France And Usa

Hey looks like we're buddying up with the French again.
Or are we?
Look Here!
http://www.chinkii.com/uploads/album/misc/buds.jpg

And Here
http://www.chinkii.com/uploads/album/misc/kiss.jpg
Are they going to kiss?:wub:


And Here
http://www.chinkii.com/uploads/album...illiam_180.jpg
Ooops...wrong thread.
I'm thinking about using this as my avatar.


EVIAN, France — With the tranquil French countryside as their backdrop,
World leaders clamped a harmonious face on the summit simmering with disputes over the war, striking a united front with pledges of billions of dollars to fight AIDS (search) and hunger in poor nations.

The meeting's most closely watched moment was the welcoming handshake between French President Jacques Chirac (search) and Bush, whose wartime differences led to angry recriminations on both sides of the Atlantic. They greeted each other with polite smiles, a brief handshake and small talk before walking into a luncheon with other presidents and prime ministers.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88291,00.html

I believe that Mr.Bush had no choice here.
We'll see.

I don't know - The summit may have been a double-edged sword.

On the one hand, this has nothing to do with the war (but then again, neither did the Eurovision Song Contest, and look what happened to the UK entry then. Yes, I knew Jemini were crap anyway, but still...). The handshake could have been a symbol of the fact that they know that the opinions of the war cannot cloud this summit's main aim, hence they were willing to do this to show the world that they encourage that the hostilities between USA/UK and France (,Germany, Italy and practically 60%+ of the world's major countries) should be limited by all to just the subject of war instead letting it spill to such a problem as AIDS.

On the other hand, Bush is known to be practically the "most-wanted" American in the world by all the countries that were against the war, and the press did play a big part in that (but not as much as world opinion was anyway). The biggest publicised part of the hostilities are the mutual finger flipping between USA and France - If the leaders of these two countries are seen putting the differences behind them, then it may create a start for Bush to regain his pre-war public opinion outside the US.

Maybe I'm being naive, but I can't see Chirac doing it for the latter - It might be to win the Americans' respect of France again, but I can't see him needing it more than Bush.

Well that's my opinion - I'm expecting jPaul to thoroughly dissect this opinion (but I'm looking more forward to him flaming it ;)...:devil:)

I don't think that Bush gives a rat's ass about world opinion.
He did however, just begin his reelection campaign here in the States and being seen as a statesman is of enormous benefit in that arena.
Even if it isn't true.
For Bush, simply restraining himself from pissing on the French President's leg was an act of the highest diplomacy.

Dubya can do what he pleases vis `a vis Chirac; I find great joy in depising him, and shall continue to do so.

Chirac IS very eager to mend fences; and to do what he can in this regard before Tony Blair signs the U.K. into the E.U. this month.

Even though the principle is to give the E.U. a more-or-less unified voice in diplomatic/economic matters, Chirac very much wants to be it's titular head, and to be viewed as the "face" of the E.U.

If Blair and the U.K. sign on before Chirac makes appreciable headway, Blair will assume the role of E.U. "spokesman" (which would suit HIM just fine) largely as a result of his relationship with the U.S.

Apart from the "ego" issue, it is specifically for this reason (the reflected glow of the U.S./U.K. bond) that Chirac wishes to don the mantle of E.U. leadership; he believes the E.U. should assume a posture of direct competition with the U.S. so as to position itself (and therefore France) at the top of the world pecking-order.

I wish Blair would re-consider committing the U.K. to joining the E.U.; it smells like big trouble just around the corner.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@2 June 2003 - 08:20


I wish Blair would re-consider committing the U.K. to joining the E.U.; it smells like big trouble just around the corner.

---

I'm sure you're mistaken, j2.

The Europeans are so much more mature than we.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker+2 June 2003 - 09:27--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 2 June 2003 - 09:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@2 June 2003 - 08:20


I wish Blair would re-consider committing the U.K. to joining the E.U.; it smells like big trouble just around the corner.

---

I&#39;m sure you&#39;re mistaken, j2.

The Europeans are so much more mature than we. [/b][/quote]
Oh-yes, I completely forgot, how gauche of me.

They are more mature than we, and by this I mean (in the case of France) OLD, almost to the point of (dare I say it), well, childishness&#33;

Quote:

---

Chirac IS very eager to mend fences; and to do what he can in this regard before Tony Blair signs the U.K. into the E.U. this month.

