May 01, 2003

"French Military Victories" and Google

I've been looking at How bloggers game Google by Google Watch. It describes the "French Military Victories" prank. A key part of the article is the claim

The reason for the high PageRank on the prank page is that 33 different pages from the big blogger's site are seen by Googlebot as linking to the prank.

I don't believe this claim is correct. There has to be a limit on how much PageRank a single site can contribute for a link. For example, it's a frequent practice for all pages on a site, to link to the root URL of the site. This doesn't generate an astronomical PageRank. Moreover, even if the own site is an exception, it's a very common to have a page structure where there's a frame or table of associated sites, on each page of the site. A "blogroll" is just one example of this structure. I just looked at, for an example, and note the "Privacy Resources" table on every page, for all thousand or so articles.

Now, there's a deep social issue about information here, which I don't mean to dismiss. But the explanation given by Google Watch for the effect is not right. And in fact, it muddies the issue. It implies a kind of technical bug: "But only about one-third of the page is duplicated in this case, so Google thinks they're all worth indexing.". The problem isn't that Google's duplicate-detection algorithm was fooled. Rather, it's a social "bug", in that the ranking algorithm produces results which are in some ways problematic.

By Seth Finkelstein | posted in google | on May 01, 2003 05:04 PM (Infothought permalink) | Followups
Seth Finkelstein's Infothought blog (Wikipedia, Google, censorware, and an inside view of net-politics) - Syndicate site (subscribe, RSS)

Subscribe with Bloglines      Subscribe in NewsGator Online  Google Reader or Homepage


not sure why this web page is here but you MUST leave the search how it is. the world needs to be reminded how lame the french are.

Posted by: Ya DontNeed MyInfo at June 25, 2003 12:28 AM

can't see stuph on yer page

Posted by: paisley at July 3, 2003 06:26 PM

Isn't this a stale joke, now that the French have been proven right about Iraq? They said there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that Bush's pretext for invasion was unjustified. They asked for further weapons inspections to prove or disprove the point. In response, Rumsfeld and Bush and the rest slandered the French as cowards - propaganda to equal the best. When you can't prove someone wrong, call him names. Now we see the truth - the French and all the rest of the world were right and the USA (and its UK poodle) wrong. US boys died and are still dying in Iraq so that Bush the son could have his vote-winning war, like his Dad before him.

Posted by: Michael at July 16, 2003 09:38 AM

Guys it's funny. If this was about British victories we would laugh about it, Brits have a sense of humour that allows us to laugh at ourselves. Myself I cannot help but feel some are a little serious about this google event. But then everyone is entitled to their own opinion!

Posted by: Andy at July 17, 2003 02:45 PM

America = Freedom of speech? ... my arse .... I see that this site practices censorship .... didn't like what I wrote?

Posted by: ACS (formerly known as American Chick Shager) at July 17, 2003 07:33 PM

Google's pagerank is also based on the pagerank of the referring site. Pages that are linked to buy many other sites have more influence on the pagerank of outside sites.

Posted by: Matt Gillies at July 18, 2003 12:01 AM

Just because there were no WMDs in Iraq does not change the fact that the French are cowards!

Posted by: smarkit at July 18, 2003 02:05 PM

There would be a lot more results found if the search was for "French Military Surrenders". :-)

Posted by: Jamil at July 19, 2003 11:11 AM

The fact that 95% of the worlds nations didn't join in with the US to attack Irak has nothing to do with being cowards but everything to do with the fact that International law has to be respected and you can't go about invading countries to steal their petrol .. because that is of course an important fact whatever you say ... again, no WMD have been found despite David Rumsfeld saying that he had pictures of them before the war and irrefutable proof ... no links with Osama have been demonstrated ... and yes, the man was a ruthless and barbaric dictator however it was the world's belief that there was no point in murdering thousands of innocent man, woman and children and even more iraki soldiers to remove that man from power. You are now also in the position of having to stay in Irak for an indefinate period and pay a huge amount of money to keep things going ... if the American people would have been told before the war that the evidence against Saddam was not 100% conclusive, that the US woud loose hundreds of their boys and that even more would be wounded and scared for life and that the American tax payer would have to pay over a 100 Billion dollars to achieve an uncertain and badly planned goal, then I seriously doubt that Bush Jr would have been allowed to go ahead ... on top of that, the US has managed to make the world a more dangerous place for everybody but even more for its own citizens ... the vast majority of the world has now bad feelings towards the US and that is sad ...
In addition to what people were saying about the French position before the war, I do not see why it is a bad thing to want to protect your national interest .. France, just like many other countries such as Russia and Germany had indeed interests in Irak and it is only fair that they wanted to protect those interest .. and remember that the US is really not an innocent party in this ... here is a link that might jog your memory:

smile .. you're on camera!

Posted by: ACS at July 20, 2003 02:28 PM

Haha, French are guilty of helping Iraq with supplies aswell as Germany and Russia. For the most part, they are guilty, and trying to cover their ass'.
If you're going to argue atleast spell the most relevant part of your opinion (being Iraq) correctly.

Posted by: jfs at September 7, 2003 05:09 PM

Haha ... we are almost at number 100 DEAD man for you guys! .. that's for after the war ... how many wounded? .. almost a tousand? ... how do you fell now? ... how much money spent? 100 billion .... that's about 400$ per God-fearing american .... Hahahahahahahaaaaa

Posted by: ACS at October 11, 2003 12:25 PM

JFS: The United States and the United Kingdom both gave Afghanistan weapons in the 1980s to help fight off the Soviet forces. That backfired too. This suggestion MAY OFFEND: but has it occurred to anyone that the FRENCH, GERMANS etc are NOT the enemy? The joke is funny (us Brits as a nation are not french-lovers!), but it is only a joke. The French had too fall back and trust the UK and the US in WWII. I seem to remember that the French were in that from the beginning and that the USA took FOUR YEARS to join up. So, let's give Europe a few more years, because we are all equally important (that may come as a shock to some Americans) Thank You

Posted by: Reggie D at October 15, 2003 09:37 AM

The french are a bunch of hypocratic people. Only interested in their own wine vineyards. Time to get off your worthless behinds and support the people that saved your country from the first Saddam "Hitler"....

Posted by: U.S. Army at October 16, 2003 04:26 PM

JFS: for someone who likes to lecture about spelling you seem to be unable to tell an ASS from your ARSE. "American" english is, let's face it, just WRONG. American (late) interventions in the first and second world war are highly overrated, besides, in WWI they were going to join the German side (but were too yellow). If the Iraq war was really about saving people from dictators then why are the people of Iraq STILL NOT FREE? And what about the other dictators in the world which are worse than Saddam? (Belarus, Somalia, Kenya... USA).

Posted by: Luzzu at October 18, 2003 11:19 AM

Quite true, if the Japanese army would have not sank the Pacific fleet in 1942 (3 years after the war started), the americans would have been quite happy making money by selling products to support the war effort of the nations in Europe ... to be honest the true heroes were the British people led by Churchill who stood against the mighty German army until the US joined up and Hitler made the fatal mistake of attacking the Soviet Union.
Anyway .. in the mean time, we are now 6 months later and still no WMDs (surprise surprise) ... the US gov did relunctantly admit that it never thought there was any links between Saddam and Al-qaeda althought it made sure that the american people believed that there was ... and sure enough, the majority of the american still believe that Saddam was involved in 9/11 ....
Americans soldiers are still dying in Irak ... Afghanistan is still a mess and the americans will never improve the life of ordinary people over there (because there is no petrol?) .... and there was no need for all of that ... we should have let the international community do its job .... if you spit on international law, then don't expect respect from the international community .. as far as I am concerned, the US showed its true colours and beliefs ... the guy with the biggest gun is the one that holds the power .. the US basically said 'scr3w you' to the international community ... and this is why I now despise the US as a nation ... although I do still have many american friends ...

Posted by: ACS at October 19, 2003 07:03 PM

ACS, you couldn't shag my effin American carpet.

Posted by: Sphyrna at October 27, 2003 06:52 PM

Sphyrna .... exactly the kind of reaction expected ... a nation that chooses a man without any general knowledge and an IQ lower than my gold fish is not expected to rule by any other means than by force ... just like your country you are now saying 'scr3w you' instead of entering a debate ... anyway, we will just let you guys recreate your little vietnam in Irak .... have fun!

