# French Are "Resenting" America's Leadership On Tsunami Relief



## NATO AIR

and the decline of france accelerates even further....

http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/archives/004260.html


----------



## no1tovote4

NATO AIR said:
			
		

> and the decline of france accelerates even further....
> 
> http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/archives/004260.html




Awwwwwww, poor, poor France.  Perhaps we can let them pretend they are helping to lead.  Give one a bullhorn and stand him in the corner.

 :cof:


----------



## j07950

I've just read all the articles, the one you linked and the french ones...and the article "The Tsunami Disaster As Seen From Le Monde" is writen from the authors point of view and doesn't reflect at all what Le Monde was saying. Le Monde was saying that Indonesians where afraid of the US because the war in Irak is very unpopular in indonesia but that this was only a humanitarian mission. Nowhere does it use sarcasm and it surely doesn't imply anything like preparation of  another oppressive anti-Muslim adventure. In the first article Le Monde states that the US has taken the lead in the humanitarian effort and that it has accepted coordination from the UN, it doesn't imply anywhere that France wants a bigger role nor anything about the US finally working with the UN.
In the next article Le Monde is praising all the efforts put forth by the US in the Humanitarian effort and that eventhough indonesians doubt that this intervention is uninterested the US is doing everything it can to prove them wrong. Nowhere does it state that "we" the french think this humanitarian effort is uninterested. We actually praise everything you've been doing overthere.
This is only an Anti-French article.


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> I've just read all the articles, the one you linked and the french ones...and the article "The Tsunami Disaster As Seen From Le Monde" is writen from the authors point of view and doesn't reflect at all what Le Monde was saying. Le Monde was saying that Indonesians where afraid of the US because the war in Irak is very unpopular in indonesia but that this was only a humanitarian mission. Nowhere does it use sarcasm and it surely doesn't imply anything like preparation of  another oppressive anti-Muslim adventure. In the first article Le Monde states that the US has taken the lead in the humanitarian effort and that it has accepted coordination from the UN, it doesn't imply anywhere that France wants a bigger role nor anything about the US finally working with the UN.
> In the next article Le Monde is praising all the efforts put forth by the US in the Humanitarian effort and that eventhough indonesians doubt that this intervention is uninterested the US is doing everything it can to prove them wrong. Nowhere does it state that "we" the french think this humanitarian effort is uninterested. We actually praise everything you've been doing overthere.
> This is only an Anti-French article.




Not according to Padisha Emperor.  He is definitely French and posts on the site how much he thinks we aren't doing enough.  So far from what we have heard from the two french posters on the board only 50% of them have anything good to say even about our efforts in Tsunami relief.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> I've just read all the articles, the one you linked and the french ones...and the article "The Tsunami Disaster As Seen From Le Monde" is writen from the authors point of view and doesn't reflect at all what Le Monde was saying. Le Monde was saying that Indonesians where afraid of the US because the war in Irak is very unpopular in indonesia but that this was only a humanitarian mission. Nowhere does it use sarcasm and it surely doesn't imply anything like preparation of  another oppressive anti-Muslim adventure. In the first article Le Monde states that the US has taken the lead in the humanitarian effort and that it has accepted coordination from the UN, it doesn't imply anywhere that France wants a bigger role nor anything about the US finally working with the UN.
> In the next article Le Monde is praising all the efforts put forth by the US in the Humanitarian effort and that eventhough indonesians doubt that this intervention is uninterested the US is doing everything it can to prove them wrong. Nowhere does it state that "we" the french think this humanitarian effort is uninterested. We actually praise everything you've been doing overthere.
> This is only an Anti-French article.



I agree...it is indeed anti French. Perhaps now you understand why many on this board feel the way they do. There is a constant barrage of anti US material being presented (even some by posters like yourself) and often presented as some kind of fact, when most of the time it is merely opinion. Often such "anti" articles are merely spiteful rhetoric which is why you will often get demands for proof. An opinion piece is not proof for either side of an argument.

Further, when such a debate gathers momentum, people get frustrated and then the whole debate degenerates into name calling, etc. When it gets to that point in the discussion is usually when I will abstain from posting....

Anyway, it is understandable that many Indonesians would view US aid as some kind of underhanded scheme; the world media has done it's best to make the US appear as the great Satan, and not a few Muslim leaders have stated the same with great publicity. That does not mean however, that such a plan by the US is real or that the allegations are true.


----------



## j07950

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> Not according to Padisha Emperor.  He is definitely French and posts on the site how much he thinks we aren't doing enough.  So far from what we have heard from the two french posters on the board only 50% of them have anything good to say even about our efforts in Tsunami relief.


I think you missunderstood him in the beginning than he derailed completely off topic...Which is that everyone all over the globe is doing it's best. Even one of the poorest crountry in the world which is Timore I think donated 50,000 dollars which is huge for them, I saw that on CNN last night. 
Don't believe everything that is written, even the press...You say yourself that some press in the US is anti-bush and anti-america so it is a possibility elsewhere. But as a whole no one is undermining your efforts in Asia, that is plain stupid to do so.


----------



## freeandfun1

j07950 said:
			
		

> everyone all over the globe is doing it's best. . .



I do not at all agree with this portion of your post.  The Islamic countries of the ME are donating measly amounts.  Saudi Arabia, with its billions in oil revenues, is only donating a paltry $10 million.  I would not call that "doing their best".


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> I think you missunderstood him in the beginning than he derailed completely off topic...Which is that everyone all over the globe is doing it's best. Even one of the poorest crountry in the world which is Timore I think donated 50,000 dollars which is huge for them, I saw that on CNN last night.
> Don't believe everything that is written, even the press...You say yourself that some press in the US is anti-bush and anti-america so it is a possibility elsewhere. But as a whole no one is undermining your efforts in Asia, that is plain stupid to do so.



 That plus the fact that PE does not write English well...not his fault of course, but it gets even worse when he gets frustrated. I have often had to reread his posts many times to understand what he is trying to say. It does not help when a poster gets sidetracked into the trading insults game.


