Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

More on France

  • Thread starter Thread starter RFtech
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 15

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
It's soooooo simple.

Follow the money.

France is the largest importer of Iraqi oil and the biggest trading partner with Iraq in euroweenie land. Also France has been selling them weapons ILLEGALLY probably since '91.

Russia is owed 6 billion or better by Iraq, and you can probably bet that they have also been selling Iraq illegal weapons.

Germany is the second largest trading partner with Iraq in euroweenie land. They're involvement, it is rumored, has been a little more secret. You can bet that many of the underground facilities that Sadnuts is using were built by German firms.

China also a large trading partner with Iraq, and has been selling them weapons illegally since after the gulf war. The rest of Sadnuts's underground facilities were built by the chi-coms.

What do these countries have in common? They each have a huge economic stake in seeing Sadnuts remain in power. They each have a huge interest in seeing America not be a super power anymore. Then the chi-coms can establish their spheres of influence in the Pacific rim. France and Germany become economic superpowers in euroweenie land and dictate policy to the rest of the world. Russia is basically in the same boat as the krauts and frogs.

That's just my two cents about that.

Let's just make up a little scenario....

You are the President of the United States, you know that Iraq has mobile weapons plants, stockpiles of WMD's, and the will to use them. You know this because all your intelligence agencies bring this evidence to your desk every day. Also, you are trying to pursue a disarmament of Iraq because of these weapons that you know he has. Your adversaries (look above) are publicly demanding that you "give proof" so that your actions will be "legitimate" in their eyes. You also know that in sharing your information publicly and with the government of an adversary that your sources will be found and people will die, and you will not have any more intelligence on these weapons. Would you sacrifice your men/women and intelligence abilities to try to placate nations who don't want you to succeed? No, mum's the word and you let them dig themselves a big whole and when the smoke clears you give it to them with both barrels. Now ask yourself why the Bush administration doesn't just "give the proof"?

This is a political move that is pure genius. Bush is going to oust a dictator that has been a problem for everybody since he got into power, our "good friends" the frogs, krauts, ruskis, and chi-coms are going to eat a big-fat-f*cking crow sandwich, and at the same time our blitzkreig-style attack on Iraq is going to scare the living poop out of Iran and North dog-eating-land.

Oh yeah, not to mention that the Iraqis are going to be driving big-ass escalades and expi's instead of Peugots and Mercedes.

Just a prediction...I sure hope I'm right.
 
Last edited:
France and Germany have very large muslim populations that pretty much crowd the bottom rungs of the social ladder. (I hope) we all know that if one civilian (especially a kid) gets killed by a US bomb, the whole muslim world will be up in arms. The US has a very small muslim population that is being scrutinized by the government, and it's a population that has better things to do than fight a war within the US. The ones in Germany and France have little to lose (very high unemployment rate, no future prospective) and I think the goverments of those 2 countries are very afraid of getting some serious unrest, kind of like the Rodney King riots in LA.
Up to 9-11 the US had not seen much of terrorist activity, luckily. In Europe that has been a way of life for a long time: IRA, RAF, mafia,ETA, Abu Nidal and a few others. Just like a lot of other countries around the world, and the US never cared about it. Some kind of not-in-my-backyard philosofy. And I guess we all thought it would never happen here. @##$$% Bastards. If their goal was to disrupt our way of live, they succeded. Economy down the drain, airlines bankrupt, thousands of people out of a job and nobody who trusts someone else (crews that still have a job face that every day at the security checkpoint))

I totally agree that SH, bin Laden and his idiots have to go, the sooner the better. But sometimes there's more than just one solution (like a small group of special forces, make it look like an in-house assassination,or what you read / see in the book/ movie Clear And Present Danger).
And regarding the French Fries, they were invented in Belgium, they are large and are supposed to be eaten with mayonaise out of a pointed papersack. So call those skinny pieces of fried potatoe something like American Fries;)
 
From Flywrite:

"German forces entered France in May 1940. It was a heck of a lot more than 45 days before the US joined the battle. While us "nervous whining Brits" stood alone against the Third Reich the US was perfectly happy to stay out of things."

Yes, the Brits bravely stood alone. But originally PM Chamberlin (sp?) wanted to bury his head in the sand and was happy to stay out of things. It took the "vision" of Churchill, et.al. to rally the Lion into challenging the Nazis.
 
