View Full Version : America strikes back
WithStamin
06/18/03, 05:49 PM
By James Lileks
After years of being abused by the French, Americans are returning the favor.
Tourism is down -- 15 percent to 20 percent fewer visitors. Parisians are reduced to sneering at each other, just to keep in practice. Trade has plummeted -- wine sales were off almost 18 percent in March as Americans discovered that Aussie vin makes you giggly or sleepy, too. France once had a trade surplus with the United States and now has a $240 million deficit.
To woo Americans back, the French government decided to hire a celeb to speak on France's behalf. Did they get Arnold Schwarzenegger? ("Ahl be bach -- for de crepes!") Did they get Paula Abdul? ("I don't care what Simon says, France is incredibly talented.")
No, they got Woody Allen. Most Americans regard Woody as a wrinkly creep who makes movies you no longer regret missing. Even on video. "I don't want to have to freedom-kiss my wife," Allen says in the ads, "when what I really want to do is French-kiss her."
Eewww. You might recall that Allen is 391 years older than his wife, and that his wife was his previous girlfriend's adopted daughter. America does not like to think of Woody Allen kissing his wife. America would pay money not to see Woody Allen kiss anyone. Why him? Roman Polanski wasn't available?
They also got George Plimpton to appear in an ad, making it official: French understanding of American culture is taken entirely from a 1968 issue of Playboy.
France's opposition to the Iraq war isn't the reason Americans are turning away from the glories of Gaul. Vicente Fox wasn't exactly in Bush's corner on that one, and you don't see Americans boycotting Cancun. No, it was the manner in which France conducted its opposition -- high-handed, cheerfully duplicitous, brazenly self-serving, with a generous ladle of contempt for this boorish nation of unsophisticated cowboys.
One got the impression they were peeved that America did not realize what it meant to be graced by a stream of French spittle. Why, it was an honor. Most nations France ignores. To be spit on by France is a mark of some distinction. Here is a cloth. Wipe it off. Not with that hand! What are you, a Pole? The other hand! Left to right! Now fold the napkin into the shape of a dying swan!
It's not that American citizens are out to PUNISH France. Many Americans don't know even where it is. (And if they need to know, they'll just find a German and follow him.) Americans are simply choosing other options. France can complain, but it's like sending someone divorce papers and then whining that he's never home anymore.
France is a beautiful country, aside from the hellish projects that ring its cities and act as holding pens for its seething underclass; if ever it casts off the educated dunces who've inserted the collective head of French intellectuals into the navel of postmodernism, it might again make contributions to the realm of ideas.
The food's good. The pre-World War II artistic legacy of the country is worth a pilgrimage for anyone who wants to understand the promise of Enlightenment and the perils of Revolution.
If France pulls through, it'll be important again. And if it doesn't, which seems increasingly likely, it will tear itself apart with strikes. Its economy will be consumed by the rapacious demands of its welfare state. Its restive, unassimilated Muslim population might demand a parallel legal system based on Sharia law. These possibilities should please no one. Pakistan and North Korea do not need company in the "basket-case nation with nukes" category.
We wish the French the best. But their days as the moral avatar, the champion of humanity, are long gone. That reputation -- unearned for decades -- will die in the Congo, where French troops are behaving as effectively as, well, French troops. The painful fact is that no one expects much of them anymore beyond good food, bribery and honeyed hypocrisy.
One liberated Iraqi summed up the American promise like this: "Democracy, Whiskey, Sexy!" One could say that beats Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite.
One might suggest that it already has.
BrandNewRock05
06/18/03, 06:01 PM
Thats great. That Arnold bit reminded me of him giving a speach about Gov. Davis. It went something like this (not verbatum) "And I am trying to remember the name of your Governer, ah I can't remember his name, could you help me recall him?" Good stuff.
Arnold for California Governer! I think we have another Reagan on our hands here! Actor turned California governer, too bad he isnt American born though, we could have Arnold run the big show.
bossydacow
06/19/03, 05:07 AM
Originally posted by WithStamin
They also got George Plimpton to appear in an ad, making it official: French understanding of American culture is taken entirely from a 1968 issue of Playboy.
while the article was slightly amusing:
What about the American understanding of French culture? Is there any? Or was any real understanding of the French culture thrown out the window as soon as France disagreed with America and replaced with this asshole superiority ,the-french-are-evil-lets-blame-it-on-France attitude which I find entirely offensive and embarassing.