----------



## j07950

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> I do not at all agree with this portion of your post.  The Islamic countries of the ME are donating measly amounts.  Saudi Arabia, with its billions in oil revenues, is only donating a paltry $10 million.  I would not call that "doing their best".


Yeah I heard that on CNN too...hopefully they will be donating more in the near future. The US went from 35 to 350 million dollars in relief money, hopefully those countries will do the same.


----------



## freeandfun1

j07950 said:
			
		

> Yeah I heard that on CNN too...hopefully they will be donating more in the near future. The US went from 35 to 350 million dollars in relief money, hopefully those countries will do the same.



True, but keep our going from $35 to $350 in perspective.

Immediately we offered $15 million which was to be used to evaluate the situation so that we could determine the extent of the damage.  We also immediately deployed 11 Naval vessels to the region.  That is not at all cheap to do.  Too many are trying to say that we offered only $15 million cuz we are cheap.  No, we initially offered $15 million because we really didn't know the extent of the damage.

The Muslim nations will not donate much and this is why I think that is so.

In Islam, Muslims adhere strongly to the idea that everything that happens is "G-d's will".  Therefore, they see this as being G-d's will and who are they to interfere?


----------



## CSM

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> ...The Muslim nations will not donate much and this is why I think that is so.
> 
> In Islam, Muslims adhere strongly to the idea that everything that happens is "G-d's will".  Therefore, they see this as being G-d's will and who are they to interfere?


There may be some truth to that but I suspect there are other reasons as well. Many of the victims that would be helped by donations are not Muslim, therefore, some in the Arab world would view such aid as helping the infidel and of course be publicized as reason for overthrowing any particular Muslim government. I suspect Saudi Arabi would be very susceptable to such propaganda.


----------



## j07950

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> True, but keep our going from $35 to $350 in perspective.
> 
> Immediately we offered $15 million which was to be used to evaluate the situation so that we could determine the extent of the damage.  We also immediately deployed 11 Naval vessels to the region.  That is not at all cheap to do.  Too many are trying to say that we offered only $15 million cuz we are cheap.  No, we initially offered $15 million because we really didn't know the extent of the damage.
> 
> The Muslim nations will not donate much and this is why I think that is so.
> 
> In Islam, Muslims adhere strongly to the idea that everything that happens is "G-d's will".  Therefore, they see this as being G-d's will and who are they to interfere?



Yeah I know...it's also why france offered only a million to begin with because like the US it wasn't aware of how bad it was. 
What you are saying about the muslims is true but they are also known for giving and sharing between themselves and as indonesians are mostly muslims there is still a chance.


----------



## TheEnemyWithin

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> Awwwwwww, poor, poor France.  Perhaps we can let them pretend they are helping to lead.  Give one a bullhorn and stand him in the corner.
> 
> :cof:




I talked to a Frenchie in a Yahoo chatroom a few weeks ago. He thought that the Apollo moon landings were fake!!! :cof: Spewed Pepsi all over the computer.


----------



## freeandfun1

j07950 said:
			
		

> Yeah I know...it's also why france offered only a million to begin with because like the US it wasn't aware of how bad it was.
> What you are saying about the muslims is true but they are also known for giving and sharing between themselves and as indonesians are mostly muslims there is still a chance.



Yes, the Indonesians are Muslim but "Insha Allah" still applies.

I was in Saudi Arabia once and there was a really bad auto accident between two cars driven by locals.  The one man clearly was at fault but he was not charged as the "Religious" Police decried that the auto accident was "the will of G-d".  I clearly recall a Saudi telling me, "Insha Allah".


----------



## j07950

TheEnemyWithin said:
			
		

> I talked to a Frenchie in a Yahoo chatroom a few weeks ago. He thought that the Apollo moon landings were fake!!! :cof: Spewed Pepsi all over the computer.


Well we're not going to get into this debate. I have my doubts but then again I don't know enough. Funny enough the first time I saw anything about the theory of it being fake it was in the US. But who cares really.


----------



## j07950

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> Yes, the Indonesians are Muslim but "Insha Allah" still applies.
> 
> I was in Saudi Arabia once and there was a really bad auto accident between two cars driven by locals.  The one man clearly was at fault but he was not charged as the "Religious" Police decried that the auto accident was "the will of G-d".  I clearly recall a Saudi telling me, "Insha Allah".



Really?! Wow I didn't know it was this bad...well let's still hope...


----------



## freeandfun1

j07950 said:
			
		

> Well we're not going to get into this debate. I have my doubts but then again I don't know enough. Funny enough the first time I saw anything about the theory of it being fake it was in the US. But who cares really.



I agree, who cares?  I even think it may have been faked.  However, I also keep in mind the times.  We were in a cold war with the Soviets and we wanted them and the world to think we had a leg up on em.  So what?  If it were faked, it was just part of our overall disinformation campaign during that era.


----------



## j07950

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> I agree, who cares?  I even think it may have been faked.  However, I also keep in mind the times.  We were in a cold war with the Soviets and we wanted them and the world to think we had a leg up on em.  So what?  If it were faked, it was just part of our overall disinformation campaign during that era.


Yup agree with you...I'd still like to believe it did happen though, it would be so nice to be totally sure.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> Yup agree with you...I'd still like to believe it did happen though, it would be so nice to be totally sure.



Short of going to the moon and seeing the rovers and other equipment for yourself, what would be acceptable proof for you?


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> Short of going to the moon and seeing the rovers and other equipment for yourself, what would be acceptable proof for you?


I don't know...it's hard to say. But there are proofs that indicate that it could have been faked. Maybee a lie detector hooked up to the astronauts who went...
No I don't think we'll ever be sure until someone goes again, with technologie nowadays it would be hard to fake it if indeed it was faked.


----------



## freeandfun1

j07950 said:
			
		

> I don't know...it's hard to say. But there are proofs that indicate that it could have been faked. Maybee a lie detector hooked up to the astronauts who went...
> No I don't think we'll ever be sure until someone goes again, with technologie nowadays it would be hard to fake it if indeed it was faked.



