Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests This gets me hating the French even more

For one, there's no proof that he's ever actually paid anyone for that offer.

Secondly, while paying the family's of the terrorists off can be sort of tacit approval of terrorism it's far from actively 'financing' it. The US does the exact same thing in dozens of countries all across the globe.

And, paying the familes for people killed in the Jenin refugee camp is a sign of outreach that US itself can learn from.

The Muslims around the world, and many non-Muslims as well, Israels "retaliation" is often times nothing more than terrorism itself. State-supported terrorism at that. And with military hardware that the US largely provides.

A suicide bomber bombs a bus, Israel "retaliates" by shooting tank shells into groups of schoolchildren or demolishing the homes of perfectly innocent people. It's not "collateral damage" it's simply revenge.

In my mind, and in many other people's minds, that's State-supported terrorism, and paying $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers is no different than you and my tax dollars paying $25,000 for that tank shell given to Israel so they can kill 15 schoolchildren for no reason other than revenge.

I don't really want to get into this debate, because Matt and some others are handling it well for my side. All I'll add is something interesting a caller into Rush said today...he wondered if there was yet another motive to occupying Iraq...and it was possibly to open the western front against Iran. It's kind of interesting, because it appears the entire "Axis of Evil" will have to be dealt with eventually. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's the purpose for occupying Iraq, just an added bonus.

On the French note: I've always stuck up in some way for the French because they were there for us in the Revolutionary War, but I've lost all respect or regard for them now. I've listened to a couple of their diplomats talk, and they sound like defenders of Saddam. It's ridiculous!! Much in the same way that I held respect and admiration for them for their historical support for us, they should do the same, especially with over 10,000 Americans in their soil. It's actually quite appaling and deplorable. I wonder what their real motivation is in this situation. Same thing with the Germans.

And someone has already responded to the dumbasses that say this war is for oil, so I won't give my opinion on that.

Look, we're not asking France to ship a couple million soldiers over to Iraq to fight. In fact, we're not really asking for anything, except for them to drop their staunch opposition to this war.

And yes, we did support France before officially entering the war by shipping millions of tons of supplies and materiel there.

If only the real French could have fought like the Vichy French (who fought against us), they could have kept the Germans out of Paris for a couple extra days. (**Had to take cheap shot there, totally out of the context of the debate )

History lesson for sigma:
Russia didn't save anyone but themselves. They invaded Poland almost simultaneously with Germany, therefore they were initially aggressors. Then they were attacked and when they were able to go on the offensive again, they did. History and Communist doctrine states that worldwide domination is Communism's goal. When the Russians conquered, they didn't leave (they had to split with us). So Communism was viewed as more of a threat, unlike our policy, which is shortly after invading and occupying, we establish democracies then leave (for the most part -- but we are in no way an occupying force).

I agree, without the Russkies on the Eastern Front it would have been a much longer war, but I could argue that without the threat in the west Hitler would have been drinking Vodka in Moscow not long after Barbarossa began. So that's a dumb argument, almost as dumb as suggesting that Communism was some kind of saving force.