Once upon a time (allegedly) in a nice little forest, there
>lived an orphaned bunny and an orphaned snake. By a surprising
coincidence,
>both were blind from birth.
>
>One day, the bunny was hopping through the forest, and the snake was
>slithering through the forest, when the bunny tripped over the snake
>and fell down. This, of course, knocked the snake about quite a bit.
>
>"Oh, my," said the bunny, "I'm terribly sorry. I didn't mean to
>hurt you. I've been blind since birth, so, I can't see where I'm going.
>In fact, since I'm also an orphan, I don't even know what I am."
>
>"It's quite OK," replied the snake. "Actually, my story is much the
>same as yours. I, too, have been blind since birth, and also never
>knew my mother. Tell you what, maybe I could slither all over you, and
work
>out
>what you are, so at least you'll have that going for you."
>
>"Oh, that would be wonderful" replied the bunny. So the snake
>slithered all over the bunny, and said, "Well, you're covered with soft
>fur; you have really long ears; your nose twitches; and you have a soft
>cottony tail. I'd say that you must be a bunny rabbit."
>
>"Oh, thank you! Thank you," cried the bunny, in obvious excitement.
>The bunny suggested to the snake, "Maybe I could feel you all over
>with my paw, and help you the same way that you've helped me."
>
>So the bunny felt the snake all over, and remarked, "Well, you're
>smooth and slippery, and you have a forked tongue, no backbone and no
>balls. I'd say you must be French".
 
france is different - like their legal system really consists of five lawyers in a courtroom all yelling at each other.

i like their recent statement about "not going along with the logic of ultimatums"
 
Maybe after all this is over, our country will realize what the French are all about, and relieve themselves of all their Falcon's and Airbus's.

Makes me want to puke when I get on an "American" Airlines flight that is using an Airbus. Makes me gag when I see that Ford has sold their Gulfstreams and purchased new Falcons.

How would Ford like it if I traded in my F250 for a Fiat? What would Don Carty say if I bought Air France tickets to Dallas?

We should be ashamed of ourselves. What's next, an Air France commuter airline called Freedom?
 
Ford, GM and Chrysler produce 70% of the parts that go into our "American" cars in Mexico and Brazil. Many "American" manufacturers have the components made foreign countries and they assemble it here in the USA...so much for buying American.

This B.S. about buy "American" is what corporate america wants you to believe. It's not that simple anymore. We now live in a global economy.

The "made in the USA" Boeing 777 we love so much? Well, Mitsubushi Heavy Industries makes a $hit load of the components on the 777.

And the last time I checked...not a single Regional Jet is made by a U.S. manufacturer. So everytime you guys jumpseat on a regional jet, you can thank the U.K. (Avro), Canada(CRJ), Brazil (ERJ) and Germany (Dornier) for the ride!
 
I think when all is said and done, we can agree to disagree with the French. They are looking out for themselves and their financial interests just like everyone else, and however annoying it may be they are not the enemy. What about Mexico? They have taken a similar stance on this issue even though it's obvious the U.S. has been their welfare system for many years. Ultimately it will be the decision of the Commander-in-chief and Congress what the U.S. does, it's clear the U.N. doesn't have the resolve to make a decision or a date and stick with it.
 
I can't believe some of you would sell out justice to protect your little 'ol flying job. I lost mine and I'll gladly change careers before I whore my morals out just to keep myself in an airplane.

This attitude is worse than a scab's rationalization.

Just how badly do you need to fly? I do not define myself by my job. Sorry for those who do.
 
Thanks Flywrite...

Thanks for bringing up some lucid points on this topic. I remember seeing a poll the other day that said some 40% of Americans think the September 11th hijackers were Iraqi. I think that is very troubling. A great number of people in this country trust their leaders to do their thinking for them. When the president holds a "press conference" about going to war with Iraq and mentions 9/11 eight times, its no wonder some people are confused.
What troubles me is the lack of debate in this country about this important topic. This thread is an excellent example, you are either with the administration, or you should go live somewhere else. I think the founding fathers were very wise when they gave Congress the power to declare war. I am particularly angry that the last Congress gave away that power with very little debate, and without a serious consideration of the consequences of war. I don't like the precedent of being the first Americans to attack a nation without provocation. I know, remember 9/11. Let's think about 9/11. 3000 Americans dead. Think about the last time you went to a baseball game, what were there 45,000 people? (Except for you Marlins fans) 3000 people were killed and we are willing to let the government take away many of our freedoms. We are willing to let the President make all the decisions about going to war, a President who likes to make decisions by categorizing problems as black or white, good vs. evil, and God vs. the devil. The world has many more shades of gray to it, unfortunately. After 9/11, almost every country on earth called us to ask what they could do to help. Now less than two years later, we have turned into the second most reviled nation on earth. We could have had all of those nations on our side in Iraq, had we handled the diplomacy more delicately.
But what if Iraq attacks us? The cornerstone of our defense for the last 50 years has been: attack us, and we will annihilate your country in days if not minutes. That has been an effective strategy, no state has dared to attack us. Now we are saying that we are afraid to take one on the chin, that we need to attack any nation that MIGHT attack us. This is Paul Wolfowitz's doctrine that he first presented in 1991. I hope this doesn't lead to new strategic alliances among our enemies and even some of our current allies. What would a Russian, French, German, and Chinese military alliance do to the stability of the world? What would it cost us to deter it?
We are the most powerful nation on earth. Everyone knows this. The UN would have played along with us, but when you start giving nations the finger and telling them they aren't significant, then they get their dander up. We would be just as outraged if we were on the other side of the Atlantic, or the Pacific for that matter.
 
