[Article] NY Post: "I want to kick the collective butts of France"

The Cigarette Smoking Man · 11-02-2003 1:12pm #1

These kids died to save the French from a tyrant named Adolf Hitler.

And now, as more American kids are poised to fight and die to save the world from an equally vile tyrant, Saddam Hussein, where are the French?

Hiding. Chickening out. Proclaiming, Vive les wimps!

I read these names with tears in my eyes and fury in my heart:

"Walter F. Rober, Pvt., 358 Inf., 90 Div., New York, July 13, 1944; Angelo Cauca, Pvt., 8 Inf., 4 Div., New Jersey, June 21, 1944; John Hernandez, Pvt., 8 Inf., 4 Div., Nebraska, June 23, 1944."

These names mean nothing to the French, 91 percent of whom, according to a poll, are against President Bush's plans to make Saddam a dark mark in history.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02102003/commentary/68775.htm

Celt · 11-02-2003 1:19pm

That is a truely woeful article

"But then again, the French are against everything, including that curious American habit of showering every day."

seamus · 11-02-2003 1:22pm

The New York Post isn't a serious paper. I'd rank it alongside the National Enquirer and other such rubbish.

Samson · 11-02-2003 1:23pm

That Dunleavy guy is some prick.

Xenophobia anyone?

The Cigarette Smoking Man · 11-02-2003 1:32pm

The NY Post has a circulation of half a million copies per day, so even though it's not exactly the NY Times, there's still over half a million people being warped by this article..

shotamoose · 11-02-2003 1:47pm

The NY Post has a circulation of half a million copies per day, so even though it's not exactly the NY Times, there's still over half a million people being warped by this article..

Assuming they buy it to read it. Maybe toilet paper's expensive in New York these days?

Oh and it's owned by Rupert Murdoch, who said today that he supported the UK and US stance on Iraq and that "he believed US President George W Bush was acting morally and that the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was courageous".

The Saint · 11-02-2003 2:03pm

Sky news should be taken off the air and the Sun should be banned.

BattleBoar · 11-02-2003 2:19pm

Originally posted by The Saint
Sky news should be taken off the air and the Sun should be banned.

Yes, freedom of speech and freedom to opinions are brilliant as long as they are the same as your opinions and speech, right saint?

The Saint · 11-02-2003 2:23pm

I think that the world can live without the racism and nonsence the Sun ****s out. I find that the world can go on without the knowledge that Jordan went up another cup size. It is not a newspaper.

The Cigarette Smoking Man · 11-02-2003 2:29pm

How about Fox News with their 'fair and balanced' coverage! It has to be the most opinionated right-wing crap on TV.

<Edit> Bill O'Reilly 'fair and balanced':

http://www.outcastradio.com/streams/glick.ram

The Saint · 11-02-2003 2:38pm

As is all the crap Murdoch does.

bonkey · 11-02-2003 2:49pm

Its fair and balanced for anyone who wants it to be

jc

utopio · 11-02-2003 6:23pm

I think they can't write something like that. France presented their opinion and nobody else can change it, they just have to accept it.

sceptre · 11-02-2003 6:55pm

Originally posted by shotamoose
Oh and it's owned by Rupert Murdoch, who said today that he supported the UK and US stance on Iraq and that "he believed US President George W Bush was acting morally and that the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was courageous".

You forgot the end part to clinch the argument. He also said that the one thing the war could being us was oil @ 20 dollars a barrel after its over.

mike65 · 11-02-2003 7:29pm

...he's proberly right

As for the French the Yanks have never rated them much.

Mike.

Loomer · 11-02-2003 7:39pm

Originally posted by shotamoose
Assuming they buy it to read it. Maybe toilet paper's expensive in New York these days?

Oh and it's owned by Rupert Murdoch

Now it all makes sense. The job spec for reporters for these rags must read...

"Redneck wanted for journalistic position, integrity not essential, pinko liberals or democrats need not apply"

daveirl · 11-02-2003 10:45pm

This post has been deleted.

Hobbes · 12-02-2003 11:25am

The anti-Frenchism (for want of a better word) is pretty bad in the last couple of days. Prehaps the Americans forgot that French people also died in WWII while the US held back at the start of the war.

