<p>
</p>
<p>Sarkozy calls upon the US to save France – again!</p>
<p>I’m actually glad that this guy won. He likes America, and God knows that we need some allies…especially since Bush has driven all of our previous ones away.</p>
<p>
<a href=“Sarkozy's election victory marred by riots | Daily Mail Online”>Sarkozy's election victory marred by riots | Daily Mail Online;
<p>Far left cry babies in France. What a surprise!</p>
<p>razorsharp,</p>
<p>That report understated the real numbers: 730 cars torched, 78 police injured, and 594 taken into custody. (from Reuters)</p>
<p>“This always makes me laugh”</p>
<p>LFWB - the thing is that website missed several of France’s most brilliant and singular military defeats. They are the only country to lose wars to Mexico and the Haitians.</p>
<p>NY Times:
</p>
<p>Oh dear. Nothing like hitching your wagon to a guy with a 28% approval rate at home.</p>
<p>“Oh dear. Nothing like hitching your wagon to a guy with a 28% approval rate at home.”</p>
<p>Funny you should mention that. This week’s Newsweek has a cover story with a picture of Harry Truman on it. The title is, “Wanted: a New Truman - Does anybody in the 2008 Field Have What it Takes?”</p>
<p>Truman’s approval rating: 23%</p>
<p>I vividly remember Truman being asked by a reporter after the Kennedy assassination if he had given LBJ any advice. His answer was no, if the president wants my advice he will ask for it. You fellows in the press were always giving me your advice and I never listened to a damn bit of it.</p>
<p>Deutschland über alles! France lags behind the German nation! Maybe now they will not have to eat as much of Angela Merkel’s dust.</p>
<p>Oh, and I will now have to replace my map, because I retraced the borders of France and Spain, combining them into “Le Nut-house”.</p>
<p>I am so glad that the traitor, Jacques Chirac, is finally gone from the French Presidency. He betrayed the West on numerous occasions, especially with giving the Iraqis weapons for their oil, most notoriously the Osiraq Reactor, which Saddam ultimately wanted to produce weapons-grade materials. Thanks to a few brave Israeli flyboys thats now a long blown over hole-in-the-ground. He ran France into a smoldering pile of rubble, and hopefully Sarkozy will have more sense and loyalty to Western interests than Chirac.</p>
<p>Fundingfather - Excellent point! </p>
<p>Yeah. </p>
<p>I’m pretty sure George Bush will turn into a Harry Truman any minute now.</p>
<p>(OMG that is just sad. Really.)</p>
<p>“I’m pretty sure George Bush will turn into a Harry Truman any minute now.”</p>
<p>Well, certainly the stage is set for that. The reason for both of their low popularity was their steadfast support for an unpopular war. The result for Truman was a free South Korea that is a strong trading partner and ally in the region. A primary difference was that the Korean “conflict” took far more casualties than Iraq. The other difference was that from a global strategic perspective, Iraq is far more important than Korea. We’ll see if Bush can withstand the assault of the surrender monkeys that inhabit the left aisles of Congress these days.</p>
<p>“Well, certainly the stage is set for that.”</p>
<p>CERTAINLY?! Are you joking? Sorry to be sarcastic, but this is just delusional.</p>
<p>ff, </p>
<p>I’m sorry, you really can’t compare Korea to what is going on now. Doesn’t hold up to the light of day.</p>
<p>opie,</p>
<p>I agree. Had we abandoned Korea, probably the worst that would have happened (besides the ensuing carnage) is that when satellites took a night time picture of the Korean peninsula the entire peninsula would be dark versus only the northern half. With Iraq, the consequences of failure will have a far larger impact on us - in addition to the added carnage.</p>
<p>no, I still think you’re reaching here. </p>
<p>In Korea, we were the defenders, not the aggressors. It was not a civil war or a religous war. </p>
<p>And we have already failed in Iraq, we just can’t admit it for some reason. The only impact of leaving Iraq would be loss to the gop for blindly supporting a one arm tied behind the back war policy. We lost when we failed to bring the full force of our abilities to bear in the region. It’s been a lie. Just simply a lie.</p>
<p>"In Korea, we were the defenders, not the aggressors. It was not a civil war or a religous war. "</p>
<p>Oh, so being “defender” is what makes things right? So, I guess by your logic that makes Vietnam a just war since we were a defender there as well. You did support the Vietnam War didn’t you? Does that make Bill Clinton an aggressor since he attacked the Balkans? In fact, didn’t he also attack Iraq? Or, is it when you bomb from 30,000 feet it doesn’t count as aggression?</p>
<p>^lol. Nope not aggression. 30,000 feet rule was in effect.</p>
<p>“Oh, so being “defender” is what makes things right?”</p>
<p>Usually, that’s a reasonable standard for national defense or even personal defense. But I could be wrong, we certainly could lead a blitz on the rest of the world after all we are the master race. There’s a certain degree of consideration for those whom must defend themselves against an aggressor. Or am I wrong? </p>
<p>“So, I guess by your logic that makes Vietnam a just war since we were a defender there as well.”</p>
<p>No we weren’t the defenders there, we were interlopers trying to keep a corupt political system in place because it served our interests. We were on the defensive because our politicans wanted us to be. This is one of the first… fighting with one arm behind our back conflicts…our new style of dumb warfare. </p>
<p>" You did support the Vietnam War didn’t you?"</p>
<p>No, I didn’t. It wasn’t a war we had any business in either.</p>
<p>" Does that make Bill Clinton an aggressor since he attacked the Balkans?"</p>
<p>Why is it always about BC with you? It’s like you think others are so enamoured with BC that they can’t think for themselves. Your hang up isn’t mine, sorry. BC aint the best thing since sliced bread. He only appears that way because he’s sandwiched between the Bush family. </p>
<p>" In fact, didn’t he also attack Iraq? Or, is it when you bomb from 30,000 feet it doesn’t count as aggression? "</p>
<p>And how many American troops were blown up enforcing the nofly zone? You always seem to think those who disagree with you are doves, not really. But I’m not a chicken hawk either. You don’t have to be liberal to see BAD military policy and actions. You don’t have to be liberal to SEE lives being wasted to hold power back here. In fact, you can be conservative and recognize what a screw up this is and how bad the leadership is. Maybe not you as you try to justify this F ubar situation. Sorry, ain’t drinking that cool aid.</p>
<p>" BC aint the best thing since sliced bread. He only appears that way because he’s sandwiched between the Bush family. "</p>
<p>– good one Opie</p>