Have you guys ever read or looked through popular french magazines? They are littered with American celebrities and American things. I don't think I've ever seen a French celebrity in People or CosmoGirl, or at least not several of them. They see our culture, they come over here, they go to baseball games, they eat cookies..., and then I read stories from people who have gone over there and say that the french are rude people. Gee, I wonder why? American's think they can go into any country and stay removed from the culture, be loud ect. ect., and not take heat for it. Yet if a foreigner visited our country and refused to assimilate into the culture, they would be ridiculed, for sure. Who is hypocritical now? Who is getting spit on now?
yeat182
06/19/03, 05:10 AM
Originally posted by bossydacow
while the article was slightly amusing:
What about the American understanding of French culture? Is there any? Or was any real understanding of the French culture thrown out the window as soon as France disagreed with America and replaced with this asshole superiority ,the-french-are-evil-lets-blame-it-on-France attitude which I find entirely offensive and embarassing.
as opposed to France's, "asshole superiority, the americans-are-evil-lets-blame-it-on-America" attitude which i find entirely offensive....
bossydacow
06/19/03, 05:30 AM
Originally posted by yeat182
as opposed to France's, "asshole superiority, the americans-are-evil-lets-blame-it-on-America" attitude which i find entirely offensive....
well, which seems less evil: being opposed to a war, along with the rest of the world, or blazing foreward into Iraq with little concern for the objections of the vast majority of the world? I'm not saying America is evil, but I don't think the French are evil either. And the shit talk that Americans have been saying since the war started about France, and the whole "Freedom fries" thing is enough to justify the claim that American's act like superior assholes. I mean look at how Fox News ratings have soared! Americans don't want to be told they are wrong, or have acted stupid so they watch a news program that they are sure will serve their superiority needs.
yeat182
06/19/03, 06:06 AM
Originally posted by bossydacow
And the shit talk that Americans have been saying since the war started about France, and the whole "Freedom fries" thing is enough to justify the claim that American's act like superior assholes.
yes, but what you don't understand is that this is how France had always viewed america...they have always had a superior attitude, that they were better than everyone else.
Justin_stacy
06/19/03, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by bossydacow
well, which seems less evil: being opposed to a war, along with the rest of the world,
i personally find it evil to allow people to suffer so long as you can continously receive cheap oil.....and that is exactly what the french did........see they weren't opposed to this war because they thought it wasn't the right thing to do or because it wasn't justified or because war is evil.....but because they wanted cheap oil..........what would you say if america went to war or didn't go to war based solely on the "value" of oil????????????
Originally posted by yeat182
yes, but what you don't understand is that this is how France had always viewed america...they have always had a superior attitude, that they were better than everyone else.
Got a source on that?
yeat182
06/19/03, 07:18 AM
Originally posted by Ronin
Got a source on that?
100 years of history
Originally posted by Justin_stacy
i personally find it evil to allow people to suffer so long as you can continously receive cheap oil.....and that is exactly what the french did........see they weren't opposed to this war because they thought it wasn't the right thing to do or because it wasn't justified or because war is evil.....but because they wanted cheap oil..........what would you say if america went to war or didn't go to war based solely on the "value" of oil????????????
You're a reasonable man, so I don't need to patronize you. But I think it is evil to impose our beliefs on foreign countries. Quite simply, oil was a motivating factor for the US and France. The last line is a little eerie. I don't feel France acted solely because of oil, but I don't think the US acted entirely without it in mind.
Justin_stacy
06/19/03, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by devin
You're a reasonable man, so I don't need to patronize you. But I think it is evil to impose our beliefs on foreign countries. Quite simply, oil was a motivating factor for the US and France. The last line is a little eerie. I don't feel France acted solely because of oil, but I don't think the US acted entirely without it in mind.
i can agree with you on that.......what is emu? nu-metal mixed with emo?
yeat182
06/19/03, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by devin
You're a reasonable man, so I don't need to patronize you. But I think it is evil to impose our beliefs on foreign countries. Quite simply, oil was a motivating factor for the US and France. The last line is a little eerie. I don't feel France acted solely because of oil, but I don't think the US acted entirely without it in mind.
the difference there is that france (along with russia) had exclusive oil rights, they would have been the only countries recieving that oil. the US isn't going to be hording the oil from Iraq, its going to be on the open market for any country to purchase. granted, the US has more money and therefor can buy more oil, but we won't be the only one recieveing it.