---

The UK has been a member of the EU since the 1970&#39;s (when it was known as the Common Market with fewer members)

Its one of the &#39;Big 3&#39; EU countries already (UK, France, Germany) and is subject to EU Law as well as UK law.

Did we leave and i missed it? (Granted we only joined to annoy the French........)

It hasnt joined the &#39;Euro&#39; currency yet, and entry to that will depend upon a referendum.....I dont think there are any plans to hold one this month.

On second thoughts, Blaires view of democracy seems to be a show of hands in Cabinet IS a referendum in his book :unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Illuminati@2 June 2003 - 13:49
Well that&#39;s my opinion - I&#39;m expecting jPaul to thoroughly dissect this opinion (but I&#39;m looking more forward to him flaming it ;)...:devil:)

---

Not JPaul
But I have a few things to say about your post.

I have to agree with a lot of what you said.
The handshake was exactly that,"a symbol".
This meeting had been planned for quite a while.
In regard to the 60% of the world&#39;s major countries not supporting the US(in what it does) is par for the course in my lifetime.
As a matter of fact I thought it usually ran higher than that.
What makes this different is not so much the French opposing it as it was Germany/France together opposing the US.
Yup..no matter what everyone wants to be seen standing side by side with the US President and I don&#39;t think that America&#39;s symbolic "finger" has dropped quite yet.
Bush had only enjoyed popularity outside the US for one reason and one reason alone "9/11".
Typically the US pres. is not loved by a majority of the world.
I don&#39;t think Americans lost respect for France instead I think we were reminded once again of just who the French really are.
The French condescendingly look down there nose at American&#39;s.
They&#39;ve never liked America or it&#39;s culture and have opposed the US(when it could)continually through my life.
I don&#39;t think Mr. Bush much needs the respect of the French or of Mr.Chirac.
As a matter of fact Chirac&#39;s head is being called for in some quarters now in France due to the heavy economic losses that are being unleashed by average Americans.
This is most evident in the price of an airline ticket.
A round trip ticket from NY to Paris last time I checked was at &#036;350.00.
That is a very solid indicator of just how bad the French economy is reeling in the wake of their recent behavior.:devil:

Btw I love that Illuminatti stuff.
I&#39;ve been wanting to ask you about it for a while now.
What is your thinking on that?
Does your sig say it all?
Is there a website or 2 that you&#39;d recommend.
I know there out there damn it&#33; :angry:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^@2 June 2003 - 22:41
As a matter of fact Chirac&#39;s head is being called for in some quarters now in France due to the heavy economic losses that are being unleashed by average Americans.

---

Actually, Chirac&#39;s in trouble because he and his government are putting the retirement system as we knew it at risk: the prime minister and his team are proposing to change the law, so that people will have to work longer ( meaning working till they&#39;re 65 or more...)
That has nothing to do with the current economical situation, which is as ShockAndAwe^i^ said, quite disastrous...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@2 June 2003 - 13:51

Quote:

---

Chirac IS very eager to mend fences; and to do what he can in this regard before Tony Blair signs the U.K. into the E.U. this month.

---

The UK has been a member of the EU since the 1970&#39;s (when it was known as the Common Market with fewer members)

Its one of the &#39;Big 3&#39; EU countries already (UK, France, Germany) and is subject to EU Law as well as UK law.

Did we leave and i missed it? (Granted we only joined to annoy the French........)

It hasnt joined the &#39;Euro&#39; currency yet, and entry to that will depend upon a referendum.....I dont think there are any plans to hold one this month.

On second thoughts, Blaires view of democracy seems to be a show of hands in Cabinet IS a referendum in his book :unsure:

---

Rat-

To clarify:

My info is that Blair intends, this month, to officially approve a new European Union constitution, the intent of which is, apparently, to create a "United States of Europe", and would have the effect of turning Parliament into something more on the order of a local council.

All control of "economic, defense, and foreign and immigration policies" would default to Brussels, and voila&#33; No more British sovereignty.

Blair has apparently somehow ruled out a referendum vote on the matter, on the grounds that, in his estimation, the issue is too "complicated" for voters to understand.

Much of this comes from your Trevor Kavanagh, political editor of the SUN.

Check it out-I&#39;d love to know if this is the straight dope.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@3 June 2003 - 06:27
Its one of the &#39;Big 3&#39; EU countries already (UK, France, Germany) and is subject to EU Law as well as UK law.