Posted by: ACS at November 1, 2003 07:37 AM

In reality the 'French Military Victories' joke has nothing to do with the current armed conflict in Iraq. The issues surrounding Iraq are far more complicated than the simple truisms and statistics that are constantly referred to in an attempt to fortify some mundane point. e.g it is equally true to state that France was against the war because of the dubious arguments surrounding national security as it is to state that France (and Russia) were worried about the loss of their huge investments in Iraqi oil and infrastructure. Both facts can be used to support or attack their position on the war. France is pretty useless at military campaigns, history tells us that - but it must be said that that is only true in the context of America and Britain - next to Germany (and er..Belgium) they look like a smart outfit. Unfortunately for France, although it doesn't detract from their position on Iraq, again the joke is on them.

Posted by: jaz at November 7, 2003 02:04 PM

The only reason some countries supported the war in Iraq (not counting British) is because they were brown nosing the Americans. The need money and American support so they supported the US. The polls show the Not a single country in Europe supported the Iraq intervention. Maybe some politicians supported the US but the people did not. Only about 10 to 25 % of people in Europe supported US, and 875 of them did so because they thought “US will reward their countries with political and financial support”. Does that tell you something?
Well I personally don’t care. If US want another Vietnam War, sure go ahead. In 15 to 20 years the EU will become more and more powerful in a economical and political respect. More and more countries in the world see US as a bully and Europe as a impartial, honorable and fair partner.
Many americans did not support the war and still dont. They are the original freedom fighters that still remember how their great country was made to be free, independent and equally for ALL. I admire those people and there is a lot of them in the US.

Lived in East Europe living in US.

Posted by: PJ at November 8, 2003 05:28 PM

Deaf and Dumb at home, Dead abroad...

Posted by: napoleon XIV at November 11, 2003 09:12 AM

it is strange to see how the debate on the french position always turns the same way: same arguments against anti-war people as before the war, same insults when no capacity to debate, same deny of facing the truth....
the USA are slowly realizing they have been fooled by their government, fooled by a non objective US media who acted as guarantor for bush's lies.
Now, they are knowing hard times in Iraq, they're facing useless peace efforts (which ones? I don't really and honestly hear about them... was it to protect first the iraqi oil ministry and let devastate the iraqi national museum? but the question is not here..), they are loosing the lives of their boys (and it makes me sad, really, I can't jubilate because of dying people wether they are american or iraki) and moreover, they are loosing their national pride in this situation and all the credibility the former US governments gained in the past on an international scale.
And of course, they didn't realize any of their targets: get saddam hussein to compensate the fact they didn't get bin laden, fight terrorism (they incitate terrorism), secure the area (it's a big mess, find huge stocks of massive destruction weapons and so on and so on....
so don't wait for US citizens to say now "the reste of the world were right and we have been fooled by our president and his friends "the US oil bosses".
let them enough time to get over the chock of facing the lies they were so proud and so eager to believe...
and let them the time to clean their minds and their country of what brought them in this situation...
After that, it will "maybe" be possible to debate and to argue without passion, insults, and excessive pride.
finally the USA will maybe realize they've never won any military war in their history without the help of an other country... and become more adult and less arrogant. I hope so...
their only victory they did with no help was to save jessica lynch....but it was it was totally secure.

Posted by: franck at November 11, 2003 03:18 PM

Hello guys,
First of all, sorry for my poor english because I am one of those ass holes cowards that we use to call french.
I just want to tell something to people who call us cowards, enemies of freedom and so on, and who says that we are indebted to US for WW2. Remember Lafayette and the others french who are gone to died during the revolution war against Britain. They fought for the first modern democraty, and because they had an idea of America as the land of the free and the home of the braves.
The France's opposition to Bush policy is due to this idea, we always considere US as a sister republic of France, and as a model for the free world, and the policy which is made presently by your government is not the policy of such a nation. I hope that the US will awake soon.
God bless America and France.

Posted by: Philippe at November 13, 2003 08:40 AM

testce que las francais n avaient t ils pas raison pour cettte guerre d'irak
Do the french governement was not right in the conflcit vs Iraq

Posted by: SERRA at November 17, 2003 10:46 AM

PJ, most of Europe supperted the war, many European countries have troops in, or deploying to Iraq. The EU will be lucky if it is not ruled IAW the Shiaria by 2050. It certainly does not rival the US in any way shape or form, and never will because it is being turned in to a Socialist wasteland.

Philippe, if France supports democracy so much, why did Jacques "Nukes for anyone with the cash" Chirac support the Arab's answer to Hitler? Probably because France as first opportunity turned against the Allies, fighting the Commonwealth in the Middle East, the US in North Africa, and the Soviets on their own soil, while on the home front, loading Eichmann's trains to Auschwitz.

France was bribed by Saddam Hussein, and addled by its puerile anti-Americanism. Its attempts to turn the EU into a Franco-German dictatorship will fail because most of Europe still remembers something of freedom, hard won.

Posted by: Sheriff at November 24, 2003 03:17 AM

Most of the fighting in the American revolution was done by colonists, not French. Americans won the revolution, they also baled you out of WW1, and WW2, in spite of the fact that France spent most of the war fighting against the Allies, and all of the time after the war taking the credit for the victory.

Your President is a pansy arse fucking ingrate. He tried to move the graves of thousands of US and Commonwealth soldiers who died defending YOUR poofy worthless hole of a country, and for what, an airport!

Posted by: Sheriff at November 24, 2003 11:05 PM

Hey americans...


Posted by: The blind assasin at December 5, 2003 10:02 PM

It is a joke.

Posted by: Stephen & Kymberlie at December 5, 2003 10:47 PM

just something i'd like to point out from an rather old post(so i dont know if it will be read), The French were not going to join, in The great war, on the German side, they were in the Triple Entente with the Russians and British.

Posted by: M at December 8, 2003 12:04 AM

Steve Lerner... one of those suckered in by the pro-war propaganda.

Posted by: Jon P. at December 8, 2003 12:29 AM

Who were Charlemagne, Napoleon, Louis XIV, Lafayette, Foch? Does anyone remember World War I or the Battle of Yorktown (French victory over the English to give us our independence.) What knowledge of history do these people have? No wonder the civilized world laughs at our educational system.

Posted by: Dick Clark at December 13, 2003 05:18 PM

I think the whole debate about Iraq or Irak (old original English spelling) is very interesting. the supporters of the conflict cant see they have had the wool pulled over their eyes by their political masters. I as a former soldier was and am against it because it seems to have been for economic reasons rather than humanitarian to halt WMD proliferation (that's spreading of Weapons of Mass Destruction) for those of a similar IQ as Mr Bush. (interviewer Q: 'President Bush who is the Pakistani premier you are about to meet ?' Bush A: 'erm...... The general', Q:'general who?', A:'You know the General' etc. if you saw the interview of the most powerfool (intentional sp)man in the world you would laugh if it weren't so sad. What a fool he was then that he didnt even know the name of one of the leaders of a nation which HAS WMDs). The war was for oil and control of it as US power brokers want that Iraqi oil for themselves. US cares about US interest and nothing else though now they need help they are asking the rest of the world to bail them out. A bit like Somalia and the heroic(?) Black Hawk down fiasco though a success in the mission only Malaysian and Pakistani military prevented a Custers last stand type of defeat on the American soldiers on the ground. Or Vietnam ? need I say more. Tell of war America has won without the aid of other nations. Now compare that to any European state. Arrogance causes Pride and pride comes before a fall. I only hope my town is not targetted by terrorists since Bush has ignited the fire of hatred.

HINT. try typing the same message into google in French (impossible for mostAmericans as they dont even know English let alone any other language) perhaps a different result would arise

Posted by: Shiprex at January 11, 2004 08:14 PM

I wonder what else is buried in that 171,599 square miles of sand and dirt? If he can bury Mig jets and himself then why not WMD? Click on USA (below) to go to the link and see the pictures of the Migs found in Iraq.

Posted by: USA at January 20, 2004 10:37 PM

You know what, people make mistakes, countries make mistakes. I think the US should pull back all it's military forces back to US soil where they belong and let everyone else fend for themselves. And concentrate all our foreign aid into making the US a better place to live, put it in education (which we seem to be lacking a lot of), finding cures for diseases, taking care of our homeless, sick and less fortunate and just fixing what's wrong with the country. While I'm wishing for the impossible, I want more money than Bill Gates and for Bill Watterson to return to cartooning! I miss Calvin and Hobbes.