BrandNewRock05
06/19/03, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by devin
You're a reasonable man, so I don't need to patronize you. But I think it is evil to impose our beliefs on foreign countries. Quite simply, oil was a motivating factor for the US and France. The last line is a little eerie. I don't feel France acted solely because of oil, but I don't think the US acted entirely without it in mind.
but you'll patronize me? Saving people's lives is not evil. I dont know how it could be. And I'm sure that the US though of oil as a bonus, but it wasnt the deciding factor. The US wanted Saddam out. We got the job done, whats wrong with it? France didnt want to do anything becuase they may lose their oil contract, that seems more evil to me. Thats like saying "fuck the iraqis as long as we have our oil contract i dont care how many iraqis die" and the french are a bunch of dumbfucks to americans. I dont know if anybody here has had the displeasure of going to france,but i have,and i tell you, they hate us. even as an 11 year old kid you could see that they wanted to spit in my face, bunch of pricks
Originally posted by Justin_stacy
i can agree with you on that.......what is emu? nu-metal mixed with emo?
We made it up
It's emo without being a wuss.
edit: and it rocks
Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
but you'll patronize me? Saving people's lives is not evil. I dont know how it could be. And I'm sure that the US though of oil as a bonus, but it wasnt the deciding factor. The US wanted Saddam out. We got the job done, whats wrong with it? France didnt want to do anything becuase they may lose their oil contract, that seems more evil to me. Thats like saying "fuck the iraqis as long as we have our oil contract i dont care how many iraqis die" and the french are a bunch of dumbfucks to americans. I dont know if anybody here has had the displeasure of going to france,but i have,and i tell you, they hate us. even as an 11 year old kid you could see that they wanted to spit in my face, bunch of pricks
I'll agree that the regime in Iraq should not have been left in power. But it didn't justify unilateral action. "Saving lives" had a fairly high cost of lives. So who is handing out the oil contracts? That would be our government. Oh yes, we doing it in the interest of the Iraqi people. I think the oil and the opportunity to turn the focus away from the fading economy were major factors. If you disagree, that's fine. However, you have a troubling mentality. Just because we wanted them out, doesn't mean we have the authority to make the decision. Harry Truman dropped atomic bombs on cities. What if the global community had decided that he needed to be deposed? Sure, we'll probably have the might for a long time to prevent any sort of invasion, but that is not the threat anymore. WMDs are being amassed by dozens of countries. I don't feel the answer is to aggravate everyone to the brink of war. We need to operate within the context of a global community.
And someone else explained the French hating you, but I'll add a little. I bet when you went there, you kept asking for directions and help in English. Or maybe you tried to speak poor French to them. You probably expected them to act like employees at Disneyland. The French aren't in France for your entertainment. Americans are hated abroad because they treat every country like an amusement at Epcot. Europeans are generally taught multiple languages and exposed to many cultures. When they travel, they do not patronize the inhabitants.
Originally posted by devin
And someone else explained the French hating you, but I'll add a little. I bet when you went there, you kept asking for directions and help in English. Or maybe you tried to speak poor French to them. You probably expected them to act like employees at Disneyland. The French aren't in France for your entertainment. Americans are hated abroad because they treat every country like an amusement at Epcot. Europeans are generally taught multiple languages and exposed to many cultures. When they travel, they do not patronize the inhabitants.
Very very very good point.
Many anglo-Canadians wonder why francophones hate them. It's because most Canadians have no respect for their culture.
yeat182
06/19/03, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by devin
I'll agree that the regime in Iraq should not have been left in power. But it didn't justify unilateral action.
it wasn't unilateral action, there were roughly 45 countries that supported military action. just because france didn't want us to go, doesn't make it unilateral.
yeat182
06/19/03, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by devin
And someone else explained the French hating you, but I'll add a little. I bet when you went there, you kept asking for directions and help in English. Or maybe you tried to speak poor French to them. You probably expected them to act like employees at Disneyland. The French aren't in France for your entertainment. Americans are hated abroad because they treat every country like an amusement at Epcot. Europeans are generally taught multiple languages and exposed to many cultures. When they travel, they do not patronize the inhabitants.
you have obviously never been to the northeast and had to deal with the influx of French Canadians. they are the rudest people in the world...after the French. All they do is patronize the inhabitants of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and New York.