It hasnt joined the &#39;Euro&#39; currency yet, and entry to that will depend upon a referendum.....I dont think there are any plans to hold one this month.

To clarify:

My info is that Blair intends, this month, to officially approve a new European Union constitution, the intent of which is, apparently, to create a "United States of Europe", and would have the effect of turning Parliament into something more on the order of a local council.

All control of "economic, defense, and foreign and immigration policies" would default to Brussels, and voila&#33; No more British sovereignty.

Blair has apparently somehow ruled out a referendum vote on the matter, on the grounds that, in his estimation, the issue is too "complicated" for voters to understand.

Much of this comes from your Trevor Kavanagh, political editor of the SUN.

Ch

---

Revelation 13
1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Much of this comes from your Trevor Kavanagh, political editor of the SUN.

---

The Sun isn&#39;t well known for it&#39;s....uh...accuracy and unbiased manner, shall we say.

I don&#39;t know if all the facts the sun gave are true, but I would probably look up stuff from the Herald - no political bias, just news&#33;


:) hope this helps&#33;

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WeeMouse@4 June 2003 - 11:57

I don&#39;t know if all the facts the sun gave are true

---

what facts ?&#33;&#33;

If you ask me The Sun, The Star, Sunday Sport are all in the same league. tits and....well u know the rest im sure.

without frances aid, the u.s. would not have been able to break free from the english.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tikibonbon@4 June 2003 - 08:29
without frances aid, the u.s. would not have been able to break free from the english.

---

Of which fact we are eternally reminded.

This no doubt accounts for our continued suffering of their insufferability.

No matter what the reputation of the Sun or it&#39;s minions, Mr. Kavanagh makes a bold assertion, which would seem to fairly scream for a response; has there been one?

hey tikibonbon, how old are you?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4+4 June 2003 - 13:59--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 4 June 2003 - 13:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Tikibonbon@4 June 2003 - 08:29
without frances aid, the u.s. would not have been able to break free from the english.

---

Of which fact we are eternally reminded.

This no doubt accounts for our continued suffering of their insufferability.

No matter what the reputation of the Sun or it&#39;s minions, Mr. Kavanagh makes a bold assertion, which would seem to fairly scream for a response; has there been one? [/b][/quote]
j2k4,

It would be hard to explain this one with a straight face if you were from the UK, however you dont know &#39;The Sun&#39;, so its understandable that there is some confusion.

The Sun is a very Right Wing comic, and has been saying that EVERY decision of Common Market, followed by EEC followed by EU has been the final nail in the coffin of British Independance.

I think the nearest US &#39;newspaper&#39; that comes up to the journalistic accuracy and independance of The Sun and The Daily Sport is the National Enquirer, however that is just from what I see in films....I dont know if this bastion of US journalism actually sinks as low as the 2 UK tabloids Ive just mentioned.

Basically, they dont care as long as the Page 3 girl has big Tits ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@4 June 2003 - 13:39


Basically, they dont care as long as the Page 3 girl has big Tits ;)

---

You guys are lucky.
We don&#39;t even get the tits.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4+4 June 2003 - 14:59--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 4 June 2003 - 14:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Tikibonbon@4 June 2003 - 08:29
without frances aid, the u.s. would not have been able to break free from the english.

---

Of which fact we are eternally reminded.

This no doubt accounts for our continued suffering of their insufferability.

No matter what the reputation of the Sun or it&#39;s minions, Mr. Kavanagh makes a bold assertion, which would seem to fairly scream for a response; has there been one? [/b][/quote]

No Shit&#33;
I think I would have rather remained under British rule then to suffer that fact for the rest of my days.
hehhe just kidding&#33;
Really though...lets forget all about this who helped who stuff and get down to the bare knuckles of the question and that is ..
Why do the French continually throughout history act in the duplicitous manner in which they do?
I don&#39;t think Americans(note I said Americans and not America)will ever trust the French again.
What happened here wasn&#39;t just the French opposing the policies of the US.
It was an out and out power play to try and attain the role of leadership to a counter balance to the USA.
France is a pipsqueak of a nation with an economy not even the size of California,but wanting to lead all of you over there, and the rest of the world for that matter.
I seriously think they have dillusions of grandeur.
When other European countries disagreed with them on this they threatened to kick them out of the EU&#33;
That is only the new ones that the French had power over.
Do you want them to have power over you? :o
Ladies and Gentlemen may I introduceThe new King of Europe,Jacques Chirac&#33;
All kidding aside,European nations are already giving their power to the will of a central EU Government.
A revived Roman Empire(if you will)&#33;
Refer to a previous post for more on that subject.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced+4 June 2003 - 14:39--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 4 June 2003 - 14:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by -j2k4@4 June 2003 - 13:59
<!--QuoteBegin--Tikibonbon

---

Quote:

---

@4 June 2003 - 08:29
without frances aid, the u.s. would not have been able to break free from the english.

