Why I hate the french - Page 7

On September 21 2003 23:08 sushiman wrote:


...and there we have the US foreign politics in one sentence.

On September 21 2003 23:21 BlackJack wrote:


Are you trying to make some sort of a point? Are you trying to argue that snails are indeed better than a big mac?

On September 21 2003 22:25 suLTan[CaN] wrote:
Okay, I'm gonna have to go over this really slowly so that bigballs can understand, but first, just gotta correct somethings for a confused Nxla




1.The answer is France...

2.I'm making light of the fact that america refrences it's army as it's greatest asset, yet it was afraid that russia would own it, that is why it was a cold war. I'm rather proud that Canada gained it's independence through politics rather than war, but Canada wasn't the peace keeping nation it is today until after WWII, so I can't really gloat too much...

3.So america fears N. Korea? it's sad that America will say "We'll get all countries with WMD's and a government that supports terrorism" then you've got Iraq practically pleading like a scared girl "don't attack us please, we have nothing" and N. Korea jumping up and down, swinging their arms, yelling "LOOK AT ME, WMD'S? WE DO THAT!"

4.You do know that Canada is not a war mongering nation, we never said we were, but we do have an army, and we've even used (WWI, WWII, we entered at the beggining, while america waited till near the end, and don't give me that "america won it cause we rock BS" you jumped in near the end because you were forced into it by japan, you never wanted a piece of it to begin with, which, I commend you for)

2.I'm not saying that you should have attacked Russia, I'm saying that for a country that is always trying to establish its self as THE superpower of the world, why would you be afraid of lil ol' Russia?

3.I don't know where to begin....maybe you attacked Iraq instead of N. Korea because they have a weak military? maybe you needed oil? maybe George wanted to avenge his daddy? maybe you were afraid N. Korea would fuck you up?

4. Clearly I'm a militant, my posts are 100% pro military, you know NUKE EM' ALL! BABY!...I mean, come on....I'm arguing with some ego inflated retard online, I must wanna declare war on america...

On September 21 2003 23:56 choboPEon wrote:


It wasn't an American who said 'What kind of pussy country has a war with no battles" .. Wonder why no one has said anything about it, other then americans. bias?

On September 22 2003 00:29 Bull-Demon wrote:
I rented a french porno once and it sucked ass. Thats why I hate the french.

On September 22 2003 00:02 Nxla wrote:


Near the end? WW2 started in 1939, the us entered in late 1941. And yes, America did win the war. France and Poland were conquered, and England was being buttraped by German raids. The only European country that stood a chance was Russia.

On September 22 2003 00:29 Bull-Demon wrote:
I rented a french porno once and it sucked ass. Thats why I hate the french.

On September 22 2003 00:53 sushiman wrote:


US participated in the war most of the time, but it wasn't until the attack on pearl harbour that USA really joined the war.
Saying you were the ones that 'won' the war is completely untrue, as Britain, Poland and France were the countries most involved in the struggle against germany, and later Soviet.
England buttraped? They won the whole Battle of Britain with their superiour air-force! And you've ever heard of El-Alamein?
I guess you didn't know Poland had an army of 80000 men fighting AFTER their surrender?
You're overestemating the US actions. Though serving as a huge manufactorer and supplier of goods to the allies, no 'real' actions were seen until the later part of the war, such as the cooperating invasion of Italy, and the destruction of the german navy together with the Royal navy.

On September 22 2003 00:58 Vharon wrote:
What are you talknig about? Didnt the US send supplies to England during the beginning of the war?

On September 22 2003 00:53 sushiman wrote:
Though serving as a huge manufactorer and supplier of goods to the allies, no 'real' actions were seen until the later part of the war

On September 21 2003 23:13 BigBalls wrote:


he he he

On September 22 2003 00:35 sushiman wrote:


It wasn't me who said it either. I do not feel the need to comment something that stupid, since it's quite clear what the consequenses would have been with such a war.

On September 22 2003 01:11 sushiman wrote:


you must've missed something:



I said no actions, meaning combat, were made until the end. Supplies were sent through the entire war.

On September 22 2003 03:01 choboPEon wrote:


The US played as big a role as any..

In many opinions the British would not have survived without American supplies.

Of course, the Americans would not have been able to fight the Germans without British and Russian help.

It was an interdependent war, every ally needed every other ally.