If I recall correctly, most of the austronauts have met untimely deaths.

CSM, yes, seeing the rover and the flag would be enough proof for me.  Until then, I am very skeptical of it all for many, many reasons.

The Chinese say they are going to the moon soon.  If they do, I hope they find the flag and rover there.  If not, we are going to have egg on our face.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> I don't know...it's hard to say. But there are proofs that indicate that it could have been faked. Maybee a lie detector hooked up to the astronauts who went...
> No I don't think we'll ever be sure until someone goes again, with technologie nowadays it would be hard to fake it if indeed it was faked.


 Actually, it has been proven that the US did indeed land a man on the moon. There is a lot of satellite imagery (visual, radar, etc) that shows the abandoned equipment...of course, tehre are those who will say that the imagery is faked too.


----------



## CSM

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> If I recall correctly, most of the austronauts have met untimely deaths.
> 
> CSM, yes, seeing the rover and the flag would be enough proof for me.  Until then, I am very skeptical of it all for many, many reasons.
> 
> The Chinese say they are going to the moon soon.  If they do, I hope they find the flag and rover there.  If not, we are going to have egg on our face.


 and you expect teh Chinese to honestly declare ANYTHING??? If I were the Chinese, I would destroy the evidence when I got there and categorically deny that the US had ever been there. That would be one hell of a propaganda coup, wouldn't it?


----------



## freeandfun1

CSM said:
			
		

> and you expect teh Chinese to honestly declare ANYTHING??? If I were the Chinese, I would destroy the evidence when I got there and categorically deny that the US had ever been there. That would be one hell of a propaganda coup, wouldn't it?



Yup.  Even if it is there, they will likely say it is not.


----------



## j07950

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> If I recall correctly, most of the austronauts have met untimely deaths.
> 
> CSM, yes, seeing the rover and the flag would be enough proof for me.  Until then, I am very skeptical of it all for many, many reasons.
> 
> The Chinese say they are going to the moon soon.  If they do, I hope they find the flag and rover there.  If not, we are going to have egg on our face.



Yeah tell me about it..Forgot about the chinese...I guess we'll get our proof from there...Unless people think the chinese are going to dissimulate proof just so to oppose the US. Who knows but I think it will probably have 24hr camera and all...Hopefully.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> Yeah tell me about it..Forgot about the chinese...I guess we'll get our proof from there...Unless people think the chinese are going to dissimulate proof just so to oppose the US. Who knows but I think it will probably have 24hr camera and all...Hopefully.


 Here is some proof for you:

http://www.thursdaysclassroom.com/15mar01/proofpositive.html

Please note especially the last paragraph....those laser mirrors are still there and still being used....


----------



## padisha emperor

CSM, where did I say that the US help was not enough ? 
Never said a such thing. 
I only said that it was  the duty of advanced - on the economic point of view - and rich nations to help the poor countries when a such thing - tsunami - comes. 


And if you really want to know what I think, read j07950's messages.
About Iraq, or the other things, we thçink same things.



The Chinese would not necessary destroy the prooves...The first chinese astronauts said that the China Wall couldn't be seen from Space, and then he destroy an old legend, proud of China...so, if they're ready to destruct some old myths, maybe they'll not destroy your equipment and flag.


personly, I 'm convinced that Apollo missions landed on the moon.


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> Here is some proof for you:
> 
> http://www.thursdaysclassroom.com/15mar01/proofpositive.html
> 
> Please note especially the last paragraph....those laser mirrors are still there and still being used....


Yeah ok...but then again maybee it due to good luck...It's all assumtion...
But like I said I'd like to believe it...It's kind of like God, I've got this problem with not seeing things myself.


----------



## CSM

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> ...I only said that it was  the duty of advanced - on the economic point of view - and rich nations to help the poor countries when a such thing - tsunami - comes.


 And I replied...who says it is our duty???

By the way, I dont think I ever said you made such a statement.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> Yeah ok...but then again maybee it due to good luck...It's all assumtion...
> But like I said I'd like to believe it...It's kind of like God, I've got this problem with not seeing things myself.


 You lost me here. What do you mean by good luck? Do you mean that the mirrors were placed effectively by luck? The mirrors are not assumption, they are there...


----------



## j07950

Got to go guys...don't fight, be open minded and straight with your facts (very important here it seems)...Peace...


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> Got to go guys...don't fight, be open minded and straight with your facts (very important here it seems)...Peace...


 Have a good one!


----------



## no1tovote4

TheEnemyWithin said:
			
		

> I talked to a Frenchie in a Yahoo chatroom a few weeks ago. He thought that the Apollo moon landings were fake!!! :cof: Spewed Pepsi all over the computer.




There are whole websites dedicated to that as well as ones to debunk the debunkers.  LOL.  To me it sounds like the Flat Earth Society.


----------



## padisha emperor

CSM, nobody said it was our duty, their is no sanct-ion if you don't do it, excpet maybe the bad feeling of non-help......

Users on this board always say proudly that USA is the most generous country of the world and that USA's people are the most generous.....So, respect this statement, try to make it right !
I think that if we want a good cooperation foer the welfare of all the inhabitants of earth, the rich nations have to pay to help the poors.
Of course, if you prefer to have your own good life, and that people die from hunger or anything else, it is your right. but after, don't tell me that USA is the most generous.


----------



## CSM

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> CSM, nobody said it was our duty, their is no sanct-ion if you don't do it, excpet maybe the bad feeling of non-help......
> 
> Users on this board always say proudly that USA is the most generous country of the world and that USA's people are the most generous.....So, respect this statement, try to make it right !
> I think that if we want a good cooperation foer the welfare of all the inhabitants of earth, the rich nations have to pay to help the poors.
> Of course, if you prefer to have your own good life, and that people die from hunger or anything else, it is your right. but after, don't tell me that USA is the most generous.