Posted by: Shovel at January 21, 2004 03:37 AM

Bush destroyed our foreign policy!!!!. There is a difference between necessity and personal agenda/vendetta. 9-11 did not justify more blood on US or foreign soil. Maybe if we hadn't given Bin Laden the training to fight the Soviets, then this would never have happened.

Maybe if Jeb's state didn't manipulate the numbers, we wouldn't have a so-called "compassionate conservative" in office.

I hoping that the common people of this country will wake up someday or I'm going to DEFECT. These last few years have made me ashamed of calling myself American.

Posted by: oklahoman79 at February 2, 2004 12:28 PM

Now Bush is talking different when people ask him about WMD. It is so ridiculous how quickly the people of the US forget.....or it is just tolerance for the lies?

".....and this week, we will be raising our chocolate rations....."


Posted by: Big Brother at February 2, 2004 12:50 PM

Some many self righteouss pacifists, so little time.

Random thoughts as I read...

-Maybe we should do a google search for:
"countries liberated by Germany"

-Did anyone forget that French Democracy offered Le Pen as a serious candidate for the leadership of that country? By the way anti-semitism is back! ALL ACROSS EUROPE!!!

-GW will be voted out of office in 2004; or not. Case closed. For leaders, we don't produce crackpot dictators, homicidal maniacs, or narrow-eyed inbread "royal families" who go around buggering the help like you "cultured" europeans do. (ACS needs to add S for ASCS) We have no history of it. Your history is filled with it. I don't think much of GW for a lot of reasons, but I damn sure don't have any apologies for him being our president. (Americans who feel they need to leave, "what is stooping you?") The main reason some (read closely: SOME) Europeans dislike him is that his government represents the opposite of the socialist dreamland to which thet aspire. France still has a communist party and its candidates get elected. Go figure. Wasn't that system of government proven a joke with the collapse of the USSR?

I gotta love the EU: flips back and forth between two cities, run by people who are not elected and has no constitution on which to base itself. You're quite welcome to it.
I know it hurts your tender feelings to be confronted with the facts, but all of you would be still beating your little heads together every 10 years or so if you weren't being baby sat by the Americans. (Remember, we thought up the UN -- thats why it started in San Fransisco and is still headquartered in New York).
You'd be swimming in shit today too if it were not for the most recent armed intervention in the former Yugoslavia. I was living in Germany at the time when the Balkan war was going full tilt. European cities were awash with refugees; and they didn't know what to do with and crinimal gangs running their streets financing thier sides in the conflict. And because none of you had the politcal will or military skill to do anything about it, big bad America saved your tender little asses once again. Saved your "arse" too American stupid chick shagger (only a stupid chick would shag anyone playing the austin powers the way isn't it a credit to your national health system to know that Brits are parodied for having bad teeth and everyone laughs because it generally true!!?!!!) And another thing >>> it SCHEDULE, as in SCHOOL, you idiot!
You don't go to SHHHH---ooool do you ?? (maybe you didn't since you think that the US role in the World Wars was so minimal!)

By the way I don't blame you for going for American Chicks. British chicks are effing ugly with a capital F and ugly teeth. Liz Hurley has no ass! She dosen't have an arse either!

You're Welcome! -- for not having to speak German
ou're Welcome! -- for not having to speak Russian.

(I knew you have been waiting so long to thank us!)
Oh, and for the record, I speak many of your languages, and probably more than you do. The Dutch tend to be good examples of multilingual people but in the rest of Europe, forget it, unless your talking about eastern europeans who were forced to learn Russian. You're all welcome again!

Bassouba N'jyammo!

El Raissoulli has spoken

Posted by: El Raissoulli at February 6, 2004 12:33 PM

the one sided history lessons taught in schools throughout the u.s. have amazed me once again! the education and medium systems in the u.s. are the average citizens only means of information and thus.. knowledge! the amount of qustionable acts of the american guvernment and the overall mindset of western culture in general is appalling. i dont think americans realize how they are viewed by the rest of the world, they have become the butt of many humorous jokes and lost much credibility in the last decade.
-Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.
Harry S Truman, August 8, 1950

* knowledge lies within a question, and within a question lies knowledge.

Posted by: Marshall at February 10, 2004 01:44 AM

All you people need to lighten up. It is just a joke, and I feel a very funny one. If some people take it 100% seriously then thats their fault. I dont and have not ever studied French history and probably never will, however at least in the 20th century the french, for lack of a better word, sucked at war. And for all these people turning a funny web page into a way to bash America(the only country i have allegiance to), you people just need a life. By the way in war there are casualties so YOU WAKE UP, and when was the phrase "The war is over" come out of my Presidents mouth. Also this man Saddam once had weapons of mass destruction, and if he had the power before he would of had the power to do so again. Coming from a man who inacted a law making him the only president allowed, gassed his own citizens, tortured his own citizens, and invaded another country just for the hell of it (Kuwait) i would not expect him to not make weapons again and use them, and who but only democrats and the French would trust this man.Im glad President Bush invaded and neutralized this horrible threat to the WORLD. I can now sleep a little bit more safe every night. Its pretty bad that a 16 year old highschool student (me) could realize this yet most politicians both foreign and domestic cant realize this. All in all its just a joke, let it be. GOD BLESS AMERICA

Posted by: **STRIKE EAGLE** at February 13, 2004 07:18 PM

Iraq was stealing oil from Kuwait so there was a reason why Saddam invaded them supposedly.

We as Americans need to quit sticking our noses were they don't belong. Saddam had WMD because we gave them to him but how do you think he could have accumulated any kind of arsenal after countless weapon inspections - and what about the economic sanctions that have been in place since Dessert Storm. Do you really support our troops dying everyday? To say you support Bush would be saying that you agree with his actions....and I cannot think of one positive thing his administration has accomplished for this country. He deliberately defied the UN by invading Iraq and he ruined our foreign policy... which is important because this nation needs to have some renewed credibility.

Bush either invaded Iraq for the oil or it was because of his daddy's DEFEAT. To say that only the French and Democrats would trust Saddam is an ignorant statement. It isn't that simple. Just because Saddam isn't the nicest guy in the world, it doesn't give us the right to invade him. Who the hell are we to use that kind of sorry excuse for putting hundreds of American lives in jeopardy? If we are going to scrutinize on the basis of morality alone, then why not do it to ourselves?

Posted by: blue american at February 15, 2004 03:11 AM

Just because a great American president thought up the United Nations does not give another American "president" the right to ignore all of its members.

Posted by: uncle tom at February 15, 2004 03:30 AM

To El Raissoulli ...
I will not even lower myself to your insults and ignorance ... the latter proven by your rant.
Furthermore you haven't even been able to figure out my nationality, so this does prove your narrow view of the world. The dutch hey? .. this is what the Dutch think about the current American policies: 'wat een tering zooi!' ....
Again the view that Americans came to 'save the world' is sooo wrong, it's just unbelievable .. remember that you guys joined only after Japan sank your Pacific fleet and by then things were already turning .. the UK had resisted the onslaught of the Germans (thanks to the friendly American traders selling their goods) and Hitler was starting to F**k around with the Soviets .. anyway, its all old stories ... far away stories from when we were all friends ...

Believe me when I say that I love and hate America at the same time, just like most americans I suppose ... a country that has so many great things, born out of emigrants from all over the world (and also by oppression and genocide of the natives!) .. a country that professes the freedom of all man but also a country full of bible bashers who want their children to learn that God, Adam & Eve is the gospel truth and sod the Darwinians1 ... I love the americans for their confidence, drive for succes, technological achievements but I hate (most of) them for their total disregard for other peoples traditions and cultures.

To **STRIKE EAGLE**, you are so right, it was indeed a joke ... in some sense a good joke, however in the context of hostility and misunderstanding resulting from the position of countries around the world, it was also a bad joke maybe even a dangerous joke ... many people admire America, but loath their foreign policy .. why is it that the US supports one oppressor but not another?? ... as far as many people can see it, Israel, armed with the latest weapons systems from the US (Apache, F16s, infrareds, missiles or maybe even nuclear) oppresses people armed with stones and suicide bombers (don't misquote me .. I support Israel's right to exist and to live in peace and freedom) .... but don't you think that the American freedom fighters were not considered terrorists by the British? ... or the French republicans by the supporters of the King (and all the other kingdoms surrounding France at the time)? or what about the democratic forces in the old soviet block? .. remember that justice and being right belongs only to the victors ... also remember that Samson was probably the first suicide killer in the history ... and what about the support for Saoudi-Arabia?? .. the country that provided 17 hijackers for 9/11, that gave the most money to Al-queda and that has the strongest support for Al-queda?? ..