Its not just that paper, another was reported (CNN?) as calling the French Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys.

But this sort of tantrum throwing is typical. Look at Saudi Arabia, no peep from US press over SA telling Bush (sic) "To go his own way, and we will go ours" in relation to Israel/Palistine, but shortly afterwards loads of negative SA press.

At least the French are letting it roll off thier back.

Sand · 12-02-2003 7:47pm

Ah but the anti-frenchism is funny AND true:)

The articles are a tad over the top and emotional but I guess these lads are puzzled as to why it was okay to fight and die for the French but its not okay to fight and die for the Iraqis? It seems to be one rule for the french and another rule for arabs:| If the US had followed Frances present course of action theyd be speaking German in Paris. But at least the US would have taken a bold step for world peace:)

Shinji · 12-02-2003 8:00pm

Yes, because of course, during World War 2 the USA was so keen to get involved right from the start when its allies in Europe were attacked. It supported the war right from the outset and was straight in there like a shot to help the French at the siege of Paris and...

Oh wait, no. They actually sat on their backsides until Pearl Harbour, at which point France had been occupied for ages already and a hell of a lot of French people had died.

Yeah, the US has a real right to take the high and mighty on this one over World War 2. Never mind the fact that dragging up 60 year old history to condemn a country for taking a principled and popular stance (yes I know about their oil interests) is the act of a cowardly nation in the first place - not afraid to go to war, but desperately afraid to have to defend its beliefs in the court of international politics, because then the whole house of cards could crumble.

It wasn't just the French who were described as "cheese eating surrender monkeys"; that accusation was levelled at the whole of Europe. Well, as a European, for once I'm proud to stand as a "cheese eating surrender monkey" alongside the French. A lot more proud than I would be to stand alongside the leaders of Britain or Ireland this week.

seamus · 12-02-2003 8:34pm

^^ What he said.

I'm very sick of people likening this 'conflict' to WWII. It's nothing like WWII. Saddam isn't actively attempting to annex every country within his grasp.

When the Americans entered World War II, most of mainland Europe was either already devastated/occupied by the Germans, or dangerously at risk from it. It would be nice to think the Americans became involved in order to spare Europe from a fascist dictator who was almost unstoppable by the rest of Europe, helping their allies who were fighting for their homelands.

Pls tell me how this compares at all. The Americans are fighting for what? Well, no-one exactly knows for sure, expect Georgie. While Saddam might be a right prick, he's not actually doing anything, or posing any particular threat to the US or any of its Allies. Please tell me how, by fighting with the US in Iraq, people will be "dying and fighting for the USA", because I can't see any moral or social benefits for the Americans through the waging of this war apart from cheaper gasoline.

Sand · 12-02-2003 8:36pm

It supported the war right from the outset

It did actually - The US leadership were keen to get involved (warmongering bastardos eh ? ) but faced a hard time persuading the American population who were happy to stay well away from another of Europes wars. So instead the US industries funded Britains ( including their European irregualr forces like the "free French" ) and later the USSRs war efforts, allowing Britain in particular to fight way above its weight. When Pearl Harbour occured the US leadership got the backing it required, not only to fight the Japanese but also to liberate Europe - which had little or nothing to do with them, where hitler and his panzers posed an absolutely minimal threat to US freedoms and their way of life.

afraid to go to war, but desperately afraid to have to defend its beliefs in the court of international politics,

Perhaps a court of internal *politics* could never be described as a fair or just court? Im glad you admit politics would play the pivotal role in any "judgement".

It wasn't just the French who were described as "cheese eating surrender monkeys"; that accusation was levelled at the whole of Europe. Well, as a European, for once I'm proud to stand as a "cheese eating surrender monkey" alongside the French. A lot more proud than I would be to stand alongside the leaders of Britain or Ireland this week

The french actually as far as I could tell in the above articles I trawled through. Im glad your wearing the badge of "cheese easting surrender monkeys" with pride though, such defiance and dignity burdened by such a ridiculous title brings a tear to my eye - probably of laughter though:D

The Cigarette Smoking Man · 14-02-2003 9:06am

More great journalism from the NY Post this morning...

Weasel so-called allies France and Germany will hear fresh evidence today of Iraqi stonewalling, at an 11th-hour showdown with the United States in the U.N. Security Council.

