php?t=33353


You should use your energies to persuade people ... not inflame them. Being an antagonistic know-it-all only makes people resent you and the side you stand on.

 

[ghostface]

*Pats the shoulders of the people who still don't see how the invasion of Iraq was and still is a spectacular failure*

There, there. Everything's going to be alright.

 

[ghostface]

All I stated was what bothered me about France.

Uh, no, you also called him a fag. And yes France did act like they weren't only looking for their oil interest, but so did the U.S, but I guess you don't find that "bothersome", right?

 

[etiolate]

Holy hell, the question in the topic is about France not the U.S. Are you people retarded?

 

[Socreges]

fixed.

yes. Had we presented a united front to Iraq things may have been much different. France's open cockblocking of Bush gave GW support to bypass the UN.

France pretending like they are acting for the good of the world is laughable.

France was just protecting its oil interests, just like we were. The only bothersome part is that they acted like they weren't and had the silly notion that they were taking the high road.

Whatever might have encouraged France to act as they did, they had international law (for whatever you feel that is worth) and several other countries (who didn't have oil interests) on their side. They were also ultimately right. There's nothing to say that France would have acted differently if they didn't have oil interests in Iraq.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

Now that it's apparent that the war in Iraq is a failure, and that the reasoning behind the conflict was founded on false pretense; do you still hold resentment towards the country that refused to embark on a campaign they had no confidence in?
Will you also still boycotting UBISoft games?

First I wonder how the word "apparent" can really be used - or is it just me? What's apparent and what was false pretense? That Saddam violated UN resolution after UN resolution? Thats apparent, and good pretense to deal with him. Oh and the fact that he shameless murdered thousands upon thousands of people in his own country.

Wait, what's the UN for? Kofi Annan? Heh. The UN is a defunct entity. Hell, look at what has gone on in Rwanda and the UN hasn't done diddly.

Do the words Oil for food scandal mean anything to you?

I haven't boycotted anything from France, because I usually don't check the label on anything. Maybe I should, but I don't and I love a lot of games that have come out of UBISOFT lately so no, I won't be boycotting UBISOFT at the very least.

France hasn't been our friend for a very long time, and if you look at the history between France and the United States, you will see it hasn't ever been really that good to begin with.

France had everything to lose if we were going into Iraq, that's why they blocked it from the beginning. Same with Germany and Russia. All 3 had money in Iraq. That's why they didn't want to do anything. The almighty dollar is a powerful thing.

*****************************************

This is your brain.

This is your brain on Michael Moore :lol

 

[Socreges]

A Bush supporter named "Dr_Cogent"? Just kill me now.

First I wonder how the word "apparent" can really be used - or is it just me?

No, that really was a poor choice of words. His post could have just as easily been "Now that the chances of success in Iraq are looking more and more unlikely" and been to the same effect.

What's apparent and what was false pretense?

I think he's right about the "false pretenses" stuff. Bush and co. sold America a war. However, it would seem that the initial justifications were either fabricated or supposedly based on "faulty intelligence". Through the media, they CONSTANTLY fed the same lines about "imminent danger", "weapons of mass destruction", and "links to Al Qaeda". Go ahead and believe that the government was led as blindly as any American was, but I don't believe it for a fucking second. The Bush administration KNEW they were being extremely contentious with largely unreliable information. They also knew that the millions still petrified and paranoid from 9/11 would buy it all in an instant and break out those pom-poms.

The UN is a defunct entity.

Really? When did this go down?!

The UN, for all its faults, is a very valuable and necessary organization, though I would agree that it should be fundamentally changed.

Is it any surprise that people who defend the war in Iraq, or truly anything that the Bush administration does, consequently feel that the UN is "irrelevant"? Could it have anything to do with them often being at odds? That the UN remains one of the largest obstacles for the US doing whatever the fuck it wants and getting away with it? No, I'm sure it's just your sense of morality that has the UN be so objectionable.

 

[Malakhov]

and gave them that liberty statue thingy as a celebrationary pressie

Funny thing I've heard about this, apparently the french wanted to give it to another country but they didn't wanna spend money to build the base of the statue and NY said hey we'll take it :lol

 

[Fresh Prince]

Holy hell, the question in the topic is about France not the U.S. Are you people retarded?