Again I can't say it enough, I love America for all it stands for most of the time, however with a dangerous man like GW at the helm ... its just not good ... I remember when seeing GW being elected with all the carry on with his well-placed brother ... I just had that image of him actually being the man that would not hesitate to press the big red button ...

Anyway, we are almost a year on now and where are your WMDs? ... where is the link to 9/11? ... you have nothing but body bags to show for this .. the world HAS beome a more dangerous place and thats all thanks to GW and the neo-conservatives!

Do you really think that the history books (except the american history books of course) will be trully looking at all this as being a wise action? .. seriously doubt it ...

Yours trully,


Posted by: ACS at February 19, 2004 06:37 PM

Funny how one can stumble on a serious discussion in search for humorous images. Very strong and convincing arguments from both sides of the line it seems. I'm not posting this to take a side, although some parts of this page has sparked an emotion in me, mainly, the laughter that followed the number of dead Americans. How death of any human beings can be a funny matter is beyond me regardless of nationality. And it doesn't make for a very good foundation of argument. And my guess, ACS is probably a French nationality, if that matters. We live in an age of globalization where it's not uncommon for a prosperous nations to have economic relations with a nation where majority of its citizen live in poverty and is ruled by an unpopular dictator. The idea behind this is probably as long as this dictator-run nation can provide me with what I need and it's not willing to cause me any harm, then we'll co-exist. The real error was not that US decided to march into Iraq (Irak), but US and every other Big nations were in one way or another in economic relation with Iraq during Saddam's reign, although they probably didn't agree with his method of rule. So the problem may have been that everybody, both US and Frence were in it for their own profit. Maybe nobody is really ruled by a representative who will look out for a common interest. Maybe we're all ruled by money and profit. There will always be terrorism no matter how many countries US decides go after. Because, US has taken too many different sides on issues that concern other nations. There will always be countries that can't see eye to eye. Because economically, they're all in war with one another. So is there WMD in Iraq? Probably not. Was Saddam good for the world? Probably not. Will French and Americans be friends again? Probably. Ironically, government should be reflection of its people, but in this case, it was other way round. The people of France and US were the reflection of its government that distrusted one another leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Just my thoughts, not to impose, just to be heard.

Posted by: Foreigner at February 25, 2004 12:28 PM

Thank you Foreigner for your wise words and putting me straight on my abusive post. I very much regret that specific post as it was entirely sparked by a strong emotional response ... I am, of course, very much saddened by every single life that is lost and I totally apologise to all for my words and more so to the ones who actually have lost loved ones.
You are almost right about my nationality, I am actually bi-national but was born and grew up in a third country and I now live in a fourth country ... I speak 6 languages, my friends span 5 continents and probably something like 50 nationalities ....
I do take side because I believe that the rules nations have set should be followed and also because I fear that actions from certain countries do make the world more unsafe for everybody ....
Going back to the joke ... it is a good one and yes I should have been more restrained ... in any case, jokes go both way: have you tried the 'Im feeling lucky' when searching for "weapons of mass destruction" (with the quotes) on Google?
I do hope that Americans and French will be friends again, I have quite a few American friends and I get on very well with them ... and I also hope that the situation in Irak will improve and that a democratic gov will be installed ...
I, for one will let this rest and just pray for Justice to prevail when time comes.

Posted by: ACS at February 25, 2004 04:41 PM

Although my ancestors once lived in Normandy, I am not a Frenchmen and I must apologize for my lack of proficiency in this language. As an Texan who has visited Europe recently, I was very sorry to learn of some of the anti-American sentiments that many Europeans have today. It disturbed me to think that many our greatest Allies were worried that the United States was becoming a rogue power of oppression. The people of the United States will not let that happen. If President Bush is re-elected he still has no more than five years left in office. However, in previous posts, I have seen it mentioned that the United States is under a dictatorship. I must disagree. I am also sorry to see British people attacking "American" English. "American" English split from British English after the American Revolution. How many of you in Britain still speak King George III's English? American English is quite different from the Queen's English, but it is not inferior. Besides, without the British accent, which is lovely, we could never speak the Queen's English without sounding like fools. Also, I am offended by remarks about President Bush's IQ. The only reason he seems dumb, other than his poor language skills, is that he speaks like a Texan. I will only say that we aren't as dumb as we look, and act. My main point to all of this is that there is no reason to hate each other when we all are trying to do what we think is best for the world.

Posted by: Le Dude at March 2, 2004 02:46 AM

Bien que mes ancêtres aient par le passé habité en Normandie, je ne suis pas des Français et je dois faire des excuses par mon manque de compétence en cette langue. Comme Texan qui a visité l'Europe récemment, j'étais très désolé d'apprendre de certains des sentiments anti-Américains que beaucoup d'Européens ont aujourd'hui. Elle m'a dérangé pour penser qu'on a inquiété beaucoup de nos plus grands alliés que les Etats-Unis devenaient une puissance escroc d'oppression. Le peuple des Etats-Unis ne laissera pas qui se produisent. Si le Président Bush est réélu il n'a toujours pas plus de cinq ans de gauche dans le bureau. En outre, dans des poteaux précédents, j'ai vu qu'il a mentionné que les Etats-Unis sont sous une dictature. Je dois être en désaccord. Je suis également désolé de voir l'anglais "américain" attaquant de personnes britanniques. l'anglais "américain" dédoublé de l'anglais britannique après la révolution américaine. Lequel est-ce que de vous en Grande-Bretagne parle toujours anglais du Roi George III ? L'anglais américain est tout à fait différent de l'anglais de la Reine, mais il n'est pas inférieur. En outre, sans accent britannique, qui est beau, nous pourrions ne jamais parler anglais de la Reine sans ressembler à des imbéciles. En outre, je suis offensé par des remarques au sujet de IQ du Président Bush. La seule raison il semble sourd-muet, autre que ses capacités linguistiques faibles, est qu'il parle comme un Texan. Je dirai seulement que nous ne sommes pas aussi sourds-muets que nous regardons, et agissons. Mon point principal à toute la ceci est qu'il n'y a aucune raison de se détester quand nous tous essayons de faire ce que nous pensons est le meilleur pour le monde.

Posted by: Le Dude at March 2, 2004 02:49 AM

De nouveau, je fais des excuses pour mon ignorance. J'ai été forcé d'employer un dictionnaire plutôt fréquemment.

Posted by: Le Dude at March 2, 2004 02:59 AM

Fuck you n00bs! We humans ain't going really far like this.

Posted by: n00b at March 5, 2004 08:13 PM

The new big thing on the web is all these sites with names like "I Hate France," with supposed datelines of French military history, supposedly proving how the French are total cowards. If you want to see a sample of this dumbass Frog bashing, try this:

Well, I'm going to tell you guys something you probably don't want to hear: these sites are total bullshit, the notion that the French are cowards is total bullshit, and anybody who knows anything about European military history knows damn well that over the past thousand years, the French have the most glorious military history in Europe, maybe the world.

Before you send me more of those death threats, let me finish. I hate Chirac too, and his disco foreign minister with the blow-dry 'do and the snotty smile. But there are two things I hate more than I hate the French: ignorant fake war buffs, and people who are ungrateful. And when an American mouths off about French military history, he's not just being ignorant, he's being ungrateful. I was raised to think ungrateful people were trash.

When I say ungrateful, I'm talking about the American Revolution. If you're a true American patriot, then this is the war that matters. Hell, most of you probably couldn't name three major battles from it, but try going back to when you read Johnny Tremaine in fourth grade and you might recall a little place called Yorktown, Virginia, where we bottled up Cornwallis's army, forced the Brits' surrender and pretty much won the war.

Well, news flash: "we" didn't win that battle, any more than the Northern Alliance conquered the Taliban. The French army and navy won Yorktown for us. Americans didn't have the materiel or the training to mount a combined operation like that, with naval blockade and land siege. It was the French artillery forces and military engineers who ran the siege, and at sea it was a French admiral, de Grasse, who kicked the shit out of the British navy when they tried to break the siege.

Long before that, in fact as soon as we showed the Brits at Saratoga that we could win once in a while, they started pouring in huge shipments of everything from cannon to uniforms. We'd never have got near Yorktown if it wasn't for massive French aid.

So how come you bastards don't mention Yorktown in your cheap webpages? I'll tell you why: because you're too ignorant to know about it and too dishonest to mention it if you did.

