West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Woodrow on April 01, 2003, 08:27:28 PM
-
One in three French backs Saddam
By Charles Bremner and Alan Hamilton
ILL-FEELING between Britain and France over the invasion of Iraq has plumbed new depths with the desecration of that most sacred of memorials, a war cemetery.
The defilement of Commonwealth war graves in northern France coincided with a poll for The Times which found that 54 per cent of Britons no longer regarded France as a close ally because of its opposition to the war.
Relations will be further rent by a second poll, in Le Monde, showing that only a third of the French felt that they were on the same side as the Americans and British, and that another third desired outright Iraqi victory over “les anglo-saxons”.
Eleven thousand Allied soldiers lie buried in well-tended peace at Etaples, on the Channel coast near Le Touquet, victims of the struggle by Anglo-Saxons to liberate the French from the German invaders during the First World War.
Last week the obelisk raised in their memory was defiled by red-painted insults such as “Rosbeefs go home”; “May Saddam prevail and spill your blood”; and, in a reference to the long-dead casualties beneath the manicured turf, “They are soiling our land”.
Local gendarmerie have launched an inquiry, but have so far found no clues. They say there had been no significant demonstrations against the war in that area of France.
The graffiti have been scrubbed off, but the incident has provoked outrage among British politicians, war graves staff and the few remaining relatives of those buried at Etaples. French politicians have joined the condemnation.
Bruce George, Labour chairman of the Commons Defence Committee, said: “Remembering what sacrifice these men made for the liberation of France, I cannot believe any mature, sane person would be so stupid as that.”
David Uffold, 63, a Shropshire farmer, is the only surviving relative of Rifleman Frederick Uffold of the London Regiment, who is buried at Etaples. “I find it sickening that anyone would vandalise the cemetery,” he said. “It is the last place they should be protesting about Iraq. These fellows were drafted in to fight for France. I can’t see any connection between the men buried at Etaples and the war in Iraq.”
Peter Francis, of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, said he was disgusted that a place remembering those who died defending freedom in world wars long ago should be dragged into a current political debate.
French politicians did their best to portray the desecration as an isolated act, but it nonetheless underlined anti-American and anti-British emotions running through France over what is seen there as a bungled invasion rapidly turning into a humanitarian disaster.
President Chirac’s spokesman said: “We are indignant and shocked by the desecration of the graves of soldiers who fought for our liberty.” Jean-Pierre Raffarin, the Prime Minister, said: “The Americans are not the enemy; just because we are against this war, it does not mean that we want the victory of dictatorship over democracy.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5944-631671,00.html
It's strange to see that our "Allies" would support a man who has killed so many innocent people.
Anti-Americanism is just becoming SAD.
-
It's strange to see that our "Allies" would support a man who has killed so many innocent people.
Anti-Americanism is just becoming SAD.
it's strange that bush wages war on a man who has been supported by the us government for more than two decades.
the hypocrisy is just becoming sad.
-
It's strange to see that our "Allies" would support a man who has killed so many innocent people.
Anti-Americanism is just becoming SAD.
it's strange that bush wages war on a man who has been supported by the us government for more than two decades.
the hypocrisy is just becoming sad.
The United States hasn't supported Saddam in over a decade
Please don't change the subject.
-
It's strange to see that our "Allies" would support a man who has killed so many innocent people.
Anti-Americanism is just becoming SAD.
you have no sence of time do you.....we use to hate britain 200 years ago , but we're best friends now
it's strange that bush wages war on a man who has been supported by the us government for more than two decades.
the hypocrisy is just becoming sad.
-
Oh God...
Nice article, but you interpret it as meaning the GOVERNMENT of France wants Saddam to win. Raffarin has privately stated he prefers US victory, and Chirac has said, at least for the crowd, he also does.
And Agua...Pardonnez-moi? A "sense of time" is irrelevant.
-
Oh God...
Nice article, but you interpret it as meaning the GOVERNMENT of France wants Saddam to win.
No.
When It says one in three French want the Iraqi's to win, I take it that one out of every three french people polled felt that way. The government never even entered my mind when typing my comments.
Anti-Americanists claim that they only hate our government, but this is fairly strong evidence that that's not true. 70% of French are aginst the war. Thats fine. 30% want us to loose outright. Thats a fairly large percentage of people whowant physical harm to come to the Untied States and it's troops. For a country that's supposed to be our friend, It's fairly shocking to see something like that.
-
Goddamn french >:(
-
http://www.madblast.com/view.cfm?type=FunFlash&display=2158 ;D hehehehe
-
This shouldnt come as a surprise to yall. Besides the US, and Britain, the majority of the world sees this war for the imperialsitic aggression that it is. Naturally, when the strongest army in the world is invading a third world nation, people will be gunning for the under dog. This is natural.
-
tha fuck? should we be shocked now or what
-
I am not suprised that 1/3 of French are backing Saddam. Tons of Muslims are flooding into that country, and they are probably the ones backing Iraq.
It is sad really.
-
This shouldnt come as a surprise to yall. Besides the US, and Britain, the majority of the world sees this war for the imperialsitic aggression that it is. Naturally, when the strongest army in the world is invading a third world nation, people will be gunning for the under dog. This is natural.
But at the same time, this war is going to bring freedom and democracy to a country that has been oppressed by the most brutal and oppressive dictator in the world.
Anyone who would root against freedom in favor of oppression is either a complete idiot or a Muslim.
-
it's strange that bush wages war on a man who has been supported by the us government for more than two decades.
the hypocrisy is just becoming sad.