Well maybe what people are getting at is that in order to answer any question about France is to have a comparison with the US and how they both evaluated the scenario. Also the question was directed more to Americans so the comparison was inevitable.

 

[Lil' Dice]

Didn't you post a flamebaiting, trollish post like this earlier?


Edit: Ahh yes .. here it is: http://forums.gaming-age.com/showthread.php?t=33353


You should use your energies to persuade people ... not inflame them. Being an antagonistic know-it-all only makes people resent you and the side you stand on.

You're an overly sensitive and reactionary. Calm down, and either join the discussion, or stay out of the threads.
I present to you my stance by stating my opinions regardless of how I may be perceived; you can either take it or leave it.

 

[Flynn]

Had we presented a united front to Iraq things may have been much different.

:lol

 

[Lil' Dice]

The good news is that next week's elections will magically bring about freedom to all Iraqis, and ensure a long standing democracy.

 

[Date of Lies]

Exactly who gave you your Statue of Liberty?


HINT: it wasn't god.

 

[Dice]

Well while we turned our massive surplus into a massive debt, France decided that continuing to stabilize the entire european economy, upholding/continuing to build the european defense matrix, not joining the mortal enemies of their neighbors and not sending their troops to their deaths for something they didn't initiate and aren't needed to finish was a better idea than offering miniscule yet dangerous support to the world's greatest power (who so happens to have two oceans protecting them if things get crazy) who most-likely won't give them the cold shoulder just because they did when it wasn't really needed. Unlike America, France seems to realize how their actions affect others (and themselves) and choose to take responsibility for that. For France, war doesn't seem to be about advancing their own ideals, I don't see how that is snobbish or arrogant.

 

[Lil' Dice]

Well while we turned our massive surplus into a massive debt, France decided that continuing to stabilize the entire european economy, upholding/continuing to build the european defense matrix, not joining the mortal enemies of their neighbors and not sending their troops to their deaths for something they didn't initiate and aren't needed to finish was a better idea than offering miniscule yet dangerous support to the world's greatest power (who so happens to have two oceans protecting them if things get crazy) who most-likely won't give them the cold shoulder just because they did when it wasn't really needed. Unlike America, France seems to realize how their actions affect others (and themselves) and choose to take responsibility for that. For France, war doesn't seem to be about advancing their own ideals, I don't see how that is snobbish or arrogant.

Isn't rationale an amazing concept?

 

[etiolate]

You two are just jealous because you can't fit the faces of wanted iraqi terrorists onto a pair of dice. Frikken card envy! You still have your Milles Bornes!

 

[Saturnman]

Apparently, the succession of those three colors puts some Americans in irrational fits of rage.

Let's encourage that.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

The claim that since 1441 was violated makes the war legitimate makes me laugh. If that's the case then the UN should be able to make any country give up part of its sovereightny, and when a violation is broken it a)requires a war and b)the US should fight this war for the UN. If that's the case then we should have gone to war against Israel a million times over by now.

 

[Shinobi]

Hell, look at what has gone on in Rwanda and the UN hasn't done diddly.

Somehow you missed the small detail that the US didn't wanna do shit either. And yeah, that was the Clinton administration who sat still with their thumb up their ass. Which is why I say both US parties ain't worth shit.

Still, I don't disagree about the UN...the way they ignored Rwanada made me sick to my stomach.

 

[Crag Dweller]

The claim that since 1441 was violated makes the war legitimate makes me laugh. If that's the case then the UN should be able to make any country give up part of its sovereightny, and when a violation is broken it a)requires a war and b)the US should fight this war for the UN. If that's the case then we should have gone to war against Israel a million times over by now.

I found a video from a Yale teach-in from the time right before the war that a professor on the panel gives a good account of why the U.S. took the steps it did.

The page can be found here: http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/video.jsp
The video can be found here: http://streaming.yale.edu:8080/ramgen/media/law/iraqteachinlawqa032603.rm

Go to the 19:00 min. mark of the video to watch the professor speak about this subject.

edit: put the wrong link up for the video.