 Go re read post #27 on this thread...YOU said it was our duty! My point is, the US does not and should not succumb to any other nation's or group's idea of "duty".  Neither you, any other nation, nor the UN has the right to tell the American people what their "duty" is.

Should the US help poorer nations? In my opinion, yes it should. HOWEVER, that does not mean the United States should hand out money without consideration of their own interests. I have not forgotten how the US was treated when they went in to Somalia on what was supposed to be a humanitarian mission. After events there, I do not care if every last Somalian starves to death.... in my opinion, not one American dollar should go to that country...


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> Go re read post #27 on this thread...YOU said it was our duty! My point is, the US does not and should not succumb to any other nation's or group's idea of "duty".  Neither you, any other nation, nor the UN has the right to tell the American people what their "duty" is.
> 
> Should the US help poorer nations? In my opinion, yes it should. HOWEVER, that does not mean the United States should hand out money without consideration of their own interests. I have not forgotten how the US was treated when they went in to Somalia on what was supposed to be a humanitarian mission. After events there, I do not care if every last Somalian starves to death.... in my opinion, not one American dollar should go to that country...


I find that very harsh...you really don't care if ever last Somalian dies? That's an awful thing to say. Especially since what is going on in Iraq is in a way the same thing. US soldiers are being ambushed and killed in Iraq both by AlQuaeda and Iraquis... SO I don't know how different the situation is. The somalian population had nothing to do with it. It was rebels who wanted no help from the outside and rejected democratie that killed US soldiers. So saying you don't care if every last somalian die is just plain nonsence and cruel.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/001371.php


----------



## padisha emperor

CSM, I said it was our duty, but I believed that you said "who said it", like "which organization or State said it ?"
We didn't understand the other. nevermind 



For Somalia, lke j07950 said, it was not the whole population who shot on US soldiers, but some rebels.
The civilian population was happy to get food and clothes from USa and Europe, Australia.......

Some warlords maybe endoctrinated the population, but the majority was, I think, glad from this help.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> I find that very harsh...you really don't care if ever last Somalian dies? That's an awful thing to say. Especially since what is going on in Iraq is in a way the same thing. US soldiers are being ambushed and killed in Iraq both by AlQuaeda and Iraquis... SO I don't know how different the situation is. The somalian population had nothing to do with it. It was rebels who wanted no help from the outside and rejected democratie that killed US soldiers. So saying you don't care if every last somalian die is just plain nonsence and cruel.
> http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/001371.php



If you think that is awful, you should hear what I think about some other things! I told you I was not open minded. It may be cruel but it sure isn't nonsense...at least not for me. 

 The Somalian population had everything to do with it...read "Blackhawk Down". I know a lot of the soldiers involved in that particular incident quite well. The book doesn't even come close to some of the things that went on over there.

What is going on in Iraq is entirely different than what occured in Sommalia. The US went into Iraq with every intention of engaging the Iraqi army and terrorists. That was not the intent in Somalia.


----------



## Said1

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> For Somalia, lke j07950 said, it was not the whole population who shot on US soldiers, but some rebels.
> The civilian population was happy to get food and clothes from USa and Europe, Australia.......



Yes they were happy to get food and clothes for various countries, but they were also more than happy to steal anything that wasn't nailed down (even then they would try). To say the general population wasn't heavily armed is pure nonesense, since the situation in Somalia was utter chaos.  Remember?


----------



## CSM

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> CSM, I said it was our duty, but I believed that you said "who said it", like "which organization or State said it ?"
> We didn't understand the other. nevermind
> 
> 
> 
> For Somalia, lke j07950 said, it was not the whole population who shot on US soldiers, but some rebels.
> The civilian population was happy to get food and clothes from USa and Europe, Australia.......
> 
> Some warlords maybe endoctrinated the population, but the majority was, I think, glad from this help.



I saw an interview of a Somalian on a news program sometime back. He was bragging about how he had personally been involved in the killing of not just US soldiers, but also UN troops as well. He was not a warlord or a faction leader. In fact, the news commentator was careful to point out that this was a typical Somalian. The man was very boastful of the fact that he had a hand in "defeating the world's superpower". If he indeed was a typical Somalian (I have no reason to believe he was not) then his statements and actions reinforce my feelings about that non-country.

In my opinion, in the future, if the Somolians want US help, then they better overthrow those damn warlords and make damn sure not a single hair on any US soldier's head gets mussed when they go in there. Unfortunately for me, the US has and still is sending military and economic aid there.


----------



## j07950

So you're saying that the whole population was against the US and wanted them dead right? So like 100% of the people were armed and ready to kill the US for helping them with food, clothing etc... I have a hard time believing that. Try telling that to the population caught between president Ali Mahdi and warlord Mohamed Farah Aideed.
I don't see the Iraqi population on hands and knees thanking you, and as far as I know scenes like the draging of american bodies also happened in Iraq and they wouldn't hesitate in killing US soldiers if they had the chance to. I'm not saying they have the right to...on the contrary. But if you are helping people who hate you gain a better life I don't see how that's different from Somalia.

"The U.N. Intervenes
The United Nations opened an office in Mogadishu a few months after Aideed routed Mahdi's forces. The U.N. Representative realized he was too late to mediate between the two factions, and concentrated on reducing the famine in southern Somalia.

The U.N. Secretary General wanted a more visible role and fired the representative. The new leadership declared Somalia an anarchy, Aideed a bandit, and firearms the problem. The U.N. then embarked on a military occupation of Somalia and an attempt at full disarmament of its population, with the intent of re-establishing a Western-style central government.

The U.N.'s expensive campaign resulted in more violence, as the Somali tribes fought to preserve their traditional systems and their right to self-defense.

On June 5, 1993, U.N. troops attempted to shut down Aideed's radio station because it was broadcasting "propaganda" (that is, anti-U.N. messages). In a victory for freedom of speech, Somali militiamen repelled the attack, in the process killing 23 Pakistani U.N. troops.