Originally posted by yeat182
it wasn't unilateral action, there were roughly 45 countries that supported military action. just because france didn't want us to go, doesn't make it unilateral.
The US bullies countries into supporting its decisions. Only two countries had any substantial hand in the invasion. Sure, maybe the US and UK acting together isn't truly unilateral. But it is damn sure close.
Oh, and I live in NJ. I wasn't really speaking of French-Canadians, but the principle is basically the same. If you patronize a country, the citizens are going to hate you. No one does that better than the US.
yeat182
06/19/03, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by devin
Oh, and I live in NJ. I wasn't really speaking of French-Canadians, but the principle is basically the same. If you patronize a country, the citizens are going to hate you. No one does that better than the US.
execpt the French Canadians
BustaNutz
06/19/03, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by yeat182
it wasn't unilateral action, there were roughly 45 countries that supported military action. just because france didn't want us to go, doesn't make it unilateral.
It was unilateral, anything that defies the security council is unilateral. France didn't want to go, nor did Russia. And 45 countries isn't that impressive, especially when you look at the nations who supported us, I hardly consider Ethiopia and Eritrea to be viable allies. It was very unilateral. And in acting we more or less confirmed how little influence the UN actually has...
yeat182
06/19/03, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by BustaNutz
It was unilateral, anything that defies the security council is unilateral. France didn't want to go, nor did Russia. And 45 countries isn't that impressive, especially when you look at the nations who supported us, I hardly consider Ethiopia and Eritrea to be viable allies. It was very unilateral. And in acting we more or less confirmed how little influence the UN actually has...
it was not unilateral. you cannot claim that because 2 nations disagreed with it, that makes it unilateral. there were 2 permanent members of the security council that agreed with it, just as many as opposed it. that in and of itself make it non-unilateral. the fact that 45 other nations joined on, again makes it non-unilateral. just because france made the most amount of noise doesn't mean they were in the majority.
BustaNutz
06/19/03, 10:12 AM
Unilateral, is when you act with other nations outside of the rulings of the UN. The UN didn't want to go to war, we did anyways. That means we acting unilaterally.
yeat182
06/19/03, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by BustaNutz
Unilateral, is when you act with other nations outside of the rulings of the UN. The UN didn't want to go to war, we did anyways. That means we acting unilaterally.
france and russia do not constitute the UN. half the permanent members were for the war, the other half was against it and china abstained. that means the UN was for it, just as much as they were against it.
and the majority of the elected members of the security council supported action aswell, however, france was going to veto any attempt at action (UNILATERALLY i might add)
BustaNutz
06/19/03, 10:21 AM
Ok but a split UN can't be for the war. So by us acting despite the UN not being for it is unilateral. Unless the UN had said "yes go to war", by going to war we would have been acting unilaterally.
yeat182
06/19/03, 10:23 AM
that may be, but the simple fact remains that Iraq had signed the cease fire agreement with the US, not the UN, giving us the right to enforce that treaty ourselves, without the approval of the UN. so it really doesn't matter that france acted unilaterally in preventing military action, because we have the legal right to enforce our treaties.
BustaNutz
06/19/03, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by yeat182
that may be, but the simple fact remains that Iraq had signed the cease fire agreement with the US, not the UN, giving us the right to enforce that treaty ourselves, without the approval of the UN. so it really doesn't matter that france acted unilaterally in preventing military action, because we have the legal right to enforce our treaties.
OK first off, France didn't act unilaterally to veto, they acted within their power, we acted unilaterally. And second it said the UN had the right to enforce the treaties, not the US. So really we overstepped our bound because the last time I check the US didn't account for all of the UN.
yeat182
06/19/03, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by BustaNutz
OK first off, France didn't act unilaterally to veto, they acted within their power, we acted unilaterally. And second it said the UN had the right to enforce the treaties, not the US. So really we overstepped our bound because the last time I check the US didn't account for all of the UN.
we acted within our power.
and the treaty was signed with the US, and in it it stipulated that Iraq allow for UN inpections, and complete disarmarment, and when they did not preform those tasks, they broke the cease fire, and thus we were justified in taking military action.
