2007-05-17 14:27:56 · 9 answers · asked by infoman 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
I am curious about the Statement of 100% right about Iraq, and am wondering on what that is based.
2007-05-17 14:42:19 · answer #1 · answered by I Am A Cupcake 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I personally am worried about the French. While Sarkozy says good things about the economy, I don't think he'll keep his promises any better than his fellow Neo-Conservatives in America. I've heard rumors that the fascist party is contemplating merging into Sarkozy's party to form a majority so that he remains a permanent president.
Yes, the French were right about Iraq, but they've elected the Neo-Cons to fix the mess that the left made of their economy (they have massive unemployment because they have all the laws that leftists always want). The right-wingers to elect are the libertarians, not the neo-cons. Libertarians respect civil liberties and support peace in foreign affairs. They also are far more Capitalist than anybody else on the right.
If the French would use better judgment in electing presidents (electing libertarians) and if they would stop being so much against the health of athletes (they're worse on the idiotic steroid crusade than Americans and that's saying something), there would be alot of strong reasons to immigrate to France.
2007-05-17 14:44:14 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's because the French are notorious for doing nothing as they watch a situation deteriorate and then acting like stuck up snobs who knew what was going to happen all along. If you always do nothing, it will occasionally be the right thing to have done. Consistently doing nothing isn't anything to be proud of, though--that's the French Mistake. If I could turn back the hands of time and make a slight adjustment, Hitler would still have been stopped. But the French would be singing Deutschland Über Alles. In that case, there was plenty of time to do something about it before it went as far as it did. They wouldn't, not even if the aggressor was right next door; not even if the WW1 settlement gave them the right. Wankers.
2007-05-17 15:13:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
First off they were not 100% right.
Second, What little they were right, they were right for the wrong reasons.
So really they were not right at all for any reasons they claim.
I am not so petty as to demand name changes from French fries to freedom fries or any of that other nonsense, But I wish the french would get their damn noses out of the air and their attitude and shove it up you know where.
What galls me worse is the Italians who had a protest demonstration in Rome demanding they have a vote in US presidential elections. (Their reasoning was: since the USA is so powerful and the decisions of the President afect the whole world, then they should have a vote in who is elected.
Those idiots I would personally smack down even if I do get charged with assault.
2007-05-17 14:39:11 · answer #4 · answered by CG-23 Sailor 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because:
1. the french fries had a 6 billion dollar oil deal
2. the french fries secret service are leading the insurgents
2007-05-17 15:10:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The French are ok with me. I just hope they find the courage to keep France French.
2007-05-17 14:31:35 · answer #6 · answered by answer man 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What? The French actually took a stand about something and didn't sit around waiting for another country to bail them out? I must have blinked and missed that moment!!
2007-05-17 14:44:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Now that France is admitting it has problems with muslim separtists, why would anyone not recognize that? Islamofascist terrorism is still what it is.
We'll have to see what the new Prez's position is on that.
2007-05-17 14:33:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Germany also refused to join the oilfascists in their attack as did many other countries.
2007-05-17 17:18:27 · answer #9 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