As chief weapons inspector Hans Blix gives his final report, Secretary of State Colin Powell has vowed to confront the war wimps

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/54408.htm

Does Murdoch own the NY Post?

Wook · 14-02-2003 9:13am

i think they are just trying to be controversial , to get the ratings in. Cheap, but not unheard of

Turnip · 14-02-2003 9:23am

The euro bashing is all a bit silly. The Americans ran away from a lightly armed peasant army in Vietnam for god's sake. And what about WW1? The battle of Verdun lasted something like 10 months and cost 700,000 casualties.

PH01 · 14-02-2003 9:28am

France? Where the heck is that? Is that a city near Boston?

The Cigarette Smoking Man · 14-02-2003 9:40am

Murdoch does own the NY Post! So that's Fox/Sky News/NY Post - the three biggest war mongers so far...

http://www.newscorp.com/operations/newspapers.html

Lennoxschips · 14-02-2003 10:26pm

You know that famous date in American history, July 4 1776, didn't the French play a major role in that?

therecklessone · 14-02-2003 10:42pm

The Americans have a history?

Lennoxschips · 15-02-2003 1:41am

Yes, and they can thank the French for it. Because otherwise they'd still be a British colony.

Corben Dallas · 16-02-2003 10:11pm

I'd agree with that, The French are a bunch of wussies with short memories.

as the saying goes
'Vive la France, Vive le Guerre, Vive le Brave Legionnaire.'
Except that the French Legionnaires are a brunch of big girls blouses who dont like getting sand on their uniforms...///sorry...petticoats.

:mad: :rolleyes:

Clintons Cat · 16-02-2003 10:49pm

Not a major point,but still kind of interesting,
The four who are working most publicaly to find a peaceful resolution to the situation through the united nations.France Germany,belgium and Russia are the four countries that saw the brunt of the fighting on their territory in the First and Second world wars.

Manach · 16-02-2003 11:02pm

Re 1776, So at least now the UK is a colony of the US. Still France does rather strenously maintain it's own "zones of influence" in Africa.

sovtek · 17-02-2003 6:57pm

Originally posted by Sand
So instead the US industries funded Britains ( including their European irregualr forces like the "free French" ) and later the USSRs war efforts, allowing Britain in particular to fight way above its weight.

Well the British did have to pay for it making said companies very rich as well as bringing the US out of long economic depression. Before America entered the war, American businessmen were meeting NAZI's to discuss a postwar Britain. The favorite line I hear from "my fellow" American's "Europe likes to appease dictators" could apply to the US before they entered in 1941. A very profitable 2 year appeasement indeed.

I find it hypocritical to accuse anyone that dare criticize Bush or American policy as "anti-American" considering the many derogatory comments I've seen in the American media recently. Many not directed at the French government but at the population as a whole.

lili · 17-02-2003 10:05pm

well well well.
i'm french,
seems our american friends can't stand there are some countries who are not agreed with their policies.
but frankly, don't we have making front to a new sort of colonialism?
do we have to stand the dictat of this imperialism way to do?
IMO, i would prefere they look to the north korea, i'm more worred about this threat.

as for the WW2, and the pic on the new-york post. don't they understand it's exactly that, all those white crosses, that us, the french, do nomore want to see. we are sick of the war and all the countries in europa too.
do the american people know what means to live in a country devasted by the war, by the bombs?
they had their 11 sept, lucky they are to have only one day to remember!!!

as for murdoch, everybody knows this press magna and his relationship with bush.

ps :
sorry for my english, i wish be smarter in this language to tell all i got on my heart.

Sand · 18-02-2003 9:05pm

Well the British did have to pay for it making said companies very rich as well as bringing the US out of long economic depression. Before America entered the war, American businessmen were meeting NAZI's to discuss a postwar Britain.

Hey, its not communism - someone had to pay for it and the British seemed to view the lend lease scheme as extremely benficial.