How dare you trivialize the death of 3000 innocent Americans. Making comparisons to a baseball stadium? What is wrong with you? It would be a different story if somebody you loved was in those buildings. And please, spare me the b.s. of how you knew someone who was killed. How can you so easily forget?

The "out of sight, out of mind" principle may apply to rest of the world, but not here.

So go back and play your stratocaster, smoke a bowl, and enjoy the freedoms that you have. Let the real men go and protect those freedoms.
 
I think the 40% of the people that you are talking about, also probobly just follow there nose around to what ever they hear, not facts.

These are the same folks that also would want the UN to make the decisions for us.

Singlecoil, I'll ask the same question I ask any left wing liberal. What would it take to justify going to war? What would it take to defend our country? What is your answer?

If our Republican Pres was not in office, but instaed a Democratic Pres., would the anti-war setiment be as strong, I dont think so. The liberal reasonings are so transparent.

I dont think you grasp the reality of this new type of war. The soilgers we are fighting against have the same uniform as most Americans, blue jeans and a button down shirt. It is the job of our counrties leadership to take the threat away and those who harbor them and aid them.

SH is a terrorist, Arofat is a terrorist, OBL is a terrorist, hence, the war on terror. Iraq is just the begining of a long campaighn, there will most likely be others.

3000 people died, I didnt know any of them, the reason I didnt know any of them was becuase my brother was late for work that morning on a ferry coming accross from New Jersey going to the WTC complex where he worked, instead he was watching airplanes streak accross the Manhattan skyline.

Thank God none of these back sliding talking heads were not around during the Cuban missle crisis, or all of us would grubs fighting for seniority at the local slime hole.
 
LR25 said:
I
Singlecoil, I'll ask the same question I ask any left wing liberal. What would it take to justify going to war? What would it take to defend our country? What is your answer?

If our Republican Pres was not in office, but instaed a Democratic Pres., would the anti-war setiment be as strong, I dont think so. The liberal reasonings are so transparent.

Its very simple. Attack us, we will retaliate and destroy your country. It was clear that Afghanistan was harboring terrorists, and we wiped them out with the full support of the world. We also screwed up and let many terrorists escape into Pakistan. I'm sure everyone involved would by hindsight liked to have had more of a U.S. presence on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Now it is not at all clear that Hussein contributed materially to 9/11, that is why many people around the world are dismayed. Bin Laden has repeatedly said that he hates Hussein. Hussein is a secular leader, Islamic extremists can't stand that anywhere, they demand total control of government.
Like many Americans, I was frothing at the mouth when we bombed and overthrew Afghanistan; I thought it was fantastic. Why is this new war so hard for the President to sell?
If Belize attacked us we would annihilate that country. Then would we attack Mexico, because we perceived them to be a greater threat to us?

I am actually very middle of the road politically and refuse to be so easily dismissed as a "left-wing liberal". It is so much easier to label a viewpoint than listen to it.
What happens next year when China invades Taiwan? We are going to be laughed at when we say, "You can't do that, they are a sovereign nation!"
China will say, "But they were developing weapons of mass destruction and clearly sought to overthrow our government."
Then what do we say? We're Americans, we have our own rules?
The point is, we are going to be on the otherside of this argument in the not so near future, then we will be the ones who are easily dismissed.
 
singlecoil wrote:
'What troubles me is the lack of debate in this country about this important topic. This thread is an excellent example, you are either with the administration, or you should go live somewhere else'.
When you have the choice to be with the administration or to go live somewhere else than there will be no debate! It also violates some of the founding principles of this country: freedom of speech,and freedom to think differently (although that one is not in the constitution). That's what democracy is all about.
 