The thing that gets to me is why Americans hate the French so much when they only did us good and never did us any harm. Like, why not hate the Brits? They're the ones who killed thousands of Americans in the Revolution, and thirty years later they came back and attacked us again. That time around they managed to burn Washington DC to the ground while they were at it. How come you web jerks never mention that?

Sure, the easy answer is because the Brits are with us now, and the French aren't. But being a war buff means knowing your history and respecting it.

Well, so much for ungrateful. Now let's talk about ignorant. And that's what you are if you think the French can't fight: just plain ignorant. Appreciation of the French martial spirit is just about the most basic way you can distinguish real war nerds from fake little teachers'pets.

Let's take the toughest case first: the German invasion, 1940, when the French Army supposedly disgraced itself against the Wehrmacht. This is the only real evidence you'll find to call the French cowards, and the more you know about it, the less it proves. Yeah, the French were scared of Hitler. Who wasn't? Chamberlain, the British prime minister, all but licked the Fuhrer's goosesteppers, basically let him have all of Central Europe, because Britain was terrified of war with Germany. Hell, Stalin signed a sweetheart deal with Hitler out of sheer terror, and Stalin wasn't a man who scared easy.

The French were scared, all right. But they had reason to be. For starters, they'd barely begun to recover from their last little scrap with the Germans: a little squabble you might've heard of, called WW I.

WW I was the worst war in history to be a soldier in. WW II was worse if you were a civilian, but the trenches of WW I were five years of Hell like General Sherman never dreamed of. At the end of it a big chunk of northern France looked like the surface of the moon, only bloodier, nothing but craters and rats and entrails.

Verdun. Just that name was enough to make Frenchmen and Germans, the few who survived it, wake up yelling for years afterward. The French lost 1.5 million men out of a total population of 40 million fighting the Germans from 1914-1918. A lot of those guys died charging German machine-gun nests with bayonets. I'd really like to see one of you office smartasses joke about "surrender monkeys" with a French soldier, 1914 vintage. You'd piss your dockers.

Shit, we strut around like we're so tough and we can't even handle a few uppity Iraqi villages. These guys faced the Germans head on for five years, and we call them cowards? And at the end, it was the Germans, not the French, who said "calf rope."

When the sequel war came, the French relied on their frontier fortifications and used their tanks (which were better than the Germans', one on one) defensively. The Germans had a newer, better offensive strategy. So they won. And the French surrendered. Which was damn sensible of them.

This was the WEHRMACHT. In two years, they conquered all of Western Europe and lost only 30,000 troops in the process. That's less than the casualties of Gettysburg. You get the picture? Nobody, no army on earth, could've held off the Germans under the conditions that the French faced them. The French lost because they had a long land border with Germany. The English survived because they had the English Channel between them and the Wehrmacht. When the English Army faced the Wermacht at Dunkirk, well, thanks to spin the tuck-tail-and-flee result got turned into some heroic tale of a brilliant British retreat. The fact is, even the Brits behaved like cowards in the face of the Wermacht, abandoning the French. It's that simple.

Here's a quick sampler of some of my favorite French victories, like an antidote to those ignorant websites. We'll start way back and move up to the 20th century.

Tours, 732 AD: The Muslims had already taken Spain and were well on their way to taking the rest of Europe. The only power with a chance of stopping them was the French army under Charles "the Hammer" Martel, King of the Franks (French), who answered to the really cool nickname "the Hammer of God." It was the French who saved the continent's ass. All the smart money was on the Muslims: there were 60,000 of them, crazy Jihadis whose cavalry was faster and deadlier than any in Europe. The French army was heavily outnumbered and had no cavalry. Fighting in phalanxes, they held against dozens of cavalry charges and after at least two days of hand-to-hand combat, finally managed to hack their way to the Muslim center and kill their commander. The Muslims retreated to Spain, and Europe developed as an independent civilization.

Orleans, May 1429: Joan of Arc: is she the most insanely cool military commander in history or what? This French peasant girl gets instructions from her favorite saints to help out the French against the English invaders. She goes to the King (well, the Dauphin, but close enough) and tells him to give her the army and she'll take it from there. And somehow she convinces him. She takes the army, which has lost every battle it's been in lately, to Orleans, which is under English siege. Now Joan is a nice girl, so she tries to settle things peaceably. She explains in a letter to the enemy commanders that everything can still be cool, "...provided you give up France...and go back to your own countries, for God's sake. And if you do not, wait for the Maid, who will visit you briefly to your great sorrow." The next day she put on armor, mounted a charger, and prepared to lead the attack on the besiegers' fortifications. She ordered the gates opened, but the Mayor refused until Joan explained that she, personally, would cut off his head. The gates went up, the French sallied out, and Joan led the first successful attack they'd made in years. The English strongpoints were taken, the siege was broken, and Joan's career in the cow-milking trade was over.

Braddock's Defeat (aka Battle of Monongahela) July 1755: Next time you're driving through the Ohio Valley, remember you're passing near the site of a great French victory over an Anglo-American force twice its size. General Edward Braddock marched west from Virginia with 1,500 men--a very large army in 18th-c. America. His orders were to seize French land and forts in the Valley--your basic undeclared land-grab invasion. The French joined the local tribes to resist, and then set up a classic ambush. It was a slaughter. More than half of Braddock's force--880 men--were killed or wounded. The only Anglo officer to escape unhurt was this guy called George Washington, and even he had two horses shot out from under him. After a few minutes of non-stop fire from French and Indians hidden in the woods, Braddock's command came apart like something out of Nam, post-Tet. Braddock was hit and wounded, but none of his troops would risk getting shot to rescue him.

Austerlitz, Dec. 1805: You always hear about Austerlitz as "Napoleon's Greatest Victory," like the little guy personally went out and wiped out the combined Russian and Austrian armies. The fact is, ever since the Revolution in 1789, French armies had been kicking ass against everybody. They were free citizens fighting against scared peasant and degenerate mercenaries, and it was no contest. At Austerlitz, 65,000 French troops took on 90,000 Russians and Austrians and destroyed them. Absolutely annihilated them. The French lost only 8,000, compared to 29,000 of the enemy. The tactics Bonaparte used were very risky, and would only have worked with superb troops: he encouraged the enemy to attack a weak line, then brought up reinforcements who'd been held out of sight. That kind of tactical plan takes iron discipline and perfect timing--and the French had it.

Jena, Oct. 1806: just a quick reminder for anybody who thinks the Germans always beat the French. Napoleon takes on the Prussian army and destroys it. 27,000 Prussian casualties vs. 5,000 French. Prussian army routed, pursued for miles by French cavalry.

You eXile guys might want to remember that the French under Napoleon are still the only army ever to have taken all of continental Europe, from Moscow to Madrid. I could keep listing French victories till I had a book. In fact, it's not a bad idea. A nice big hardback, so you could take it to the assholes running all the anti-French-military sites and bash their heads in with it.

Posted by: Patrick at March 9, 2004 03:34 AM

The anti american sentiment is very old in France and was mainly due to our communists and some bullshit "intellectuals". But they represent a tiny minority of the French population.
Today, the anti american sentiment got stronger due to the Bush Administration actions. So it's more anti Bush than anti American.
Never forget that as usual, the vast majority of people remain silent. The most active who tell all these bullshits on both side of the Atlantic are, by definition, a minority.

Posted by: Arnaud at March 21, 2004 08:08 AM

The French have never been able to come to terms with their capitualtion in World War II. The humiliation of defeat coupled with the country's liberation by Great Britain and the USA have understandably caused the French to suffer hugely from an inferiority complex that shapes their foreign policy to this very day.

Cowards - no. Hugely ineffective in critical conflicts - regrettably yes.

I am sure I will be labelled anti-French. Ironically, I love France and its people. But that is no reason to lie about history.

Posted by: Dude at March 22, 2004 10:37 AM

What language are you all writing in???
I have enjoyed reading all the points of view above, most of you are taking it too seriously though. Any poorly educated fool (patrick, WW1 lasted 4 yrs) can put forward a simple rant supporting or deriding the french based on certain points in their history. The simple fact however is that this doesn't really matter. What does matter is what the general consensus is around the world today. Unfortunatley for any francophiles reading, you know as well as I do that the very fact you're reading this is because you have heard about the 'french military victories' joke on google. This should really be proof enough of the general opininon regardless of how factually correct or otherwise this is. Personally, I subscribe to the popular opinion that this view of the French military certainly holds some truth and if war could ever be called great, then the French are definately not the greatest warring nation the world has ever seen, but hey, chin up, you make a great bottle of wine.