Oh and lots of the British rich and famous were quite warm to the idea of a Nazi-friendly Britain, including some of the Royal Family, being German and all. Oh and many of the French happily co-operated with the Nazis in the occupation of their country. Vichy France for starters. And they werent alone. Ive got photos of Danish seamen and German soldiers sharing a joke, arm in arm right after the Germans went into Denmark - werent they meant to be defending their country from the Nazis? Oh and Europes political elite lined up to try and appease Hitler, to sugar coat his regime and to sign up to make deals with it. Our own Irish leadership felt it was the right thing to do to commiserate with the German people on the death of Hitler - neutrality being the exscuse.

Sure, bussiness men went to make deals - they are afterall bussinessmen and operate only for profit; bussinessmen for example today are buying oil of Iraq. If thats the worst that can be said of them then theyre not exactly the worst Quislings ( oh wait, theres another ....my oh my, stones and glasshouses eh? )

do the american people know what means to live in a country devasted by the war, by the bombs?

An interesting point. Youre probably best qualified to answer this for me. The French do know what its like to controlled by a hateful regime dont they? Do they view the liberation of their country not worth the *vast* amount of lives lost in that liberation? If they had the chance to decide whether they should have been liberated would they say "No, Well stick with the Nazis so at least no-one else dies"?

How exactly is this different for the Iraqis? They live under a hateful regime. Would they too view a potential liberation of Iraq from Saddam and the installation of a democratic regime as being "not worth it"? With the portents of apocalyptic conflict and entire cities being razed by carpetbombing why are house prices rising fast in Iraq through demand, when they are a far riskier investment than land given the bombing? Why is the Baghdad Stock exchange rising? Could it be optimisim for the post-Saddam Iraq?

Victor · 18-02-2003 9:43pm

Originally posted by Sand
Oh and many of the French happily co-operated with the Nazis in the occupation of their country. Vichy France for starters. And they werent alone. Ive got photos of Danish seamen and German soldiers sharing a joke, arm in arm right after the Germans went into Denmark - werent they meant to be defending their country from the Nazis?

A lot of French were as upset about the British abondoning them and the Americans not intervening as they were about the German / Vichy regime, especially after the attack on the French fleet in North Africa. And the Danish government realised the folly of taking on Germany from the start and did not resist militarily , in return for home rule, indeed quite a few Danes were sympathetic to Germany.

PHB · 18-02-2003 10:38pm

Oh and Europes political elite lined up to try and appease Hitler, to sugar coat his regime and to sign up to make deals with it. Our own Irish leadership felt it was the right thing to do to commiserate with the German people on the death of Hitler - neutrality being the exscuse.

I think thats a nice hindsight view on the europeon situation at the time.
Chamberlin was just like every other person in europe at the time, and he did not understand facism, and figured that appeasment was the best way to go. Its hardly as if he sugar coated his regime.
And what exactly does "to sign up to make deals with it."

You also have to understand that they had within their minds the horrors of World War One. They wanted to avoid war at all costs, and their policy was understandable.

As for Dev sending condolences on Hitlers death. I was never a big fan of Dev's neutrality but you have to respect him to overcoming the overwhelming pressure from the US and UK and to send condolences on Hitlers death was one of the shining points of Dev's policy of neutrality.

lili · 18-02-2003 10:54pm

huh?!
saddam and hitler>>>>same theories?!

Sand · 18-02-2003 11:56pm

A lot of French were as upset about the British abondoning them and the Americans not intervening

Youd think theyd have been more upset with their poor foreign policy, let alone the money wasted on their fixed defences:) As for the Americans- werent they taking a principled stance that violence should only be used as a last resort and we shouldnt leave a stone unturned in the search for peace yada yada - I mean is the anti- war movement based on priniciple that war is wrong, or that some wars are wrong and some wars are right - depending on whose being fought for it seems?

I think thats a nice hindsight view on the europeon situation at the time.

Hey give men like Saddam time and space whilst wittering on about the international community and who knows- maybe in time someone will say something similar about the situation at this time.

and to send condolences on Hitlers death was one of the shining points of Dev's policy of neutrality.

It was stomach churning. No human being should mourn the passing of that monster. The fact that Dev did in our time is a disgrace imo. The fact that its dressed up as a victory for neutrality is almost as bad. If neutrality means being sorry to hear of hitlers death then we should want no part of it.

You also have to understand that they had within their minds the horrors of World War One. They wanted to avoid war at all costs, and their policy was understandable.

