« We are all made of stars | Main | O Cum All Ye Faithful »
fair use: a simple napolean complex
by mg at 12:09 PM on April 03, 2003
Or deface a cemetary and beat up some jews. (link via michele)
comments (16)
Let me just say that the International Criminal Court can kiss my international ass. We should burn it to the ground.
by Anna at April 3, 2003 3:12 PM
dying. werther's hard candies are great with a cigarette and coffee. cough. dark. ears filling with wax. can't hear. scream too much at work. never scared. just disappointed. vastly.
by lockheed at April 3, 2003 9:01 PM
MG, you see no difference between stupid vandals of unknown age or education and official policy?
I mean, if I'm not mistaken it was a senator or a congressman or something that actually asked for that kind of beavior (i.e. changing frech fries name to freedom fries).
+all these people who DID change "french" to "freedom" in their menus or use the term constitute a much larger phenomenon than the vandals. Cause vandals are a sad standard in any regime, condition, whatever. Simple people acting that way on the other are (and even worse congressmen or senators) show a general attitude in behaving and, well, it's FAR more important. (and stupid)
by necropethamenos at April 4, 2003 6:18 AM
Say what you will about the United States, but when that whole freedom fries thing happened, everyone basically said, "this is stupid." But, the French protest ends with burning down a McDonalds (?) and the response is, "Well, it's to be expected, America is evil." Isn't that a double standard? And it is the people in power in France who perpetrate this hatred toward America. Can anyone honestly say that the UN's Iraqi policy was working? Because it obviously wasn't, and the only reason no one else wanted to do anything about it was because it was an American initiative to do something about this. A poll earlier this week in France showed that 25% of the people there aren't just anti-war, but want Iraq to win the war. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? I can understand being against the war, but imagine being so blindly anti-American that you'd rather see Iraq win a war. It makes my head hurt.
by mg at April 4, 2003 7:55 AM
Read my last comment a bit more. VANDALS were always there, would (and will) always be a sad story. POLITICIANS on the other hand don't usually do that stuff.
VANDALS doing stuff is nothing new. What they do is ILLEGAL by nature.
POLITICIANS doing stuff, well, it's just not the same, I think it really says something about the "good vs evil" world they live in.
Plus, if everyone said it was stupid then who did it? "everyone" is a vague term, "everyone" might even share your opinion in france too.
"Can anyone honestly say that the UN's Iraqi policy was working?"
Yes, obviously under the pressure of an impending war but YES.
"And it is the people in power in France who perpetrate this hatred toward America. "
I hate to tell you but WHAT DID YOU EXPECT? The world would sit and watch and LOVE U.S. for killing people? McDonalds is a symbol for america (at least for american economy) and it's not really popular right now.
"the only reason no one else wanted to do anything about it "
There's a HUGE difference between "doing something about it" and attacking a country!!
I just wish they had done the same with Afghanistan etc
"25% of the people there aren't just anti-war, but want Iraq to win the war."
I don't understand why you find this weird. OF COURSE they want Iraq to win. Why would anyone who thought this war is unjust want U.S. to win?
Yup they'd prefer that the war had not started. But it did (not by itself of course!). So there's 2 ways to go. US wins or Iraq wins. So what made you think they'd like US to win?
Isnt it clear that US attacks and Iraq defends?
Since they believe the war is unjust, they wouldn't want the part that commited the injustice to win, would they?
by necropethamenos at April 4, 2003 8:45 AM
No, I disagree. It is one thing to say you are against the war. I can accept that opinion. But even if you are against the war, how do you not look rationally at the situation and say, "You know, I'd liked the United States to stop, but if they are doing this, they should finish the job and take out Saddam Hussein." Who in their right mind would say Saddam Hussein should remain in power? Even if you don't like America, how do you align yourself with Saddam Hussein? I can understand, faced with the choice between war and peace choosing peace. But how does anyone faced with the choice between Saddam Hussein in control of Iraq, and ANYONE else, still choose Saddam?
At the point where you choose Saddam Hussein over any other option, this isn't about rational debate anymore, it's about blind, ignorant, irrational hatred of the United States.
by mg at April 4, 2003 12:54 PM
You know, I really don't care anymore what any other second rate asswipes think about America. It doesn't affect me in the least. I'm still going to live my life the same way I did before any of this happened. When you're the strongest country, on the face of the earth, some people aren't going to like you or your policies. So what? What can they do that will truely affect us? Nothing. I equate them to knats. They buzz around and annoy the piss out of you but can do no real harm. Just wait until the next time one of the "anti-American" countries needs US aid to save their asses. The United States will step up, as always, and help someone who wouldn't lift a finger to reciprocate. So be it.
by Ezy at April 4, 2003 2:45 PM
Well, just wait till the times comes to divvy up the post-war bounty of rebuilding contracts. Who do you suppose will be first in line only to have the door slammed in its cheese eating surrender monkey's face by Iraq's new ruler, W. Ha!
by Anna at April 4, 2003 6:29 PM
Well, yeah, right. France and Russia didn't want military action in Iraq. They didn't want to provide humanitarian aid because it might seem like they are "justifying" the war (yeah, you care so much about the Iraqi people, yet you don't want to send them food? Asswhacks). When talk about a UN presence in Iraq after the war came up, who makes sure to announce they don't want anything to do with it? Yet, when Bush and Blair get together to discuss rebuilding contracts, guess who is the first to bitch about not getting invited? Total fucking asswhacks.
by mg at April 4, 2003 8:53 PM
Aren't these funny captioned pictures even funnier when they end up mimicing real life? Or perhaps people here haven't heard about the bomb that went off in the McDonalds in Beirut, or the much larger bomb that failed in the same McDonald's parking lot
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/05/Beirutbomb_030405
What I find funny is people arguing about the rebuilding contracts... Without mentioning where the money for the contracts is going to come from.