Posted by: GRS at March 25, 2004 05:56 PM

Look, i'm not anti french, honestly, but i've heard that they have recently raised their national alert level from 'run' to 'hide'.

I reckon Agincourt was the greatest 'french military defeat' but would love to hear everyone else's views...

Posted by: GRS at March 25, 2004 06:10 PM

Type in american military victories and its not much better.

Posted by: james at March 28, 2004 10:41 AM

Check this out Bush haters!

It took us like 6 months to approve the plan to go to war. That gave Iraq 6 months to move all those weapons to other countries and/or hide them somewhere. Why else would Saddam not let UN inspectors in if he didnt have them? People are stupid lol.

Posted by: Craig at March 29, 2004 06:25 PM

If it wasnt for Americans and British, Frenchmen would be speaking German and Russians too!

Posted by: Craig at March 29, 2004 06:31 PM

no point arguing with the french, they are to stuckup their own asses to realise they suck!

Want more?? How about the truth.
Is this what France supports? Is this what France protects?
1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:
a. Olga Corbitt
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwartzeneger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

2. In 1979, the United States embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

3. During the 1980s a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

4. In 1983, the United States Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

6. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a United States Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
a. Captain Kid
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

7. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy c.
Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

8. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

9. In 1998, the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary, to distract attention from Wild Bill' s women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

10. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers
and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted to a crash by the passengers.
Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

11. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

12. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonny and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

Posted by: Mercury at April 1, 2004 07:58 AM

the french still need more proof to believe that Michael Jackson has had plastic surgery!

The french and the english have always hated each other, mainly because we've beaten them in ALL the wars against them, and there have been loads!

the french support terror, they are happy that the twin towers were destroyed, they are just jealous that the Americans have had such a sucessful history.

the french practically run the EU, they want europe to be like america, single currency, standard laws etc... theres proof of the french jealousy!

God bless America and England - pray for our troups, and the souls of the evil french, they are going straight to hell, to burn in the everlasting pitches and flames, with satan their friend.

Posted by: English and Proud at April 1, 2004 08:04 AM

Here's the thing, all you Francophiles and U.S. Bashers - you're laboring under the misapprehension that we need you more than you need us. We're being nice to you, letting you feel all important with the UN, letting you puff up your chests with the resolutions and the appeals to international law. News flash, sunshine. We don't need you. Militarily, we could knock your collective dick in the dirt with ease. We have the most powerful army on the planet, we have the most sophisticated weaponry, we have the most highly trained soldiers. And that's just militarily.

We are, as a whole, a polite people, when you consider how much abuse we get from you ungrateful little fucks. It's not a matter of whether you yapping cowards can do anything about us, regardless of what it is that we decide to do, it's a matter of whether we're going to let you. Think of it as an adult tolerating the resolutions and insults of a pack of small children. We're above you, mes amis. We just don't let it show very often.

Posted by: Cool Disco Dan at April 3, 2004 07:09 AM

Here is the major question: Why are you people making such a big deal about this? Perhaps google should spend more time explaining off the thousands of web pages and images portraying people in the nude then simple jokes. Mind you, the french are prety stupid, so it could be more than a joke, But leave it!!

Posted by: Marcus at April 6, 2004 01:40 PM

Arguing on the internet is like winning the special olympics.

Posted by: Goh at April 8, 2004 04:44 AM

you know an army is bad when their elite unit is called the foreign legion and despite the help of non-cowards from the rest of the world this elite unit has still never won a major encounter in its entire history.

Posted by: Pierre at April 8, 2004 05:47 PM

This whole argument started because the French did not support the freedom loving, democracy embracing, human rights defending American militaries ..... and now look at what the US is doing in Irak? 4 US lifes = 450 Iraqis dead, 1500 wounded, 60,000 displaced and half a town obliterated (oh, and another 42 US soldiers dead).... well done guys! ... if I were you, I would have simply nuked them ... I mean look, that 5 year old in Fallujah wondering the streets could potentially posses WMDs, I would shoot him through the head, just to be sure .... oops, makes me remember suddenly: WMDs - err, I thought you wonderful God fearing good people had irrefutable proof that Saddam had them, I mean ... didn't C Powell said he had photographs of WMD weapons and facilities? that he KNEW for sure that Saddam had them?? ... duh ... what a liar! ... just like G W Bush ... your born again Christian of a president, he is so wrong about everything .... oh, and wasn't he warned about possible hijackings inthe US (see released presenditial memo)? what did he do? nothing! - that's what he did! ... Irak had nothing to do whith 9/11, Iraq had no WMDs (I probably have more of it in my kitchen cupboard) .... anyway, I bet that if you look at Saddam's last year of power, you would probably count less casualties in the whole of Irak than since the US butchers came in! .... you guys killed over 25,000 people - injured over 100,000 .... Saddam deserved a bullet between his evil eyes, but destroy a whole nation for that? .... make the world a much more dangerous place that what it already was? .... I still maintain the the vast majority of the World was right, it was a wrong decision to invade Iraq .... if you believe otherwise, then you must be blind .....
In regard to the joke, I still think its a good one, however the animosity that americans have developed towards the French is just pathetic, indicative of their feelings of inferiority ... looking at all those websites that have been appearing on the Net since then is just very very sad ... I couldn't care less, any historian knows better ... of course, the vast majority of americans are just ignorants .... and also have the nasty habit of rewriting history through Hollywood ... question: who retrieved the Enigma machine in WWII? ... a brave american soldier, who took it out of a sinking sub and came back home as a hero? .. wrong - a brave british soldier who sacrificed his life when getting the machine out of the sinking sub .... typical.

Posted by: ACS at April 11, 2004 05:19 AM

you are really a bunch of peace-loving, democracy defending type of people, aren't you?

Posted by: ACS at April 29, 2004 01:18 PM

the parody was funny get over it. but the french arnt cowards either.yeah many surrenders in WW2 but thats shity leadership look for non american FACTS the french had great soldiers. their not always cowards and owe america nothing

Posted by: Casso Exitius at April 30, 2004 06:47 PM

"but the french arnt cowards either.yeah many surrenders in WW2 but thats shity leadership look for non american FACTS the french had great soldiers."

- shame those great french soldiers had to attack Green Peace then (no doubt the rainbow warrior was heavily defended by pro American SAS poodles???). Whats France ever done to make the world a better place??

The Rainbow Warrior bombing was the first time an act of international state-sponsored terrorism had been committed in New Zealand waters.

Posted by: James g at May 16, 2004 12:13 AM

well then ... why don't you invade France? ... would't that be a fun thing to do? or are you thinking that you are not even capable of keeping order in a third world country like Iraq so the consequences might be a bit too dear .. oh but hey, I am sure the Americans readers here will probably say that would choose to nuke us ... mind you we can nuke you back .... but in any case, it wouldn't be the first time that the US would use the most powerful of all WMDs and commit mass murder! ... using overwhelming power to crush opposition ("if you are not with us, you are against us" - George the Joker) is well within their mental capabilities ... a bit like their best friends, the Israelis who are, as we speak, commiting war crimes, and have been terrorising a whole nation for decades ...

Posted by: ACS at May 18, 2004 03:39 PM

This entire line of argument is futile. The entire thing was a joke. I think people on both sides need to lighten up. I will respond however, despite what I'm sure is my better judgement. Lest I be labeled a 'dumb American', I am a teacher and am fluent in five languages (one of which is French) myself with friends from damn near every continent on the planet. I first want to cite an old friend of mine from Bagdhad. He was in Kuwait when Iraq first attacked in the early 90s, then was in Bagdhad when the US retaliated by bombing that city. He now resides outside Detroit MI. He told me that he completely supports the war, although he still has family and friends in the area. At the time, I agreed with him, though now I'm not so sure. I doubt Bush will be reelected, and it's a shame to think our country will be governed by someone like John Kerry. As far as WMD's, before we point the finger at Iraq...who has more than anyone else in the world? Although Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks financially...let's not forget which country put him in power in the first place. I truly believe we should leave well enough alone. There may never be peace in the middle east, but let's not make that our fault. Regarding the French however, I would like to note that Patrick's post from a while back listing many battles throughout history may have listed military victories in particular battles, but if we were to examine those wars as a whole, the story would be quite different. Certainly, Napoleon conquered a huge area, one only rivaled by the Roman Ceasars, but he lost more than he conquered. Before you name his victories, let's look at Waterloo. The fact is, the entire thing was a joke, and a pretty funny one at that. I have no problem with the French or France as a whole, I work with a Parisian right now in fact. And to be honest, I love a good Merlot. Just look at it the way it was meant to be looked at, as a joke. Some people need a sense of humor.