Yes a similar view seems to be guiding the current French strategy according to Lili, Second time around eh?

saddam and hitler>>>>same theories?!

Men cut from the same cloth. Hey, neither of them are overly fond of Jews, they seem to have a flexiable view of human rights, a "might makes right" mentality, rely heavily on milatary power. Only difference is Saddam is far more likely to get his hands on nukes. Other than that......

therecklessone · 19-02-2003 12:39am

Originally posted by Victor
A lot of French were as upset about the British abondoning them and the Americans not intervening as they were about the German / Vichy regime, especially after the attack on the French fleet in North Africa. And the Danish government realised the folly of taking on Germany from the start and did not resist militarily , in return for home rule, indeed quite a few Danes were sympathetic to Germany.

Throughout Europe, the countries which were occupied by the Nazis provided many willing collaboraters, much like our country under British rule! Was there not a regiment of SS troops raised in Denmark? And believe it or not, but the SS also had a Bosnian Muslim regiment. Strange bedfellows indeed, but apparently Himmler admired their discipline. And I'm not talking about conscripts here, but willing participants.

As anyone who has seen Roman Polanski's The Pianist(and I know its not an historical document) will realise, it is within human nature to perform the most despicable of acts at times, whether for personal gain, or simply for survival...

parasite · 19-02-2003 12:39am

Originally posted by lili

ps :
sorry for my english, i wish be smarter in this language to tell all i got on my heart. [/B]

you were doing well until this line ! :rolleyes:

therecklessone · 19-02-2003 12:48am

Originally posted by Sand
As for the Americans- werent they taking a principled stance that violence should only be used as a last resort and we shouldnt leave a stone unturned in the search for peace yada yada - I mean is the anti- war movement based on priniciple that war is wrong, or that some wars are wrong and some wars are right - depending on whose being fought for it seems?

Actually the US stayed out of the war because public opinion was firmly against involvement. The American people felt that the only people who gained from WW1 were industrialists and arms manufacturers, at the expense of a generation of US young men, and so wanted to play no part in Europe's wars...

therecklessone · 19-02-2003 12:50am

Originally posted by Sand

Hey, neither of them are overly fond of Jews, they seem to have a flexiable view of human rights, a "might makes right" mentality, rely heavily on milatary power.

Sounds like your average American president then...

bonkey · 19-02-2003 10:07am

Originally posted by Sand
Oh and many of the French happily co-operated with the Nazis in the occupation of their country. Vichy France for starters. And they werent alone. Ive got photos of Danish seamen and German soldiers sharing a joke, arm in arm right after the Germans went into Denmark - werent they meant to be defending their country from the Nazis?

Yes yes - just as I'm sure you'll find out that Saddam HJussein is not actually subjugating an entire nation all on his own. I'm sure you'll find that there are people...wait for it...happily co-operating with him.

Oh and Europes political elite lined up to try and appease Hitler, to sugar coat his regime and to sign up to make deals with it.

That would be a bit like the US funding and arming Saddam, right? You know - turn a blind eye to the gassing of the Kurds, sell him a few more weapons, keep him happy...cause hey....it was preferable to the alternate.

How exactly is this different for the Iraqis?

You're right - its no difference. The Iraqi's are a recently conquered people, still actively resisting the army which subjugated them, involved in a larger conflict of greater scale where it is not the independance of a single nation which is the issue, but rather the independance of an entire continent of nations and more, all threatened by the military might of an aggressor.

Yup - the French and Iraqi situations are completely identical. No difference at all. Except for all the differences.

jc

Cork · 19-02-2003 10:22am

Oh and many of the French happily co-operated with the Nazis in the occupation of their country. Vichy France for starters. And they werent alone. Ive got photos of Danish seamen and German soldiers sharing a joke, arm in arm right after the Germans went into Denmark - werent they meant to be defending their country from the Nazis?

THE french have economic interests in Iraq. Yet certain groups in Ireland think we should alienate the US to be "poor but pure". Yet France is not as "Pure" safegaurding their economic interests in Iraq.

There is a mood in the US at the monent to invade France after Iraq. Yet people believe that If Ireland takes an approach similar to France - It will not effect foreign direct US investment and our products in US markets.

