As far as I can tell, it really got going when the French had the good sense not to follow Dubya into that asinine Iraqi mess. BTW, they were right there with us for Gulf War 1, as were our other allies...I wonder when we here in the US of A started hating the French? After all, the French backed us in our Revolution against England, gave us the Statue of Liberty, loaned us a few excellent commanding generals in the war of 1812, negotiated peace between the indigenous Indians and white settlers, let us purchase half of the gulf states for peanuts...etc..etc..even in modern times were avaition-automobile pioneers and stood shoulder to shoulder fighting faschisim. In both world wars France had close ties to the United States, before and after. When did we start hating each other?
Did it have anything to do with the '57 Renault Daulphene? That car could start a conflict on it's own.
Stanley Karanov's "History of Vietnam" has an extensive analysis of the French Indochina experience. They were up against the same things we were: the only option was to invade and utterly destroy North Vietnam, and then remain as an occupying force fighting an unending insurgency. Same went for South Vietnam; a lot of the citizens considered the French and the US as a colonial power holding up their national re-unification.The US/French mudslinging has been around way before the Gulf Wars. Most of the Barbs thrown originate from military issues. The French didn't handle the Vietnam problem very well in the beginning which lead to several jokes on our military's side, and I believe resulted in us getting involved.
There is a considerable body of evidence that Cheney and friends had planned the invasion of Iraq BEFORE the election and/or 911. Then there is the equally large body of evidence that the excuses for invading Iraq were, at best, rather strained.The war in Iraq would not have been necessary if France (and Germany) had backed us.
But, then, they never were that reliable. Remember their staunch cooperation with our attack on Libya in the '80s?
Oh gee, Bill got a BJ in the White House and gets impeached. Bush invades and occupies a sovereign nation that was no threat to us, kills hundreds of thousand of civilians and what, 4,000 US soldiers, makes us look like Nazis to the rest of the world, and generally destroys the US economy along the way (the shyt is just beginning to hit the fan, I assure you), and you come up with a BJ. Nice going, I wouldn't try to explain Bush's actions either..... keeps plans on file for attacking just about every country on Earth. The Germans have plans to attack Russia and France. Every country does this.
I hear all this moveon crap from my wife's relatives. Funny how they were all silent when Clowntoon was murdering Serbs to protect the strategic mines in the Balkans.... er I mean covering up his sexual escapades er wait that's not it... oh I've got it he was resisting ethnic cleansing, yeah, that's it. Ethnic cleansing. LOL! Funny how he didn't lift a finger against the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda even though they begged for help. No scandal to cover up at the time.
All wars are about economics. Except Clowntoon's. His were simply to cover up his crimes. A far worse motivation than protecting strategic interests.
If you honestly can't perceive a difference in how this nation operates and what our political situation is today versus how it did when Clinton was President, then there's nothing I can say to change your mind. As far as I'm concerned, it's night and day. The last election seems to show a lot of other Americans think so too, including Republicans. And it will take a major, major, f-up for the Dems to lose the 08 election.How many people does a criminal president have to murder to be unacceptable? I guess the few thousand corpses Clowntoon left laying about is perfectly fine, eh? As long as he's got that "D" behind his name you guys just loooove a murderer. Heck, how long has KKK member Robery Byrd been around? Or the murderer Kennedy? Oh wait, I forgot. He only murdered one girl. Perfectly acceptable to democrats apparently.
If you watch closely, the guy in the burnout video goes veering off into his neighbor's yard. It's great!...I perceive a difference alright. The libs run full tilt towards totalitarianism the neo-cons just jog.
Show me where the libs have done anything effective to stop the destruction of rights engineered by the neocon's WOT.
Both parties want total control. The future is completely irrelevant to both gangs. The few voices of reason on both sides are drowned out in a sea of corruption.
Algore is making $100million this year, personally, on his GW campaign. All the while with a bigger personal carbon footprint than a small town. Creating "Utopia" pays pretty well doesn't it? How easy for a college droput to sell himself as a scientific genius. LOL!
Time to see the libertarian light. To hell with foreign wars, victimless crimes and omnibus federal programs. Both major parties are entirely controlled by big moneyed interests, no matter how they might try to pretend otherwise. Cons = big pharmna, big oil. Libs = big enviro, big bureaucracy. Heck, stellar psycho George Soros (WWII war criminal who helped Nazis find and deport his fellow Jews) owns the Democrats, lock stock and barrel. George: "Jump, Hillary." Hillary: "How high?"
Follow the money. You can't honestly believe there's a nickel's difference between the two parties. After all, where's all the action that Bill took to curb the current credit expansion based "prosperity"? There are no such actions. Both parties have been neck deep in this national corruption.