On Thu, 01 May 2003 21:41:14 -0700, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
wrote:

    >JohnDoe wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> the difference between the 2 incidents is that one was then and only
    >> undermined the Iranians, what the french did was now and it was
    >> underhanded stab in the back to the US. allies aren't supposed to
    >> undermine each other
    >Could you explain the logic in that statement? Other than your
    >assumption that what WE do is okay, but for another nation to do
    >something similar is reprehensible?

very simple my dear, in the 1980s we supplied sadaam with weapons and
intelligence, the only other party affected was the Iranians. In 2003
the French passed on confidential information gained from the US to
the Iraqis. the affected parties were the US. If the French want to
play duplicitous games, fine but they must suffer the consequences of
the actions. They stabbed their so called friends (the US) in the back
whne the chose to back the wrong horse.

On Fri, 2 May 2003 10:25:37 +0200, Wolfgang Schwanke
wrote:
    >OK, can you all then stop the boycott rubbish please?

the boycott will not stop france backed the wrong horse and now will
suffer from chIRAQ's poor policies

In article , Jim Morris
writes
    >France, Germany, and Russia should not be looked at as Friends of the US.


Of course they are not friends. Why would they want to be?
--
Marie Lewis

JohnDoe wrote:
    >
    > On Fri, 2 May 2003 10:25:37 +0200, Wolfgang Schwanke
    > wrote:
    > >
    > >OK, can you all then stop the boycott rubbish please?
    > >
    >
    > the boycott will not stop france backed the wrong horse and now will
    > suffer from chIRAQ's poor policies

You would have more credibility if you used the correct
spelling of Chirac's name.

--
John Starrett

"We have nothing to fear but the scary stuff"

On Thu, 01 May 2003 21:41:14 -0700, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
wrote:

    >JohnDoe wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> the difference between the 2 incidents is that one was then and only
    >> undermined the Iranians, what the french did was now and it was
    >> underhanded stab in the back to the US. allies aren't supposed to
    >> undermine each other
    >Could you explain the logic in that statement? Other than your
    >assumption that what WE do is okay, but for another nation to do
    >something similar is reprehensible?

Oh, there is nothing wrong *per se* in helping out one nation in a war. I mean,
the US helped out France, Britain and Russia in WWII before it declared war.

The point is, that this marks France as being literally at war with the US, on
the side of Iraq.
--
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea. If this is tea, please bring me some coffee."
- Abraham Lincoln

In article , Mason Barge
writes
    >The point is, that this marks France as being literally at war with the US, on
    >the side of Iraq.


So we have the truth at last: the USA is *against* Iraq!
And all this time they have been denying it.
--
Marie Lewis

Mason Barge wrote in
news:[email protected]:

    > The point is, that this marks France as being literally at war with
    > the US, on the side of Iraq.

Then why don't you bomb them? Go ahead. Just one word of warning, France
has atom bombs and intercontinental missiles. Seriously, you right wingers
sure are idiots. Please go away, nobody takes you seriously.

--
AFN from USA, BFBS UK OK

On Sat, 3 May 2003 07:43:15 +0100, Marie Lewis
wrote:

    >In article , Mason Barge
    > writes
    >>The point is, that this marks France as being literally at war with the US, on
    >>the side of Iraq.
    >So we have the truth at last: the USA is *against* Iraq!
    >And all this time they have been denying it.


Do you ever post anything that is not just monumentally stupid?