Should our government withdraw grants from say a micro chip manufacturer - if it is shown that that these chips are being used in arms

lili · 19-02-2003 12:28pm

Originally posted by parasite
you were doing well until this line ! :rolleyes:

no kidding?!
i was right until this line?:D

guys, seriously, do you think countries who don't act for their own interest could exist?
cause if yes, there is some hope on this planet:)

therecklessone · 19-02-2003 1:38pm

Originally posted by Cork

There is a mood in the US at the monent to invade France after Iraq. Yet people believe that If Ireland takes an approach similar to France - It will not effect foreign direct US investment and our products in US markets.

So we can expect Dell and Microsoft to declare war on France shortly then. Great, Bill Gates will thing he's even more of a God then.

There is a mood on the US to insult France, and disregard all she has to say on the Iraqi crisis, but then neither country has had a good relationship since the end of WW2. I'd hardly call some dipstick talk-show host calling for Bush to nuke Paris as a mood for war...

Cork · 19-02-2003 2:23pm

Ireland is dependant on both the US market & US investment.

Our politicians are right to acknowlege this.

Yet the "socialists" seem oblivious to this.

France is indeed protecting their interests in Iraq.

Yet the "socialists" also seem oblivious to this.

Notice the trend.

Why are they not speaking out about human rights abuses in Iraq. They ofen go on about Israel but never mention Palastenian suicide bombers.

I do not like listening to Charlie Wolfe (Red Fm) but I prefer him to whishy washy correspondants who never blame Saddam for not complying with the UN for the past 13 years.

Saddam would want to start complying pretty fast if he knows what is good for him. Charlie Wolfe said last night that the marchs were like focus groups.

He went on that we needed leadership. Leadership that will tackle Saddam. Defacto supporters of Saddam should not hide behind a peace banner with Iraqi, Palatinian or Communist flags.

Saddam will be given more time.

It is up then to Saddam.

Not Bertie, Not Tony or George.

19-02-2003 3:18pm

Cork, this has been covered to death. Most people in here don't believe that Ireland is depended on the US Investments/Markets. I certainly don't especially with europe becoming alot closer in recent years due to the euro, and the EU itself. Ireland does receive bonuses by having american investment here, but alot of that is because of the huge faction of irish descendents in the American political system. We are NOT reliant on America.

France has been on the receiving end of multiple wars over the last two hundred years. America has been invaded once, and that was by Canada. Their citizens have never seen the wars that their armies carried out in, actually being fought in their own streets. America has always been content to lecture people about war, only because they have fought in so many of em, but never on their own terreritories. Perhaps this is why France and the other countries are against this war. They're aware of what its like to loose two generations of people to a war, and to live with the reminders of a war first hand. Beaches in Normandy, for years after the war, had un-exploded mines still active, just as Iraq does. America has never had to live with these circumstances.

There is a mood in the US at the monent to invade France after Iraq.

I hope america is ready for a world war then, cause i don't think too many nations in and about europe would like America trying to create a colony in Europe.

quote:

saddam and hitler>>>>same theories?!

Men cut from the same cloth. Hey, neither of them are overly fond of Jews, they seem to have a flexiable view of human rights, a "might makes right" mentality, rely heavily on milatary power. Only difference is Saddam is far more likely to get his hands on nukes. Other than that......

You're being too simplistic. Saddam is nowhere like Hitler, excepting the base line, that they were male, they didn't like Jews, reliance on military power etc. But there are other things to think of.
1) Saddam has never taken a complete people, and killed them, in the millions.
2) Saddam has not got the complete support of the people. Hitler did.
3) History & culture - i.e. in the middle east "life has always been considered cheap". Hitler broke the conventions due to the culture he lived in, tended to respect human life. Arabic/Desert life is alot harsher.
4) Hitler had one of the largest Armies in the world at that stage. Saddam doesn't. In fact he has one of the smaller armies, of the arab nations.

If you want to make a comparison you could say Hitler>>>>Stalin. But not Saddam. I agree that Saddam does indeed have a terrible history while being in Power, but by no means does it have the same impact as Hitler or Stalin.

