Talk:Freedom fries

You added this to the article:

Throughout the international debates regarding the Iraq disarmament crisis, France maintained opposition to the invasion of Iraq planned by the United States, claimed weapons of mass destruction destruction issue could be solved through inspections and diplomacy, and insisted the weapons issue was merely an attempt to hide american desire to size oil wells and to force democracy upon an unwilling country.

My initial reaction to seeing this French viewpoint spelled out is that it should be balanced with the American viewpoint. This could, of course, lead us to needing to include (for example) the British and German and Iraqi viewpoints as well. Before you know it, the "Freedom Fries" article simply becomes yet another restating of the entire debate around Iraq, which we already cover elsewhere. Can we simply back the specific political claims out of this article and link to them instead of rehashing them here? -º¡º

I tend to agree. But I added this paragraph because the previous sentence, in particular after modification by Stevenj was unacceptable

for memory Throughout the international debates regarding the Iraq disarmament crisis, France maintained a vociferous opposition to the United States.

First, vociferous is not an acceptable terminology. Second, for memory, the opposition was about invasion in Iraq, not opposition to United States. Again, this wording was not acceptable.

I edited the statement to be similar to what it was like before Stevenj changed it. Maybe it is ok like this? -º¡º