Posted by: CANate at May 28, 2004 09:39 PM

I stopped reading a short way into this, but all I want to say to stop grouping all Americans together. It's easier to do, but people need to realize that "Americans" isn't the name of one person, with one set of beliefs. If you are disgusted by the war in Iraq, then you should know that there are millions of Americans who AGREE WITH YOU. There are also those who don't. And regardless of what anyone says, I'm sure there is at least one french, german, russian, you name it citizen who supports the US. Stereotyping people based on their country of origin doesn't lend much strength to a persons arguement; in fact, in many situations, such close-mindedness turns people away.

I'n sure what I'm saying isn't a revalation to many of you, but it needs to be said. If you think every person from a certain country feels the same way, then you can't have a logical base for argument.

Example: Spain. They had troops there, so does that mean that they supported the war? No. In fact it turns out that some 90% of it's citizens were against it. Don't blame people for something they can't change...yet. American elections are coming up, and only time will tell how that turns out.

~Lord Syruss Khalai

Posted by: Syruss at June 15, 2004 04:55 PM

Remember WWII? Amerikkka didn't come to save "France's ass" - the motivation was self-interest, sparked by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. If Amerikkka was bordered by Germany 1939-1945, it wouldn't have a hope in hell. Facts, please, not rhetorical bullshit.

Posted by: archaios at June 17, 2004 02:40 AM

Hmm... I wonder if a GoogleBomb for "American nation building successes" will lighten up this thread? =)

(I think the current percentage for success is, being very generous, 20%, 80% eventually becoming despotic bombs. Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Posted by: Mycroft at June 25, 2004 01:02 AM

ACS, tell me about trouble controlling third world countries. How about you tell me about, mmm, let's think, oh yeah, Rwanda and France's superior control over it?

By the way, a man who used to go by "American Chick Shager" and one who couldn't spell to save his life is in no position to comment on IQ scores.

Posted by: Sphyrna at July 8, 2004 07:16 PM

Well, what can I answer to you Sphyrna ... maybe that American English is not my first language? ... that the English I was taught and do speak, read & write reasonably well is British English ... oh and I do speak, read & write a few more languages ... including of course my mother tongue ... how many does Mr G.W. Bush speaks? .. for God's sake, books have been written about his lack of command of his own mother tongue .. he's a joke and should be voted out at the next election! ... look at the damage that has been done around the World to America's standing! ... he probably dealt the biggest blow to any democratic movement across the planet ... and now so many people hate the US, believe me I do find that a real shame, the US has so much potential to do so much good but not if it is lead by the neocons! ... In any case, I feel vindicated by all the various reports coming out about the bad intelligence, the errors in judgement made, etc. ... and my opinion is that he did mislead the American public and the World ... I think he knew exactly what was going on ... but hey, this is only my opinion. ... oh, and yeah, you are right about Rwanda .... shit happens ... and bit like the US in Vietnam ... eventhough you slaughtered millions of people ... what a bunch of resilient little c*nts they were those little vietcongs, don't you agree? .... want other examples about great American victories? ... Grenada? Bay of Pigs in Cuba? Somalia? ... I know, I know you are going to answer that the US won WWI & WWII .... but hey, you were not exactly alone there, were you now? .... so, tell me about a war that the American won, entirely by themselves? .... not the War of Independence btw, the French helped you through massive naval support (remember the Battle of Yorktown?) ... granted, the French were AGAIN thinking about their own interest (piss off the English being the main one) ... those bloody French, thinking about their own interest! .. I am asking you?! ... how outrageous is that? ... they never change do they? ...

have a nice day

Posted by: ACS at July 11, 2004 02:21 PM

ACS, please name a single battle that the U.S. lost in Vietnam. Contrary to popular belief, America did not lose a single battle, and no, not even the Tet offensive could be considered a success by the VC, NVA or the ChiCom's. America "lost" in Vietnam because of communist/socialists views at home. America did not slaughter millions of people in this conflict. You are trying to rewrite history. The NVA were responsible for killing millions who would not bow down to the communist doctrine. You mentioned Somalia. What was America doing in Somalia? Providing protection for humanitarian relief after NATO pulled out. This is beside the point, however.

No one in America will deny that Bush is not suave and debonair and his command of the English language leaves much to be desired. Abraham Lincoln was similar. Moses was similar.

However, just because books are/were written about this does not mean anything. Don't believe everything you read is a phrase we use in America. Do you have that phrase in your country, which you will not disclose? I wonder if you understand how skewed things can become when the liberal press gets a hold of a topic? Do you understand that I watch the liberal news every day and then I check against a non-liberal source and find that the liberal news "happened" to leave out some key facts? Remember, all news sources are interested in one thing: profit. They all have an agenda, whether you believe this or not.

You can choose to look at the terrible things America has done, that is your prerogative. However, I think that you should consider looking at the other side as well. America gives more aid than any other country on the globe. Whether it is $15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa, $22.5 million to Liberia, $140 million to Angola $50 billion since 1975 to Egypt, America has given and given. America has given so many lives in the defense of other countries it is ridiculous. If you want to associate with people who paint swastikas on American graves at Normandy, that is fine. If you want to cheer American deaths in Iraq, go ahead. Please understand how painful this is to anyone who lives in America or who has lost a relative in combat in the defense of another country as I have.

On the topic of the world hating America, This has always been. Even when America practiced Isolationism, people have attacked the U.S. Japan is a good example of this. I don't need to defend America's war record in the past. If you want to dirty it by claiming ulterior motives, go ahead. No war has ever been fought for pure motives.

ACS, I live in the most diverse and liberal city in America. I work with Mexicans, Russians, Indians, Chinese and Jews to name a few. My best friend is Iranian. I speak 3 languages. I, being an American Caucasian am a minority in my city. I am aware probably more than most-of the world view of America and its actions in the recent past. Why am I telling you this you? I am telling you this because I know that communication is the key to resolving issues that occur. One cannot make broad statements about a country and expect to be taken seriously. Especially America. I am not saying this because I am an American, but because America is a land of foreigners that have come together to make up a country. American values are a reflection of other country's values. I can get along with anyone I feel. Even if the person has cheered my fellow Americans deaths. I think one should spend quality time in America before developing opinions about this great country. All countries have performed acts heroic and despicable. I think if you and I met in a café somewhere, we would get along just fine. Why? Because when it comes down to it, we want the same thing. We want peace and joy in our lives. Peace comes at different costs for different people and countries. America must stand strong against countries that have repeatedly attacked and abused her. Iraq has repeatedly shot at our planes in the no-fly zone. This alone is worthy of an attack against Iraq. World intelligence indicated that Iraq was a threat to America and others. How many U.N. resolutions were passed regarding the dangers of Iraq? The ties between Al Queda and Iraq are there, but you must be willing to accept them. How many past Presidents of the U.S. and other countries are quoted as saying that Iraq must be stopped? How many were convinced that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? U.N. resolution 687 is a good place to start your search.

I apologize for my earlier comments about shagging my American carpet and your spelling skills. The shag carpet comment was meant to be a joke. Shag carpet is a type of carpet and I did a play on words which I now understand that you may not have understood.

I sincerely wish you a good day.

Posted by: Sphyrna at July 14, 2004 01:35 PM

You guys are all fucking pussy retard frogs who think the French has proven the US wrong about WMD's. HEY DIP SHIT, WE SOLD IT TO THEM DURING THE IRAQ VS IRAN WAR. Fucking frogs, I hate liberals.