Oh and many of the French happily co-operated with the Nazis in the occupation of their country. Vichy France for starters. And they werent alone. Ive got photos of Danish seamen and German soldiers sharing a joke, arm in arm right after the Germans went into Denmark - werent they meant to be defending their country from the Nazis

Not true. If they were so happy to cooperate, then why did the French defend their borders at all? or why was there a resistance movemnent in operation right from the beginning of the occupation? If they were so happy to help the Germans, then why wasn't there whole Battalions of French troops as part of the German army? Vichy France wasn't an independent country, it was still occupied area, with german troops garrisoned within it. It was just allowed a puppet leadership, for publicity purposes.

Many nations, helped the germans by joining their armies, while at the same time being within the allies. There were regiments with Americans, Jews, French, Poles, Hungarians, Italians, British. Look at irelands history, and you'll see that the irish had troops in British armies right down the ages.

Our own Irish leadership felt it was the right thing to do to commiserate with the German people on the death of Hitler

Just as they did with eisenhower, and stalin. And lets face it, Stalin murdered as many people as Hitler did. Except of course that Stalin was part of the allies, and by default exempt from being thought about that way.

Sand · 19-02-2003 7:19pm

Yup - the French and Iraqi situations are completely identical. No difference at all. Except for all the differences

Good man, nice of you to recognise that Hitler and Saddam are brothers of the spirit, that they both have a habit of invading and subjagating countries, that their citizens can have a nasty habit of dissapearing from their beds if they do not agree, that the populations they rule over are terrorised into submisson by them, and that they have an utter and total disregard for human rights. Like you said there are differences - Saddams got more chance of WMD than Hitler ever had. Thats reassuring.

1) Saddam has never taken a complete people, and killed them, in the millions.

#

The Kurds?

2) Saddam has not got the complete support of the people. Hitler did.

Hitler never, ever, ever, ever won a majority in the German elections. Never. Saddam got himself re-elected with 100% of the poll in "free" democratic elections:|

3) History & culture - i.e. in the middle east "life has always been considered cheap". Hitler broke the conventions due to the culture he lived in, tended to respect human life. Arabic/Desert life is alot harsher.

Form what I know Europe (Christian ) and the Middle East ( Islamic ) share a general acceptance that murder is wrong. If Arabic life is considered cheaper its only because dictatorships are tolerated there when they wouldnt be tolerated here. I dont think its the average Arab making that value judgement.

4) Hitler had one of the largest Armies in the world at that stage. Saddam doesn't. In fact he has one of the smaller armies, of the arab nations.

Thanks to his defeat in the Gulf War, prior to that he had quite a powerful army. Saddam also has or is extremely close to WMD, something Hitler never had. He also possesses a far more advanced warmachine than Hitler ever had access to.

but by no means does it have the same impact as Hitler or Stalin.

Impact to whom? Us? No. Pol Pot was an absolute monster but to us he had no impact beyond something to read about in the news. Not as bad as Hitler then? That depends on who you ask doesnt it? Hitler had almost no impact on Pol Pots victims, and certainly not on the scale pol pot had. Who was worse? Like I said it depends on who you ask.

It remains that theyre brother of the spirits and we shouldnt shrug because their crimes have little or no impact on us. What is it they say about the triumph of evil and good men?

then why wasn't there whole Battalions of French troops as part of the German army?

Actually I believe the Germans did recruit from France during the war. The French navy also refused to go with the allies, preferring loyalty to the collaborators of the Vichy government. Oh, and the Vichy did help with the sudden depopulation of French Jews. Whatever I said about the Danish sailors, at least they can be relatively proud that Danish Jews had the highest "survival" rate of all of Europes Jews thanks to efforts to evacuate them to Sweden from what Ive heard.

Just as they did with eisenhower, and stalin. And lets face it, Stalin murdered as many people as Hitler did. Except of course that Stalin was part of the allies, and by default exempt from being thought about that way.

Exempt? The wests views of the Soviet Union and the threat it represented never altered - they simply viewed Hitler as the most pressing threat, a forgiveable world view. There was never friendship between the allies and the Soviets were utterly convinced they were being left to bear the brunt of the war effort until D-Day by the capitalist west. Hitler was viewed as the primary threat but the sheer distrust and mutual dislike of the two superpowers led to the Cold War.

[Article] NY Post: "I want to kick the collective butts of France"

Comments