That's not true and doesn't make sense.
-
This shouldnt come as a surprise to yall. Besides the US, and Britain, the majority of the world sees this war for the imperialsitic aggression that it is. Naturally, when the strongest army in the world is invading a third world nation, people will be gunning for the under dog. This is natural.
But at the same time, this war is going to bring freedom and democracy to a country that has been oppressed by the most brutal and oppressive dictator in the world.
will it? can u honestly tell me it will? gunpoint democracy doesnt work. You cannot force democracy in a country that has never had the institutions for it.
Is Afghanistan free and democratic?What have yall done there? I mean, seriously, besides killing thousands of people, bombing weddings and killing the odd goat.
-
http://www.madblast.com/view.cfm?type=FunFlash&display=2158 ;D hehehehe
i think the funny part was that some of the shit they said about americans are pretty true really.
-
it's strange that bush wages war on a man who has been supported by the us government for more than two decades.
the hypocrisy is just becoming sad.
That's not true and doesn't make sense.
what's wrong with my comment? rumsfeld himself visited saddam a couple of times.
-
what's wrong with my comment?
1. The US government has not supported Saddam for the last two decades.
2. "the hypocrisy is just becoming sad" <---- Doesn't make sense.
rumsfeld himself visited saddam a couple of times.
And your point is...
-
1. The US government has not supported Saddam for the last two decades.
do you remember what happened after the first war in iraq? when george bush failed to support a possible revolution in iraq and thereby brought saddam back into the game? That's indirect support.
2. "the hypocrisy is just becoming sad" <---- Doesn't make sense.
this shit was aimed at engel-rock, who said that anti-americanism was just becoming sad.
And your point is...
rumsfeld visited saddam to provide him with weapons for iraq's war against iran. I think this can be called support as well.
-
do you remember what happened after the first war in iraq? when george bush failed to support a possible revolution in iraq and thereby brought saddam back into the game? That's indirect support.
That's a stretch. I would never say that the US government has supported Saddam since before the first gulf war.
this shit was aimed at engel-rock, who said that anti-americanism was just becoming sad.
Okay, I thought that you thought that the US were hypocrites for supporting Saddam then going to war with him.
rumsfeld visited saddam to provide him with weapons for iraq's war against iran. I think this can be called support as well.
War with Iran? It's the year 2003 now.
-
This shouldnt come as a surprise to yall. Besides the US, and Britain, the majority of the world sees this war for the imperialsitic aggression that it is. Naturally, when the strongest army in the world is invading a third world nation, people will be gunning for the under dog. This is natural.
and since when did TECH become the voice ot the rest of the world ::)....by the way lol at rapquakes link ;D
-
u would be surprised at how many people would agree with my views re: american foreign policy.
-
This shouldnt come as a surprise to yall. Besides the US, and Britain, the majority of the world sees this war for the imperialsitic aggression that it is. Naturally, when the strongest army in the world is invading a third world nation, people will be gunning for the under dog. This is natural.
Yeah, obviously whenever a war happens, everyone wants the smaller nation to win, and anyone who wants the bigger nation to win is brainwashed.
-
will it? can u honestly tell me it will? gunpoint democracy doesnt work. You cannot force democracy in a country that has never had the institutions for it.
Is Afghanistan free and democratic?What have yall done there? I mean, seriously, besides killing thousands of people, bombing weddings and killing the odd goat.
I expected more of you. Iraq was a democracy, until the first Baathist coup; Afghanistan is now, again, as it was under the King, a democracy. There are elections. Yes, there may still be warlords, but in every poor country, there are those who will exploit desperation.
-
1. I never insinuated what u said in the last post
2. On contraire, mon ami. Iraq was ruled by King Farouk and that country;s system of govt was anything but a democracy. Under King Zahir Shah, Afghanistan WAS NOT a democracy, It was ruled by a series of King appointed prime minsters which acted like despots. See: Mohamed Daoud Khan.
-
1. I never insinuated what u said in the last post
2. On contraire, mon ami. Iraq was ruled by King Farouk and that country;s system of govt was anything but a democracy. Under King Zahir Shah, Afghanistan WAS NOT a democracy, It was ruled by a series of King appointed prime minsters which acted like despots. See: Mohamed Daoud Khan.
1. You said it was "natural" to support the underdog.
2. At independence, Iraq was an "enforced" democracy; whether this went British puppets were installed, isn't the point. There were certain standards of governmental behaviour. I do accept Farouk rather abolished that idea, I messed up before-but there was a relatively free press (as opposed to now-there was even a satirical journal, albiet one terrorized by paramilitaries), and a powerless but free equivalent of the Dushka.
With Shah, a Prime Minister does not define a democracy; see Cuba, or Tzarist Russia.
-
Agua posted in this topic, then deleted his post...Spiffing
-
"1. You said it was "natural" to support the underdog."
yes i did, but i did not call people who supported america brainwashed.
-
Agua posted in this topic, then deleted his post...Spiffing
yep, i deleted it. it seemed senseless to me to post in this thread since i started threads about truth and propaganda.
-
btw, i do think that peeps who support the us are brainwashed. the whole mess could have been solved in 1991 but dubya's pops decided not to help the iraqi people. instead he just looked at them being slaughtered.
-
btw, i do think that peeps who support the us are brainwashed. the whole mess could have been solved in 1991 but dubya's pops decided not to help the iraqi people. instead he just looked at them being slaughtered.
How are those two points related?