How much is the war going to cost the U.S. anyway... Wasn't it a 75 billion appropritation bill to start with, plus whatever amount the U.S. kicks in the rebuilding contracts (90% or so I would guess. Don't delude yourselves into thinking that Iraq is going to pay an significant share of the cost)
I'm just glad I'm not an American taxpayer. This war is kicking the shit out of your budget, your economy, and your Markets. Glad I'm not Lockheed on that last point.
by ChuckWoolery at April 5, 2003 9:09 PM
MG, it's like you never read what I wrote. It's absolutely rational to prefer Saddam wining over the US since this war is unjustified. I personally don't but I consider myself an exception just cause I have my arguments against europe as well. But I perfectly DO understand why they choose this side.
After all it's the US that forces the rest of the planet to be "with them or against them".
Ezy, if that's your way of thinking and "second rate asswipes" is your way to describe these countries (among which is mine), then you justify EXACTLY what these countries have against you. "We're strong so we fuck them all."
Nothing's gonna change your way of life. Who said it would? Your way of thinking though should. Not just yours, of many many people over there. Or you will keep on living in a country with thousands of deaths due to civilian weapon use, terrific rates of homeless ppl etc. It's all a result of this kind of thinking.
You Favorite Second Rate Asswipe
by necropethamenos at April 7, 2003 4:44 AM
I understand what you said, I just don't understand how anyone could actually believe that Saddam Hussein is preferable to the United States. Here in the US, many of the laws are written to protect the rights of criminals, for example, there are strict rules that must be followed before you are allowed to enter and search someone's home. Still, no one would say that just because a search was illegal, they'd want the suspected criminals to shoot and kill the police officers. In this situation, Iraq ARE criminals, and despite what certain people in the world want to believe, the US is the policeman of the world. Iraq is breaking the law, and the US is enforcing it. You may disagree about the US interpretation of the UN resolution 1441, but even if you do, it just makes no sense to choose a criminal Itaqi state over the US.
PS: I don't think you are an asswipe. I was actually thinking of you over the weekend. There a report on the Greek Independence Day parade here in New York City, which was actually last weekend, and I was thinking about you.
by mg at April 7, 2003 7:37 AM
MG, first of all you never even mentioned the word asswipe, ezy did.
In any case, thanx for not thinking of me as an asswipe :)
"Still, no one would say that just because a search was illegal, they'd want the suspected criminals to shoot and kill the police officers"
There are several things wrong with this analogy. Of course noone would want them to kill the officers just cause they broke in. On the other hand if the officers just banged in and started shooting all around the building killing all kinds of ppl till they finally got the criminals it wouldn't be the same, would it? Noone is sad for saddam being killed. But the rest of the ppl never deserved saddam OR death. And no, it's not a war with "reduced casualties" anymore.
"The US is the policeman of the world".
Right.
So if I say "I am God" can I please go around and set things in MY order and have all kinds of rights on anyone? Pleeease?
US is the SELF-APPOINTED policeman of the world and that makes aaaaall the difference.
by necropethamenos at April 7, 2003 12:52 PM
Necro, you'll always be my favorite second rate asswipe ;-)
I wasn't pointing that barb at you personally. You're one of the few here that debate their point in a civil manner. I am just getting tired of the anti-American hype that has been in the press as of late. I, actually, let it get under my skin for a second. How you think is no more right than how I do and vice versa. We just see things differently as products of our environments and societies. I have seen, first hand, certain countries begging for US help and we send it more often than not. It's when it should come time to give something back and, maybe, stand beside us on an unpopular decision that others we've helped, in the past, seem to fall short. It's just a little frustrating to watch, at times. If anyone took what I said personally I apologise.
I, personally, would rather not be the policeman of the world. While I can see the logic of proactive involvement, in the world; we end up getting Americans killed for those who don't appreciate it or care in the least. That's the way it seems at least.
by Ezy at April 7, 2003 5:14 PM
I didn't take anything personally, don't worry. I was only pointing out that I belong to this group of people that piss you off so much!
About the americans getting killed for someone else and noone seems to care part: That's not true, at least here. The general feeling about it is that they are sent to be killed for no reason, that they are victims too of an irrational government.
I never heard ANYONE say he doesent give a fuck about soldiers dying.
by necropethamenos at April 8, 2003 1:59 AM
Here is another article abotu the way protests are going in France. A French Jew, who was marching with protestors, was beaten by several Muslim students. Some of the rhetoric coming out of some of the French is that Israel is controlling the United States. This is about the silliest thing I've ever heard. I just never understand how come people think the jews rule the world. I live in NY, more jews here than just about anywhere else, and they don't even run this city. In all likelihood a black lesbian with three arms would would get elected president before a jew would.
One cool thing about this article though, the Prime Minister of France (Raffarin) had this to say: "We believe that this war was a bad choice — but the Americans are not our enemies. Being against the war does not mean that we want dictatorship to triumph over democracy. Our camp is the camp of democracy."
It is possible to root against Iraq and still not hate America. You may not like the way we are going about things, but the outcome is favorable to not doing anything. Notice how you don't see Chirac coming out and saying anything like that. Chirac is banking on his being against the war to keep him in office, but if Raffarin is as rational a person as he seems, and is willing to take an unpopular, but correct, stance, then hopefully he'll put his hat in the ring come the next elections over there.
by mg at April 8, 2003 3:23 PM