The Somalis' successful repulse of the U.N. attack led the United States to commit the lives of U.S. troops to an expensive, bloody, five-month manhunt for Aideed. Dozens of U.S. and U.N. troops, and hundreds of Somalis, were killed. In October 1993, the U.S. ended the search after eighteen U.S. soldiers were killed and some of their corpses dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.

During the weeks from June 5 to October 3, 1993, U.N./U.S. forces inflicted 6,000 to 10,000 casualties on the Somali resistance, said Eric Schmitt in the the December 8, 1993, New York Times. Schmitt confirmed the account with U.S. military intelligence, relief workers, U.N. officials and the U.S. special envoy to Somalia. U.S. Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni estimated that two-thirds of the casualties were women and children."


----------



## dilloduck

Agreed--I think Somalia, Viet Nam, Lebanon, etc. have unfortunately given the world the impression that America is a "cut and run" country depending on the whims of politics. If nothing else, Bush is attempting to show the world that we are NOT going to engage in those policies any more. As we gradually covince the world that when we act, we are committed ! Think twice before testing our convictions . In my opinion the US would be justified to sit back and let the rest of the world take care of the Asian crisis if they dislike us so but in spite of taking shit from every corner of the world , the US is there IN FORCE with money and manpower.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> So you're saying that the whole population was against the US and wanted them dead right? So like 100% of the people were armed and ready to kill the US for helping them with food, clothing etc... I have a hard time believing that. Try telling that to the population caught between president Ali Mahdi and warlord Mohamed Farah Aideed.
> I don't see the Iraqi population on hands and knees thanking you, and as far as I know scenes like the draging of american bodies also happened in Iraq and they wouldn't hesitate in killing US soldiers if they had the chance to. I'm not saying they have the right to...on the contrary. But if you are helping people who hate you gain a better life I don't see how that's different from Somalia.
> 
> "The U.N. Intervenes
> The United Nations opened an office in Mogadishu a few months after Aideed routed Mahdi's forces. The U.N. Representative realized he was too late to mediate between the two factions, and concentrated on reducing the famine in southern Somalia.
> 
> The U.N. Secretary General wanted a more visible role and fired the representative. The new leadership declared Somalia an anarchy, Aideed a bandit, and firearms the problem. The U.N. then embarked on a military occupation of Somalia and an attempt at full disarmament of its population, with the intent of re-establishing a Western-style central government.
> 
> The U.N.'s expensive campaign resulted in more violence, as the Somali tribes fought to preserve their traditional systems and their right to self-defense.
> 
> On June 5, 1993, U.N. troops attempted to shut down Aideed's radio station because it was broadcasting "propaganda" (that is, anti-U.N. messages). In a victory for freedom of speech, Somali militiamen repelled the attack, in the process killing 23 Pakistani U.N. troops.
> 
> The Somalis' successful repulse of the U.N. attack led the United States to commit the lives of U.S. troops to an expensive, bloody, five-month manhunt for Aideed. Dozens of U.S. and U.N. troops, and hundreds of Somalis, were killed. In October 1993, the U.S. ended the search after eighteen U.S. soldiers were killed and some of their corpses dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.
> 
> During the weeks from June 5 to October 3, 1993, U.N./U.S. forces inflicted 6,000 to 10,000 casualties on the Somali resistance, said Eric Schmitt in the the December 8, 1993, New York Times. Schmitt confirmed the account with U.S. military intelligence, relief workers, U.N. officials and the U.S. special envoy to Somalia. U.S. Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni estimated that two-thirds of the casualties were women and children."



 No argument from me regarding trying to aid people who dont want it. Let em rot is what I say.

The big difference between Somalia and Iraq, at least in my mind, is that the US was ASKED to go in there by the UN...along with a lot of other nations' military. 

As for Iraq...If I were in charge, I would pull the troops out now with this simple warning: "DON"T MAKE ME HAVE TO COME BACK HERE." I would leave Iraq lock, stock and barrel. Then, if I had any suspicion, even the tiniest inkling, that Iraq was harboring, aiding or in way abetting terrorists of any sort, I would level the place... and I do mean level it. Not one shack or mud hut would be left standing. The international community hates the US? Fine. I'll give them a reason as concrete as they'll ever get.


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> So you're saying that the whole population was against the US and wanted them dead right? So like 100% of the people were armed and ready to kill the US for helping them with food, clothing etc... I have a hard time believing that. Try telling that to the population caught between president Ali Mahdi and warlord Mohamed Farah Aideed.
> I don't see the Iraqi population on hands and knees thanking you, and as far as I know scenes like the draging of american bodies also happened in Iraq and they wouldn't hesitate in killing US soldiers if they had the chance to. I'm not saying they have the right to...on the contrary. But if you are helping people who hate you gain a better life I don't see how that's different from Somalia.
> 
> "The U.N. Intervenes
> The United Nations opened an office in Mogadishu a few months after Aideed routed Mahdi's forces. The U.N. Representative realized he was too late to mediate between the two factions, and concentrated on reducing the famine in southern Somalia.
> 
> The U.N. Secretary General wanted a more visible role and fired the representative. The new leadership declared Somalia an anarchy, Aideed a bandit, and firearms the problem. The U.N. then embarked on a military occupation of Somalia and an attempt at full disarmament of its population, with the intent of re-establishing a Western-style central government.
> 
> The U.N.'s expensive campaign resulted in more violence, as the Somali tribes fought to preserve their traditional systems and their right to self-defense.
> 
> On June 5, 1993, U.N. troops attempted to shut down Aideed's radio station because it was broadcasting "propaganda" (that is, anti-U.N. messages). In a victory for freedom of speech, Somali militiamen repelled the attack, in the process killing 23 Pakistani U.N. troops.
> 
> The Somalis' successful repulse of the U.N. attack led the United States to commit the lives of U.S. troops to an expensive, bloody, five-month manhunt for Aideed. Dozens of U.S. and U.N. troops, and hundreds of Somalis, were killed. In October 1993, the U.S. ended the search after eighteen U.S. soldiers were killed and some of their corpses dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.
> 
> During the weeks from June 5 to October 3, 1993, U.N./U.S. forces inflicted 6,000 to 10,000 casualties on the Somali resistance, said Eric Schmitt in the the December 8, 1993, New York Times. Schmitt confirmed the account with U.S. military intelligence, relief workers, U.N. officials and the U.S. special envoy to Somalia. U.S. Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni estimated that two-thirds of the casualties were women and children."


