2007-02-17 06:07:03 · 20 answers · asked by The High Flying Freedom Frie 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
France was always right. To contain Iraq was best policy and much cheaper. Bush wanted to be a War leader. To be seen as super power hard, but he has seriously damaged the US position in the world and now no one is scared of their "power". Well done.
2007-02-17 09:00:56 · answer #1 · answered by K. Marx iii 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The only reason that german officers arent still sipping coffee in Paris is because of the blood shed by the allies who didnt surrender or collaborate.
The french motives for opposing action against Iraq even after contravening Un resolutions ,are questionable at best.
Nevertheless,France should have hoped for the oportunity to repay the debt it owes to USA and Britain and to prove us all wrong that they are cowards.
These filth sold weapons and aircraft to argentina during the falklands war and still sell weapons to rogue states and terrorists now.
2007-02-17 06:24:38 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hello rusty dog,
France had too many fingers in Saddam's Iraq to talk truth. The US was definitely right.
Hatred for the French. We gave them back their country twice. They resent it. The French are worse than a stated enemy. They pose to be friends when the knife is in your back.
I would have cut off all ties to France many years ago.
I would say Disgust. Do you know why the french are such purveyors of perfume? They very seldom bathe. The perfume is to cover the stench. We should have given France to the English as war spoils.
Hisemiester
2007-02-17 06:38:12 · answer #3 · answered by hisemiester 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think this the one area where I have a genuine distaste for certain other countries' socio-political beliefs. The USA stayed out of two world wars UNTIL they had bled the protagonists financially dry for munitions before being forced into a response by German (Lusitania) and Japanese (Pearl Harbour) aggression directly against them.
The French have never forgiven us for Agincourt, never mind for the Somme and for western Europe's 'occupation' that we refused to share along with them.
George Bush Jnr is in Iraq now because George Bush Snr didn't finish the job the first time round. I dislike Bush Jnr because from his appearances on the media he is clearly both ignorant and 'hard of understanding'. He is also a religious fundamentalist of the same cast of those he denigrates abroad. That said someone had to start somewhere on the dictatorships of the world and if it had to be on the back of a mistaken belief in WMDs so be it.
Let us hope that in future similar conflicts (and they will happen because the collective conscience of the developed world is starting to be severely pricked) that the 'Plan for Peace' is as well worked out AND as overwhelming as the 'Plan for War'.
2007-02-17 06:56:28 · answer #4 · answered by narkypoon 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
This is a test. I want to see just how unbelievably biased the Liberal press really is?
Are you forgetting about the Oil For Food Scandal, or did you never read about it in the mainstream, Liberal media?
Saddam bribed members of the UN Security Council to not take military action against him. That's why, even though the UN passed SEVENTEEN sternly-worded resolutions against Iraq, the Security Council could never pass a vote authorizing troops.
So, countries like France, Germany, and Russia were being bought off. Even though these countries would issue the resolutions, they never intended to enforce them. Hence, the U.S. had to intervene ALONE.
Hatred for the French government? You bet !
2007-02-17 06:12:59 · answer #5 · answered by pachl@sbcglobal.net 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes, the US was, and is, right. Just check the Voting to okay the War. Check the Yes votes of ALL the Politicians.
Hate France. Why should we hate France for selling weapons to Terrorists who kill Americans? Why should we hate the Country that we had to save from the Germans in Two World Wars?
Maybe because they are ingrates, and are so jealous of the US, that they are OUR undercover Enemy.
2007-02-17 06:19:57 · answer #6 · answered by Sentinel 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The US said "they have WMD's, lets go to war"
France said "don't go to war, diplomacy will solve the problem"
They didn't have WMDs, but they did have an active nuclear program and may have developed a bomb in another 2 years or so.
While the US was wrong about the WMDs, France was most likely also wrong in believing diplomacy would solve the problem. But i guess we'll never know that one for sure.
My conclusion is that they were both wrong.
As for the "hatred", I don't think justified, but it should have been expected. France knew what the consequences would be for their position, but they did what they felt was right. There's nothing wrong with two liberal democracies having a disagreement.
2007-02-17 06:22:10 · answer #7 · answered by jabb0404 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
It's ten or twenty years too soon to say, but it still looks like the French position was very self-serving. And there's no K in Iraq.
2007-02-17 06:20:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
France was right. Bush is liar and Americans who support his administration are fools.
1. No weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.
2. No evidence of collaboration between Iraq and Al-Quaida was discovered.
3. Democracy should not be imposed. Most countries of the world do not want it or cannot sustain it. If the Iraqis want democracy, they should fight for it themselves like everyone else.
The hatred of French people shows that America, though full of diversity is nevertheless full of prejudice, bigotry, and intolerance.
2007-02-17 06:27:26 · answer #9 · answered by Philippe 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
The French have stabbed every country in the back, including their own country.
Just look at history.. Who had to go to their rescue..
I would not call it hatred... Dislike would be a better word.
Also, Un trust worthy.
2007-02-17 06:12:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