BustaNutz
06/19/03, 10:33 AM
Two things, we acted outside of the UN, and yes it was within our power but no it was not justified, and yes it was unilateral. Second, I have read the treaty, I do a big Model UN simulation in DC every year (this will be my last year) at Georgetown. I've read the treaty, it was a UN treaty that said, should Iraq fail to meet requirements, the UN may choose to act milatarily (don't know if that's the proper version). What we did, was take that and make it read like we wanted it to (kind of like Muslims who take the Quran and make it read in a way that it justifies murder) so that we could justify taking action. But since we're not the UN it's not justified.
yeat182
06/19/03, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by BustaNutz
Two things, we acted outside of the UN, and yes it was within our power but no it was not justified, and yes it was unilateral. Second, I have read the treaty, I do a big Model UN simulation in DC every year (this will be my last year) at Georgetown. I've read the treaty, it was a UN treaty that said, should Iraq fail to meet requirements, the UN may choose to act milatarily (don't know if that's the proper version). What we did, was take that and make it read like we wanted it to (kind of like Muslims who take the Quran and make it read in a way that it justifies murder) so that we could justify taking action. But since we're not the UN it's not justified.
well, i'll take your word on the treaty because i have never done a model UN and i assume you know what you are talking about. but as for acting unilaterally, haveing 45 nations that consent to military action does not make it unilateral. yes, we acted outside of the UN, but along with 45 other UN nations. Had it come to a vote, in the security council we would have won had France not acted unilaterally in not enforcing the letter of resolution 1441, which called for "serious consequences". They unilaterally attempted to prevent military action to protect their oil contract with Saddam, and to preserve the relationship between Chirac and Saddam Hussein.
BustaNutz
06/19/03, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by yeat182
well, i'll take your word on the treaty because i have never done a model UN and i assume you know what you are talking about. but as for acting unilaterally, haveing 45 nations that consent to military action does not make it unilateral. yes, we acted outside of the UN, but along with 45 other UN nations. Had it come to a vote, in the security council we would have won had France not acted unilaterally in not enforcing the letter of resolution 1441, which called for "serious consequences". They unilaterally attempted to prevent military action to protect their oil contract with Saddam, and to preserve the relationship between Chirac and Saddam Hussein.
This is like talking at a wall. France has the right to veto, that wouldn't have been a unilateral action though, it's allowed, the UN wants security council countries to have that right, to keep nations like the US in check. It's because of the fact we couldn't get the UN to go to war with Iraq that we had to act unilaterally. Had the UN supported our action it wouldn't have been a unilateral action outside of the UN's ruling, it would have been a UN action. But the UN didn't support it, we acted outside of their ruling, thus it was unilateral with 45 other countries.
yeat182
06/19/03, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by BustaNutz
This is like talking at a wall. France has the right to veto, that wouldn't have been a unilateral action though, it's allowed, the UN wants security council countries to have that right, to keep nations like the US in check. It's because of the fact we couldn't get the UN to go to war with Iraq that we had to act unilaterally. Had the UN supported our action it wouldn't have been a unilateral action outside of the UN's ruling, it would have been a UN action. But the UN didn't support it, we acted outside of their ruling, thus it was unilateral with 45 other countries.
most of the UN supported action against iraq, it was only france's use of a veto that kept it from becoming passed. They acted unilaterally in their best interests, which is their right, but there is absolutley no way you can say the US acted unilaterally when they were supported by 45 other nation.
BustaNutz
06/19/03, 11:06 AM
Acting unilaterally means acting on your own or in your own interests. The US did that, they acted along with other nations, but it was unilateral action. France wasn't the only nation that opposed action Germany and Russia did too, and many other nations were opposed as well, when you look at the number of countries in the UN 45 isn't even half of them it's about one third. We acted on our own, and went agaisnt UN rulings. It was unilateral, did other nations act as well? Sure, but if you listen to the language used even with the UN and by the US itself you will here the US say it is acting "unilaterally with the UK and other allies". Why are you still arguing on this dumbass point?
yeat182
06/19/03, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by BustaNutz
Acting unilaterally means acting on your own or in your own interests. The US did that, they acted along with other nations, but it was unilateral action. France wasn't the only nation that opposed action Germany and Russia did too, and many other nations were opposed as well, when you look at the number of countries in the UN 45 isn't even half of them it's about one third. We acted on our own, and went agaisnt UN rulings. It was unilateral, did other nations act as well? Sure, but if you listen to the language used even with the UN and by the US itself you will here the US say it is acting "unilaterally with the UK and other allies". Why are you still arguing on this dumbass point?
alright, i see your point, originally it was made to sound as if the US acted alone against the world, and i was trying to say that it wasn't true, but you're right this is a dumbass point.