 Why is it that you don't see any "grateful Iraqis" ?


----------



## j07950

Iraq is harboring, aiding and abetting terrorists as we speak, are you going to level it?
I mean stop using such harch terms and words...doesn't give you a nice image. I agree with certain things but man you're brutal.
Got to go, I'll pick this conversation later...


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Why is it that you don't see any "grateful Iraqis" ?


I do!!!
Just like there were grateful somalian!!!!


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> I do!!!
> Just like there were grateful somalian!!!!



That's not what you just posted--try consistency.

*I don't see the Iraqi population on hands and knees thanking you*, and as far as I know scenes like the draging of american bodies also happened in Iraq and they wouldn't hesitate in killing US soldiers if they had the chance to. I'm not saying they have the right to...on the contrary. But if you are helping people who hate you gain a better life I don't see how that's different from Somalia


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> Iraq is harboring, aiding and abetting terrorists as we speak, are you going to level it?
> I mean stop using such harch terms and words...doesn't give you a nice image. I agree with certain things but man you're brutal.
> Got to go, I'll pick this conversation later...


 Again, if I were in charge, Iraq would have been levelled the first time around. Yes, I am brutal. As brutal as any terrorist that ever walked the planet. I have no compunction about killing my enemies...brutally if necessary.


----------



## dilloduck

CSM said:
			
		

> Again, if I were in charge, Iraq would have been levelled the first time around. Yes, I am brutal. As brutal as any terrorist that ever walked the planet. I have no compunction about killing my enemies...brutally if necessary.


 Not so brutal as you think--saddam and the terrorists now in iraq have no compunction about killing their OWN PEOPLE to achieve their own political agendas.


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> That's not what you just posted--try consistency.
> 
> *I don't see the Iraqi population on hands and knees thanking you*, and as far as I know scenes like the draging of american bodies also happened in Iraq and they wouldn't hesitate in killing US soldiers if they had the chance to. I'm not saying they have the right to...on the contrary. But if you are helping people who hate you gain a better life I don't see how that's different from Somalia


What I was trying to say is that at least part of the population was grateful in somalia....the ones cought in the middle of crossfires...same as in Irak.While both countries might want you dead some people still appreciate what u are or did overthere.


----------



## Said1

j07950 said:
			
		

> What I was trying to say is that at least part of the population was grateful in somalia....the ones cought in the middle of crossfires...same as in Irak.While both countries might want you dead some people still appreciate what u are or did overthere.




Smells more like a retraction.


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> What I was trying to say is that at least part of the population was grateful in somalia....the ones cought in the middle of crossfires...same as in Irak.While both countries might want you dead some people still appreciate what u are or did overthere.




I think an active minority in Iraq want the US "dead" the rest just want to live safe lives.


----------



## j07950

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> I think an active minority in Iraq want the US "dead" the rest just want to live safe lives.


CAn't you accept that that might have been the case in Somalia? I mean the people who killed US soldiers were under the influence of warlord Mohamed Farah Aideed. You can't say that was the case of the whole of Somalia's population, that's none sence juste like in Irak. A lot were and are grateful. So saying things like I couldn't care less if every last somalian died is awful and can't be justified. Where is your humanity and compation for the people who have nothing to do in this and only ask for help?


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> CAn't you accept that that might have been the case in Somalia? I mean the people who killed US soldiers were under the influence of warlord Mohamed Farah Aideed. You can't say that was the case of the whole of Somalia's population, that's none sence juste like in Irak. A lot were and are grateful. So saying things like I couldn't care less if every last somalian died is awful and can't be justified. Where is your humanity and compation for the people who have nothing to do in this and only ask for help?



My post was in answer to the way you said, "the entire country may want you dead but some were happy."  I simply think that it is a small but active minority that want us dead, some are happy, the rest simply want to live.

I would agree this was the same in Somalia.  Most simply don't care who is there, they just want to live.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

j07950 said:
			
		

> CAn't you accept that that might have been the case in Somalia? I mean the people who killed US soldiers were under the influence of warlord Mohamed Farah Aideed. You can't say that was the case of the whole of Somalia's population, that's none sence juste like in Irak. A lot were and are grateful. So saying things like I couldn't care less if every last somalian died is awful and can't be justified. Where is your humanity and compation for the people who have nothing to do in this and only ask for help?




Where is the moral compass of your entire nation of moral relativists and communists?  The french are evil.


----------



## j07950

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Where is the moral compass of your entire nation of moral relativists and communists?  The french are evil.


The fuck are you talking about again??? Try and keep up. We're having an intelligent conversations, why do you come in here and insult?


----------



## j07950

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> My post was in answer to the way you said, "the entire country may want you dead but some were happy."  I simply think that it is a small but active minority that want us dead, some are happy, the rest simply want to live.
> 
> I would agree this was the same in Somalia.  Most simply don't care who is there, they just want to live.


Yeah ok I get what you're saying. Happy you understand my point about somalia than. Was it even you that didn't care if the last somalian died? Can't remember.


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> Yeah ok I get what you're saying. Happy you understand my point about somalia than. Was it even you that didn't care if the last somalian died? Can't remember.




No.  That was not me.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

j07950 said:
			
		

> The fuck are you talking about again??? Try and keep up. We're having an intelligent conversations, why do you come in here and insult?



Because your country is so evil it defines itself primarily by being anti-us, even when we're doing good in the world.  This is why I insult, Pepe Van Damme.


----------



## j07950

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Because your country is so evil it defines itself primarily by being anti-us, even when we're doing good in the world.  This is why I insult, Pepe Van Damme.