Posted by: Alex at July 22, 2004 02:09 PM

sorry about my (sometimes) poor english...
i am not supporting the Irak war, but my goverment does (and it is a socialist gov, despite my wishes).
I would like to remind you one fact: we have had a comunist dictatorship in Romania for 50 years, before we managed to throw it by ourselves. We are still trying to recover from it, both economicly and politicly, and that takes time. The Americans that everybody loves so promised in the early year after WW II to come and help us to become the democracy we were before the war.Many died fighting the comunists and tha russians, waiting and hopeing help is on the way. But we didn't have enough oil, so help never came. Oh, the americans came after the '89 revolution, with McDonalds and CocaCola, that is. Funy, how they gave the "most favored nation" title to a comunist country, ruled by Ceausescu, a close friend of Saddam, and who killed just as many. Stop calling names the French. I know they tend to be arrogant and self centered, but so does most of the people, including americans. So they lost wars. So did America, so did everyone else for that metter. Leave it alone, it is not war we want, it's peace.
As for the Google bomb being "just" a joke, it is a poor one, in todays context. How come all the Americans that posted think it is such a good one, but they have laws against jokes directed at black people, hebrews and others like them? If you realy want to be politicaly correct, do it in all things, not just the ones that suits you. By the way, the "politicaly correct" part does not work well with the freedom of spich thing.
All in all, this is not a right war (if such a thing exists, except when defending your own land), it has no real purpose but oil, a nation that realy doesn't want a dictatorship will find inner strength to get rid of one. It is not the place for the Americans to change the internal politics of another country. And they do it when noone wants them to, but when they are asked for help they are to scared of the USSR to do anything.
And while the rest of the world has to be grateful for American help in WW, we did our part there also, and be sure that if the whole "old" warld woud be now speaking german or russian, so would America. So they were protecting their own interest even then, and did it on somebodielses lands. They didn't loose civilians, didn't have their cities bombed, so they had it easy by comparision.
And, guys, American "friends", noone called you in Yugoslavia, you were not invited to test your latest weapons. We helped you just as everybody (Romania included) helped Hitler or Stalin, because we had no choise. That doesn't make you any better than them.
One more thing, leave the Franch "inferiority complex" alone, it is you who come to Europe to learn something about culture. You are still too young as a nation, to tell any European country, even a small an insignifiant on, let alone France, that you are like an adult being pacient with a bunch of kids. It is the other way around, you know.
I must underline the fact that I am against the America's politics, not against individuals, as I have friends in US and in France alike, and they are all right. I have also male muselims between 17 and 40 friends, and they are not terrorists at all. So, please, think harder about going to a war that noone realy wants or needs.

Posted by: Mihai at July 30, 2004 03:47 AM

Mihai-Thank you for your post.

Obviously, no one wants war. Americans do not want war. However, unfortunately, there are times that call for war. Life is not as easy as, "go to war or don't go to war." You know this, I know this. America was confronted with several facts:

(in random order)

1) America was attacked on 9/11 by Muslim terrorists.
2) INTERNATIONAL sources stated that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (please begin looking at UN Resolution 687 and move up).
3) Putin told America that it had evidence that Iraq planned to terrorize American citizens at home.
4) Saddam has paid for suicide bombers.
5) Saddam has used chemical weapons on his own people.
6) Top official in Iraqi army met with Al Queda. I am not saying they were part of Al Queda but that was not/is not known at the time.
7) Many spies were killed in Iraq.
8) Iraq lied about all of its weapons manufacturing.
9) Injured Al Queda took refuge in Iraq.

What I am trying to get at is if we put the nine items above together, one would have to make a pretty quick decision as to whether or not a preemptive strike was necessary or not. America did not act too quickly as time after time it pleaded for Iraq to work with the foreign (UN)inspectors.

It's interesting that you bring up Ceausescu. If America was to place an embargo on Romania, we would be put down for hurting the people of Romania. But if we allow free trade with Romania, we are being "two-faced." America is in a postion it cannot win. Ceausescu is a good example of America's position in this world, damned if we do, damned if we don't.

The real issue is that the UN has never followed through with its findings and is a limp rag.
If the UN had actually followed through with any resolutions it passed on Iraq, there would not be the situation we have in Iraq now.

I urge all of you to look at other sources for news. Leftist news, basically mainstream news, has an agenda against America. Find out the whole story.

I wish you the best Mihai.

Posted by: Sphyrna at July 30, 2004 08:22 PM


I haven't looked at this page for a while now - so I must first thank you for your reply dated the 14/07/2004 as it was a worthy answer, although you wouldn't be surprised that I still disagree with your fundamental argument.

Since you wrote down in your latest answer a list of 9 bullet points as why this war was called for, let me tackle them one by one:

1) America was attacked on 9/11 by Muslim terrorists.
- quite right, and the US actions in Afghanistan was entirely appropriate - but Irak is a secular country; eventhough Saddam did at the end of his 'reign' act religiously in public to gain support among the muslim world at large, he was nevertheless merciless to (radical) muslims during his time in power - he would have probably been one of the best allies against muslim extremists.
Now, when you say "America was attacked on 9/11 by Muslim terrorists." do you therefor treat them all as one group and you therefor wish that your country attacks all muslims around the world and kill'em all?? I sincerely hope not ...

2) INTERNATIONAL sources stated that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (please begin looking at UN Resolution 687 and move up).
- well .. not quite true, the intelligence agencies of the so-called 'coalition of the willing', (otherwise known as the God fearin armies of justice and peace) were all wrong on that and that has been proven by now ... many countries did say that they had no proof of the presence of WMDs but also no proof of the absence of WMDs and this is exactly why the inspectors were required in the country to check this out .. Saddam' mistake was of course to deny them access and make it impossible for them to investigate his stocks of weapons, etc .. big mistake of course, I suppose he was simply trying to scare us and have some leverage (very silly mistake indeed)

Now, when it comes to UN resolutions, why don't you look up resolution 106, 111, 127, 162, 171, 228, 237, 248, 250, 251, 252, 256, 259, 262, 265, 267, 270, 271, 279, 280, 285, 298, 313, 316, 317, 332, 337, 347, 425, 427, 444, 446, 450, 452, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 476, 478, 484, 487, 497, 498, 501, 509, 515, 517, 518, 520, 573, 587, 592, 605, 607, 608, 636, 641, 672, 673, 681, 694, 726, 799 .... okay, you get the picture yeah?? .. oh and here is a link to some of the resolutions that were vetoed by the US ...

3) Putin told America that it had evidence that Iraq planned to terrorize American citizens at home.
- fair enough, we all know that the Russian secret service is a well funded, disciplined and well oiled machinery and we should take what they say very seriously ... except when the same people say that they have no evidence that Irak has WMDs ...

4) Saddam has paid for suicide bombers.
- wrong, Saddam did offer money (for political reasons of course) to the families of palestinian suicide bombers who blew themselves and lots of innocent people up somewhere in a bus or street in Israel ... of course, it should be noted that Israel does destroy every single possession of the family of suicide bombers ... its called collective punishment and is forbidden by international laws (but Israel never really carred about those).

5) Saddam has used chemical weapons on his own people.
- you mean the people that rose up against him after the US said it would support them if they would? .. and then the US did nothing (well apart from dropping food and medicine and then instauring a no-fly zone to keep everybody trained up and be able to test some new counter measures and weapons systems?) or do you mean the Iranian people? and when they complained to the UN during the Iran/Irak conflict about Irak using WMDs ... guess who vetoed and played down any measures against Irak .. mmmh?? come on have a guess ... just for a laugh ...

6) Top official in Iraqi army met with Al Queda. I am not saying they were part of Al Queda but that was not/is not known at the time.
- quite right, they did meet up once, maybe a few times ... anyway, has anybody ever any enough free time to count how often US government agents met up with Al Queda operatives? ...

7) Many spies were killed in Iraq.
- duh!! ... oh look I've foud a foreign spy doing stuff s/he shouldn't do! .. oh well, lets do nothing about that, it's all perfectly normal ... actually lets give him/her all our secrets! ... duh!! ... of course the spy will be shot, that's exactly what is to be expected and every self-respecting spy knows that!

8) Iraq lied about all of its weapons manufacturing.
- well not exactly, did he now? ... or did you find some WMDs in Irak but decided to only tell us about it because we are special people??

9) Injured Al Queda took refuge in Iraq.
- err .. no .. not exactly, they took refuge a bit everywhere and decided it would probably be a good idea to go to Irak too (they finally could go there without being hunted down by Iraki secret police) and then take advantage of the fact there seems to be loads of americans there .. easier for them to blend in in Irak and take pot shots at US soldiers then to go to the US where every single arab looking person is treated with suspicion and monitored by the secret service, FBI, CNI, NSA and every good God fearing US citizen that happens to see him ... if you mean they were there before Irak was attacked by the US then you are wrong, a senate committee report did point that out didn't they .. or do you think they are pig eating leftist pro abortion liberals too?

As you can see, I still totally disagree with you,

Have a nice one,


Posted by: ACS at August 20, 2004 09:42 AM