BustaNutz
06/19/03, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by cal1082
This is your reason for France not acting unilaterally
if we both acted within our powers, wouldnt they both be unilaterally? You're arguing for one Ya and arguing the other Nay, using the same argument.
No I'm not, it's simple, France vetoed and yes I supposed it was unilateral, but not in relation to what the UN wanted. The way he was phrasing it made France sound like it was being some rogue nation, France was simply going to veto, I don't consider a veto acting unilaterally, because they weren't acting inspite of the UN. The US acted in spite of the UN's decision that is unilateral action. Do you see what I mean?
BustaNutz
06/19/03, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by cal1082
if france hadnt promised they were going to veto, there was a good chance it was going to pass. The U.S never brought it to a vote though because it would have been useless.
Yet the U.S. did have some 40 something countries backing them, so it wasnt unilateral. Maybe unilateral from the U.N., but alot of countries go against what the U.N says.
Ok I want you to read the discussion I just had with Yeat, if you had you'd have seen that I just talked about that. And it wasn't just France who opposed, we like to scapegoat France but it was also Germany and Russia. And as I said before, even the US said it's acting "Unilaterally with the UK and other allies". We're acting unilaterally.
I don't have my usual 15 minutes to make a post, so I'm going to make light of this. When Germany says no to war, it's safe to say you've gone too far.
WithStamin
06/19/03, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by devin
I don't have my usual 15 minutes to make a post, so I'm going to make light of this. When Germany says no to war, it's safe to say you've gone too far. Uh... Germany is no longer run by a dictatorial nazi regime. That means nothing.
Germany is now a pussyfooted socialist state.
BustaNutz
06/19/03, 03:50 PM
It was a joke! Chill out!
WithStamin
06/19/03, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by BustaNutz
It was a joke! Chill out! Well it wasn't funny and it didn't make any sense...
yeat182
06/19/03, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by devin
I don't have my usual 15 minutes to make a post, so I'm going to make light of this. When Germany says no to war, it's safe to say you've gone too far.
haha, thats good. you could even say, when germany agrees with france, we've gone to far.
I thought any country that spoke out against the US imposing its will on the world was evil.
yeat182
06/19/03, 06:11 PM
no, every country is entitled to their opinion, its just the motives of some nations that make them evil. besides, i can always appreciate a good joke.
I get the impression that some people here feel that countries do not have the right to express disapproval of American actions. It is very easy to examine the motives of these countries and claim that they are acting deceptively. However, it is just as easy to scrutinize our own aims and those of our allies and find faults. I just find it convenient to round our goals to the good and our detractor's goals to the evil. It's a naive way to look at the world.
Originally posted by yeat182
100 years of history
That's a glib reply
Show me a poll that says something like "75% of France believes America to be ass bandits" or something
Then again, you'd get results like that anywhere in the world
Originally posted by WithStamin
Uh... Germany is no longer run by a dictatorial nazi regime. That means nothing.
Germany is now a pussyfooted socialist state.
So being against war is "pussyfooting"?
I think it's a lot more impressive and courageous to solve matters through diplomacy. It takes more work and it's a hell of a lot more honourable than shoving your cannons into another country.
Yes, Saddam was hardly forthcoming with diplomacy, but there are always other avenues to take that don't include 4,000 dead civilians.
Originally posted by yeat182
execpt the French Canadians
Yeah, and those damn indians
Keep up the bigotry. I have French Canadian relatives and they're great, intelligent people. Just because you met some that you didn't like, don't generalize it to the whole culture you prick.
I once met a black guy, and he wasn't the smartest guy. Man, all black people are stupid.
evil zach
06/20/03, 04:59 AM
French Canadians are some of the nicest people I've ever met
evil zach
06/20/03, 05:01 AM
Originally posted by yeat182
100 years of history
as opposed to hundreds of years of the US saying "you know what? maybe we arn't the best"
BustaNutz
06/20/03, 05:13 AM
Originally posted by WithStamin
Well it wasn't funny and it didn't make any sense...