Thats not the discussion here...off topic...we've talked about that elsewhere...
And that's an opinion, not a fact.


----------



## j07950

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> No.  That was not me.


Didn't think so.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

j07950 said:
			
		

> Thats not the discussion here...off topic...we've talked about that elsewhere...
> And that's an opinion, not a fact.



No.  It's fact.  Your nation is consumed with envy and your leadership would rather ally with terrorists for their own power than do the right thing.


And my comments are exactly on topic.


----------



## j07950

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> No.  It's fact.  Your nation is consumed with envy and your leadership would rather ally with terrorists for their own power than do the right thing.
> 
> 
> And my comments are exactly on topic.


Give it up...that's been talked about. That is your opinion and that of many other but is in no way a fact. Go do something worth while of your time.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

j07950 said:
			
		

> Give it up...that's been talked about. That is your opinion and that of many other but is in no way a fact. Go do something worth while of your time.



These are facts.   All your nation does in run around agitating against the U.S. for no other reason than your extreme envy and moral bankruptcy.  Your citizenry is more concerned about your pensions and lifestyles than it is with doing what is moral.

You are confused about the difference between facts and opinions it seems.


----------



## j07950

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> These are facts.   All your nation does in run around agitating against the U.S. for no other reason than your extreme envy and moral bankruptcy.  Your citizenry is more concerned about your pensions and lifestyles than it is with doing what is moral.
> 
> You are confused about the difference between facts and opinions it seems.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

j07950 said:
			
		

>



Spoken like a true Frenchman.


----------



## j07950

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Spoken like a true Frenchman.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

j07950 said:
			
		

>




No, thanks.  I don't need any French wine right now.


----------



## j07950

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> No, thanks.  I don't need any French wine right now.


Your a funny guy...Like I said go do something worth while...instead of picking fights with foreigners for no good resons...
Going now...I'll speak to all of you others tomorrow...cheers!!!


----------



## rtwngAvngr

j07950 said:
			
		

> Your a funny guy...Like I said go do something worth while...instead of picking fights with foreigners for no good resons...
> Going now...I'll speak to all of you others tomorrow...cheers!!!



My reasons are good.  It is imperative that the dangerous trends apparent in Europe right now be reversed, namely socialism and appeasement of terrorists.


----------



## j07950

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> My reasons are good.  It is imperative that the dangerous trends apparent in Europe right now be reversed, namely socialism and appeasement of terrorists.


Right...
Maybee socialism isn't the best in conducting foreign policies, but at least when we need to have operations, our teeth fixed or any other health problems, we don't have to scratch toghether the money we need or wait months to to get treatments like a lot of americans have to.

The official US poverty rate in 2002 was 12.1 percent, up from 11.7 percent in 2001. In 2002, people below the official poverty thresholds numbered 34.6 million, a figure 1.7 million higher than the 32.9 million in poverty in 2001. This from the worlds biggest economy.
According to the latest statistics on poverty in the United States, released in 1996 by the U.S. Census Bureau, 14.3 million children in America are living in abject poverty that is the direct consequence of official U.S. social policies.
For example, overall spending on child well-being is about $230 billion a year in France (France's population = 59,329,691 ), compared with only $146 billion in the United States (US population = 295,203,947). 
In fact, most Western European nations spend two or even three times as much as the U.S. on families with children, which explains why so many more American than European children live in poverty.But after receiving tax breaks and all the social benefits, only 5.7 percent of French children and 7.3 percent of British children are still considered poor, while nearly 21 percent of U.S. children still suffer in severe poverty.

So maybee France is too socialist for the good of foreign policies but than again I prefer my government to look out for it's own people before looking elsewhere.


PS: Not trying to bash...but don't bash at the good socialism does in europe.


----------



## Said1

j07950 said:
			
		

> So maybee France is too socialist for the good of foreign policies but than again I prefer my government to look out for it's own people before looking elsewhere.



That won't last. Here's an interesting article you might want to look at. I don't know if the overspending problems have been corrected (I'm prettey France did recieve a fine or two during 2004, no time to double check),  but it's a funny article nonetheless.



> *France changes tack on economy, stressing reforms to cut budget deficit*
> 
> 07/05/2003
> 
> PARIS, May 7 (AFP) - The French government sent strong, if subtle, signals of a change of emphasis in economic management on Wednesday, talking of reforms to cut spending deficits just as the EU again waved disciplinary procedures.
> 
> Official statements here were peppered with references to deficit reduction to return within euro-zone limits next year, budget discipline and the virtues of "reform" of the economy.
> 
> The government was "mobilised" under the supervision of Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, the government spokesman said.
> 
> And Finance Minister Francis Mer told the National Assembly that France would reply before an October 3 deadline to demands by the EU Commission for action to correct its deficit by 2004, saying "we shall do so in a responsible manner".
> 
> Mer had said before that he intended to meet the euro-zone deficit limit in 2004. But despite the official line that this emphasis on good housekeeping is all home-grown, some remarks suggest that disciplinary winds from Brussels have played a part in a change of tack.




Article


----------



## padisha emperor

j07950 is right, in France the welfare is very good, because the State is interventionnist.

I know the interventionnsim can be often bad, I did some economy in my first year of law studies, but for the social area, it can be very good.

The french poor are less poor athn the US poors.

And I will not repeat what j07950 said.

The french healthcare system is really good for the citizen. You can be poor, you'll be tended, and quickly, I mean without wainting too much.

I believe that in UK - j07950, can you enlight me about it please ?  - the helathcare system is less good, people are no more accpet in hospital for teeth propblem after  maybe 60 years old, sqomething like that.



France is one of the country where the public services are the most present.
You can think it hurts the liberty of trade and industry, but in fact not.

The creation of industrial and commercial services - **** - has a lot of rules.
And it cannot hurts the liberty of trade and industry, which is in the law of the 2nd and 17th march 1791.
but when  the pirvate sector is not able to developp a service, the administration has to do it.
Because the main goal of administration is the welfare of the citizens.