Last edited:
Just a slight correction. France is not the largest importer of Iraqi oil. The United States is the largest importer of Iraqi oil. The United States accounts for almost 45% of Iraqi oil exports. France accounts for only 10% of Iraqi oil exports.

The economic reason France would want Saddam in power is that they have a virtual monopoly over goods going INTO Iraq. France exports about $2.5 billion worth of goods to Iraq each year. If Saddam were out of power, France might actually have to compete for Iraqi business.

And France isn't even the largest European importer of Iraqi oil. That illustrious title falls upon Italy, taking 12% of Iraq's oil exports. Spain comes in third with 9%.
 
Thank God none of these back sliding talking heads were not around during the Cuban missle crisis, or all of us would grubs fighting for seniority at the local slime hole.

If the diplomatic prowess of Messrs. Bush and Rumsfeld had been around during the Cuban Missile Crisis our world would have ended in the fall of '62. (I'm assuming that your use of a double negative was unintentional)


Singlecoil, It's kinda tough to make an intelligent argument on this thread, isnt it?

For the genius who said there was proof of a meeting between al queda operatives and Iraqi intelligence in the Czech Republic...even George Tennet has stated that this is a false report.
 
Last edited:
Coil, you still didnt answer the question I posed to you.

What will it take to defend our country?

What will it take to justify war?

I dont think we are on the stance of, "if you attack our country, we will retaliate and destroy your country". You honestly cant believe in that?

Heres how I look at it. The rest of the world should rejoice that we are a peace loving nation.

People talk about oil and thats what we want.

If we really wanted something and if indeed we were the great infidels, would we take it?

Wouldnt we thumb our nose at the world and just do what we wanted?

So, what are your answers to those questions I pose? There not easy ones.

Its time to defend "our"/ "your" freedom once again.

Just becuase this country hasnt seen a war like WWII in 58 years doesnt mean we have to be a bunch pansies.

The time is now, history will show we are acting correctly.

My brother in living in a tent in the desert, Keep all the troops in your thoughts.
 
The sad thing...

as chicken $hit as the frogs are...

its not whats keeping them out of this.

They are Iraqs #1 trading partner.

Russia is #3

is it just the money or maybe thier afraid of what well find when we get in there?

humm...
 
Its very simple. Attack us, we will retaliate and destroy your country. It was clear that Afghanistan was harboring terrorists, and we wiped them out with the full support of the world. We also screwed up and let many terrorists escape into Pakistan. I'm sure everyone involved would by hindsight liked to have had more of a U.S. presence on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Singlecoil,
Let me ask you a question. I heard Rumsfeld ask this and I'm only paraphrasing, but....

Let's say in July 2001, Bush came out to the world (or UN or whoever) and said " We have information that there is a terrorist threat to the USA. We believe that they are going to attack us in the next month or so. We know that Al-Quaeda is involved and OBL is the leader of that orgainzation. We want your support to for a coalition and go into Afghanistan with military force and destroy the Al-Quaeda network and capture OBL. Will you help us?" How many countries would have jumped up and said, "sure, we'll go"? I think you know the answer to that question, because that's what Bush is doing right now, and look at the world reaction.
You talk about hindsight and how we "screwed up" and let lots of terrorists go. That is the problem with most of the people who think like you, it's all based on hindsight. I guess if some terrorist kills another 3,000 Americans, and the subsequent investigation ties Saddam to it, then you'll be OK with going into Iraq. Personally I'm not willing to risk it, we finally have someone with the gumption to do what he thinks is best for the US and to be PROACTIVE in stopping the threat, instead of reacting.

Oh, by the way, in the weeks preceeding Bill Clinton's cruise missile attacks on Iraq in the late 90's, Bill himself stated several times that he felt any terrorist that wanted some type of weapon of mass destruction could just drop into Baghdad and pick one up, and that Saddam had to be stopped.
 
Let's say in July 2001, Bush came out to the world (or UN or whoever) and said " We have information that there is a terrorist threat to the USA. We believe that they are going to attack us in the next month or so. We know that Al-Quaeda is involved and OBL is the leader of that orgainzation

If that was the case than someone was sleeping, and yes they were. The FBI never acted on the Minneapolis whistle blowers about the guy that was taking 747 training. If they had done so, they might have prevented the whole thing. The Clinton administration was already (secretly) hunting for OBL, and they almost got him when he checked into an overseas US (militairy) hospital, but he left just before they tried to capture him
 

Latest resources

Back
Top