Yes it did make sense, and yes it was funny so stop being indignant a lighten up.
yeat182
06/20/03, 05:31 AM
Originally posted by Ronin
Yeah, and those damn indians
Keep up the bigotry. I have French Canadian relatives and they're great, intelligent people. Just because you met some that you didn't like, don't generalize it to the whole culture you prick.
I once met a black guy, and he wasn't the smartest guy. Man, all black people are stupid.
i am refering to the french canadian tourist that come to new england every year...if you've ever experienced it then you'd know what i mean, if not, then you really have nothing to say.
yeat182
06/20/03, 05:32 AM
Originally posted by evil zach
as opposed to hundreds of years of the US saying "you know what? maybe we arn't the best"
until after WWII, we weren't the "best"
Originally posted by yeat182
i am refering to the french canadian tourist that come to new england every year...if you've ever experienced it then you'd know what i mean, if not, then you really have nothing to say.
Aside from being related to french-canadians, having spent summers in quebec, and living in canada...
but you're right, you probably have more experience with french-canadians than i do
yeat182
06/20/03, 06:09 AM
Originally posted by Ronin
Aside from being related to french-canadians, having spent summers in quebec, and living in canada...
but you're right, you probably have more experience with french-canadians than i do
ok, before we get completely off track, let me clarify. my original post was in response to this post
Originally posted by DevinAnd someone else explained the French hating you, but I'll add a little. I bet when you went there, you kept asking for directions and help in English. Or maybe you tried to speak poor French to them. You probably expected them to act like employees at Disneyland. The French aren't in France for your entertainment. Americans are hated abroad because they treat every country like an amusement at Epcot. Europeans are generally taught multiple languages and exposed to many cultures. When they travel, they do not patronize the inhabitants.
which made the claim that all amercians are assholes and i am simply pointing out that in my experience dealing with touritsts, i've found french canadians to be extremely rude and act with a superior attitude. does that mean they are all like that? of course not. are all americans assholes? no. i'm simply pointing out that every one points fingers at americans when in fact they should take a look in the mirror first. no offense meant to anyone.
Originally posted by yeat182
ok, before we get completely off track, let me clarify. my original post was in response to this post
which made the claim that all amercians are assholes and i am simply pointing out that in my experience dealing with touritsts, i've found french canadians to be extremely rude and act with a superior attitude. does that mean they are all like that? of course not. are all americans assholes? no. i'm simply pointing out that every one points fingers at americans when in fact they should take a look in the mirror first. no offense meant to anyone.
this is what you said
Originally posted by yeat182
you have obviously never been to the northeast and had to deal with the influx of French Canadians. they are the rudest people in the world...after the French. All they do is patronize the inhabitants of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and New York.
"they" are the rudest people in the world
"all they do" is patronize...
you're over-generalizing
yeat182
06/20/03, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by Ronin
this is what you said
"they" are the rudest people in the world
"all they do" is patronize...
you're over-generalizing
i realize that, it was intentional. i meant to show how it sounds when people say the same thing about americans...
BustaNutz
06/20/03, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by yeat182
i realize that, it was intentional. i meant to show how it sounds when people say the same thing about americans...
Oh shut up you didn't give it that much thought you over-generalized and don't want to give Colin the satisfaction of admitting you are wrong.
yeat182
06/20/03, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by BustaNutz
Oh shut up you didn't give it that much thought you over-generalized and don't want to give Colin the satisfaction of admitting you are wrong.
actually i did give it that much thought, and i have no problem admitting when i'm wrong, i've done it many times. lets not start a whole other arguement over this.
BrandNewDream
06/20/03, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by devin
And someone else explained the French hating you, but I'll add a little. I bet when you went there, you kept asking for directions and help in English. Or maybe you tried to speak poor French to them. You probably expected them to act like employees at Disneyland. The French aren't in France for your entertainment. Americans are hated abroad because they treat every country like an amusement at Epcot. Europeans are generally taught multiple languages and exposed to many cultures. When they travel, they do not patronize the inhabitants.
I agree. I'd say that the people in Germany or Austria were more helpful than the French, but even still I could tell they were getting annoyed when I myself or another person with me spoke in English or broken French/German. But then again, I'm not sure how much they'd expect from an 11 year old (at the time) kid. But I do see what devin means...I personally get annoyed when I see immigrants coming over and speaking little or no English, and many of them have a great disregard for both the language and the culture, especially.
vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.