> The war has started, much to our dismay. We have no support from anyone but Blair and Kuwait. France, Germany, and Russia are opposing the war on Iraq strongly and this has led to a new lump of ludicrosity...
>
> Well, most of us have heard that a cafeteria in NYC changed "french fries" and "french toast" to "freedom fries" and "freedom toast" in a demonstration agaist France and the fact that they don't want to support this red herring we're running after. I have to say it: these people totally PISS ME OFF.
>
> Yes, it is time for Asmearis, defender of the French, to step in. First, I have to say this is really ludicrous. The joke's on them. French fries aren't French, they're Belgian. French toast is an American dish, named after the guy who invented it, whose last name is French. So what kind of half-assed protest is this? Next we'll have Freedom Dressing, freedom poodles, freedom doors, freedom clay masques, freedom kissing, freedom bread, and more. Maybe the French should protest Bush's stupid war by calling American cheese "Idiot Cheese".
>

Let me see if I follow that analogy. We change "French" to "freedom" because we're trying to promote freedom, so...the French should change "American" to "idiocy" (pardon the slight change of diction) because they promote idiocy? Sounds good to me! (Just kidding, just kidding.)

Seriously, though, I agree that what they're doing with the names really does make them look foolish. It's also not going to do one whit of good for their cause.

> People are saying they're going to boycott French products. I can't believe that a few American ignorami not buying a bottle of Chablis or a chunk of Brie is really going to break the French economy. Also, some people are being REALLY stupid: There have been reports of people buying stores out of French wine and flushing it down toilets. HELLO, YOU'VE ALREADY GIVEN THEM YOUR MONEY AND YOU'RE WASTING SOME GREAT ALCOHOL?!?!?!?
>

Yep, again it's pure thoughtlessness. It might even work against them, especially if they want to do protest further. They'll have to go and *buy* more French wine (thus helping the French wine industry) to make their point again.

> It's not just the French either. Germany and Russia openly oppose the movement for war, and probably most of the rest of the world is against it too. So why are we complaining about the French, and not anyone else?
>

It might be because historically we've come to expect France to side with us more than Germany or Russia. Or maybe it's just too ineffective to target several countries for backlash. Maybe of those three countries, we think we have the best chance at changing France's position.

> If we really want to insult the French, how about we blow up the Statue of Liberty? Or how about we topple it over into the bay? In case you've all forgotten, the French government gave us that as a gift. Our symbol of freedom is a French statue.

Well, I think most people would agree that our ultimate goal should be to try to get back on good terms with France (though we might punish them somehow in the short term), not to alienate them completely. Destroying the Statue of Liberty wouldn't be hurting the French at all. There *should* be some repercussions for the way the French have turned against us (as they have on numerous similar occasions, I believe), but those repercussions should be appropriate ones that will positively influence French foreign relations in the future.

>Also, in case it's left American minds, remember that we owe our independence to the French. We were losing the Revolutionary War, and French troops came in and saved us. If they hadn't done that, there would be no America.
>

Well then, if the French are such champions of freedom, all the more reason that they should support our efforts in freeing tens of millions of people from a brutal tyrant, I'd say. Or are you saying that we're now so indebted to France that we are compelled to follow them -- HUNDREDS of years afterwards? I guess our contributions in the two World Wars (far more relevant to modern-day relations) don't count for a thing.

> I love the French people, as you can probably tell, and I think they're right in this whole war thing.

What other way out is there? Far more Iraqi civilians would be put to death in the coming years under Saddam's rule than will be accidentally killed in this war, I'd think. (As for the Iraqi soldiers -- hey, if they want to blindly follow orders rather than live and prosper under a non-repressive leadership, it's their choice.) Good enough for me, even *disregarding* the threat Saddam poses to us and other countries. The one thing I find myself wondering a lot about, though, is the multitude of people who claim that without Saddam in power, the Middle East will become a lot less stable. I have no way at all of knowing, with my extremely limited knowledge of the matter, whether these claims are likely to come true.

> I might sound like I'm an America-hater right now, but I assure you I'm not. I just find it hard to be patriotic when we're being led down this path to war, and our leader won't listen to others who are trying to advise him. He won' even listen to the cries of his people.
>

Regarding listening to those trying to advise him: who do you mean? The leaders/representatives of the other UN nations? Other nations look out for their own best interests. If those interests conflict with ours, why *should* we listen? One of France's vested interests in keeping Saddam in power is *economic*. They're putting their economic concerns above our security!

Regarding listening to the "cries of his people": umm...I would say he *is*. Haven't recent polls been putting the percentage of people backing military action against Iraq at around 65 or 70 percent? Even if that's the "only with UN approval" stat, I'm pretty sure it's still a majority that would support unilateral U.S. military action.

Even if things were reversed -- if only 30 or 35 percent backed military action, I would argue that the vast majority of ordinary people don't have anywhere near the requisite knowledge of warfare, international politics, and *especially* specific details gleaned from military intelligence (how *could* they?) to judge whether going to war or continuing with useless inspections and diplomacy is in our best interests.

Of course, I believe that the freedom to voice one's opinions about the matter (peacefully and non-obstructively -- the behavior of demonstrators in San Francisco and elsewhere in the world is reprehensible) is very important. But I also think the responsible thing to do, if you're going to be publically vocal about it, is to research the matter so thorougly that you would feel confident in winning an intense debate on the issue. The "war is always wrong, hence this war is wrong" approach and the "give the inspectors more time; the inspections were working" approach both seem very ill-thought out to me.

I myself am far from knowledgeable enough about warfare, international politics, and the specific facts of the matter to feel comfortable speaking publicly about my views beyond posting this message -- I hold myself to the standard I just mentioned. Even if I shared the opinions of the anti-war demonstrators, I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable joining them, even under peaceful conditions.

By the way, the last two paragraphs weren't in response to anything you said in your post -- it just followed in a way from the preceding. Sorry if I rambled.

> As"War, good god y'all, what is it good for?"mearis