---

Of which fact we are eternally reminded.

This no doubt accounts for our continued suffering of their insufferability.

No matter what the reputation of the Sun or it&#39;s minions, Mr. Kavanagh makes a bold assertion, which would seem to fairly scream for a response; has there been one?

---

j2k4,

It would be hard to explain this one with a straight face if you were from the UK, however you dont know &#39;The Sun&#39;, so its understandable that there is some confusion.

The Sun is a very Right Wing comic, and has been saying that EVERY decision of Common Market, followed by EEC followed by EU has been the final nail in the coffin of British Independance.

I think the nearest US &#39;newspaper&#39; that comes up to the journalistic accuracy and independance of The Sun and The Daily Sport is the National Enquirer, however that is just from what I see in films....I dont know if this bastion of US journalism actually sinks as low as the 2 UK tabloids Ive just mentioned.

Basically, they dont care as long as the Page 3 girl has big Tits ;) [/b][/quote]
If you say so, Rat.

If the story is basically true, though (absent any concern for potential loss of sovereignty), why the need to forego the public referendum?

I have, with much frequency in this forum, heard those from the U.K. complain about Blair&#39;s inclination to act without the assent, informed or otherwise, of parliament; has public opinion somehow changed?

No.

There is no reason that any country cannot have its own foreign policy, and indeed we all do.

We all have our own Defence, Tax and Home Affairs policies.


However without this treaty, the European Union cannot express itself as the &#39;EU&#39; on any matters concerning Trade.....and that is the Primary reason for the EU.


This may be semantics; however when you consider that the EU is the largest &#39;market&#39; in the world in terms of population and average disposable income, then it would be foolish if it couldnt actually hit back at Trade Wars started elswhere.

This was brought to a head last year (?) when the USA suddenly stuck a large import duty on foreign Steel. The EU &#39;as a whole&#39; couldnt respond, and it was left to individual countries to respond to this themselves.


This is the major reason the US is against the treaty....it puts them at a distinct disadvantage. The EU imports a lot more from the US than it exports (per head of population). If the EU responds to the US introducing large tarifs, by doing the same thing.....its the US that loses the most money.

Every time that the EU has done anything; The Sun and The Daily Sport have both described it as the end of Sovereignity....this treaty doesnt take anything from our Sovereignity.

We are still free to act as WE want, no matter what the EU &#39;as a whole&#39; thinks....as long as we do not break EU Law (which are not affected by this Treaty)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tikibonbon@4 June 2003 - 13:29
without frances aid, the u.s. would not have been able to break free from the english.

---

Without the U.S.&#39;s help, the French could well be drinking Jagermeister and eating sauerkraut. :o

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^@2 June 2003 - 05:18
Hey looks like we&#39;re buddying up with the French again.

I believe that Mr.Bush had no choice here.
We&#39;ll see.

---

Absolutely correct. His mamma told him to mind his manners that day. It&#39;s my personal belief she&#39;s the ONLY one who could tell him that. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cozette+5 June 2003 - 19:52--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cozette @ 5 June 2003 - 19:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Tikibonbon@4 June 2003 - 13:29
without frances aid, the u.s. would not have been able to break free from the english.

---

Without the U.S.&#39;s help, the French could well be drinking Jagermeister and eating sauerkraut. :o [/b][/quote]
And without European Aid in the Pacific (includes all those colonies) the US &#39;May&#39; have been eating Sushy...


All this &#39;IF.....&#39; stuff is pointless; no one knows what would have happened, either in the War of Independance or in WWII, so why bring history up?......


At moment France and USA arent happy with each other, we all know this.

Next year/decade it will be the turn of some other countries to fall out.


Cant we give these anti French/anti American stuff a rest?