So, socialism here is good.
And it is not really socialism, it is state intereventionnism.


Look an other point : the railroad : in England, the private company made the security systems, and all the organization of the railroad, their exploitation.........so they take the less expensive project to organize the railroads.
Results : failure, and tragedy,; like in paddington Station.

If these security systems and the organisation is lead by the State, the State HAVE To respect the citizen, more tha a private society.
Then, less problem.


----------



## Said1

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> So, socialism here is good.
> And it is not really socialism, it is state intereventionnism.



There is no difference, it's the same thing. 

Did you read the article I posted, France can't even meet reductions on public spending, what does that tell you???


----------



## j07950

Said1 said:
			
		

> There is no difference, it's the same thing.
> 
> Did you read the article I posted, France can't even meet reductions on public spending, what does that tell you???



Your article in interesting while a bit old, but it's true that the state is overspending, just like the US is overspending on it's military and other things. Your state is in deficit...  France hasn't met the EU deficit limite which is bas since all the countires signed to limit it. Hopefully this will be corected but I prefer our state being in deficit and receiving good health care and all the other benefits than people getting awful health cares and seeing poverty rise.


----------



## padisha emperor

> I prefer our state being in deficit and receiving good health care and all the other benefits than people getting awful health cares and seeing poverty rise.



exactly !

the french deficit is here because the State spends lot of money for the welfare of citizens.


----------



## dilloduck

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> exactly !
> 
> the french deficit is here because the State spends lot of money for the welfare of citizens.



You mean the State spends the citizens tax money on the health of it's citizens?


----------



## padisha emperor

tax money and others money sources.

Not only of course, but the administratives public services - SPA - take their money from subvention and tax


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> You mean the State spends the citizens tax money on the health of it's citizens?


Yeah like that doesn't make sense...
I prefer it spends our money on our health than other things. At least we're not paying tax and having to also fully pay for our health care, like in the US.


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> Yeah like that doesn't make sense...
> I prefer it spends our money on our health than other things. At least we're not paying tax and having to also fully pay for our health care, like in the US.


 Would you be willing to admit that the US not only takes care of it's own citizens but by default is now also expected to take care of the poor citizens of the WHOLE world---isolationism is a lot cheaper huh?


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Would you be willing to admit that the US not only takes care of it's own citizens but by default is now also expected to take care of the poor citizens of the WHOLE world---isolationism is a lot cheaper huh?



Did you read what I wrote:

The official US poverty rate in 2002 was 12.1 percent, up from 11.7 percent in 2001. In 2002, people below the official poverty thresholds numbered 34.6 million, a figure 1.7 million higher than the 32.9 million in poverty in 2001. This from the worlds biggest economy.
According to the latest statistics on poverty in the United States, released in 1996 by the U.S. Census Bureau, 14.3 million children in America are living in abject poverty that is the direct consequence of official U.S. social policies.
For example, overall spending on child well-being is about $230 billion a year in France (France's population = 59,329,691 ), compared with only $146 billion in the United States (US population = 295,203,947). 
In fact, most Western European nations spend two or even three times as much as the U.S. on families with children, which explains why so many more American than European children live in poverty.But after receiving tax breaks and all the social benefits, only 5.7 percent of French children and 7.3 percent of British children are still considered poor, while nearly 21 percent of U.S. children still suffer in severe poverty.


So as far as I know the US government is not taking care enough of  it's own people...don't accuse our government of doing too much...


----------



## Said1

j07950 said:
			
		

> Your article in interesting while a bit old, but it's true that the state is overspending, just like the US is overspending on it's military and other things.



I know it's old, but it does outline some reforms, and I was hoping someone could clarify the fact that France has recently been penalized for overspending or not. The US has not made agreements with other nation states with regard to  military or any other type of spending, that's beside the point.



> Your state is in deficit...  France hasn't met the EU deficit limite which is bas since all the countires signed to limit it. Hopefully this will be corected but I prefer our state being in deficit and receiving good health care and all the other benefits than people getting awful health cares and seeing poverty rise.



You would prefer to see a state deficit from public spending???? Are you for real??


----------



## j07950

Said1 said:
			
		

> I know it's old, but it does outline some reforms, and I was hoping someone could clarify the fact that France has recently been penalized for overspending or not. The US has not made agreements with other nation states with regard to  military or any other type of spending, that's beside the point.
> 
> 
> 
> You would prefer to see a state deficit from public spending???? Are you for real??



Of course I'd prefer to see a state deficit from public spending...that way I know the government is doing as much as it can for it's own people. There are things to do to cut that deficit, and that's being done and hopefully will cut the state deficit but at least our state can't be accused of not doing it's best for us.


----------



## padisha emperor

> You would prefer to see a state deficit from public spending???? Are you for real??



i think he meant he would prefer a State who spend money for the good of it citizen, like in the healthcare, intsead of a State who spend into military, or not in the healthcare system, and then who have a bad healthcare, and  great poverty.


----------



## Said1

j07950 said:
			
		

> Yeah like that doesn't make sense...
> I prefer it spends our money on our health than other things. At least we're not paying tax and having to also fully pay for our health care, like in the US.



You would prefer people going to the hospital for the removal of a splinter, over decent city planning and emergency preparedness in order to help prevent thousands of seniors from dying of heat stroke??


----------



## j07950

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> i think he meant he would prefer a State who spend money for the good of it citizen, like in the healthcare, intsead of a State who spend into military, or not in the healthcare system, and then who have a bad healthcare, and  great poverty.


Exactly...


----------



## j07950

Said1 said:
			
		

> You would prefer people going to the hospital for the removal of a splinter, over decent city planning and emergency preparedness in order to help prevent thousands of seniors from dying of heat stroke??


Thats a bad example. Nothing like this had ever happened in France before...no one was prepared for the heat wave and things got out of control and the state took too long to notice what was happening since most senior citizens died alone in their own home without people even knowing for days...
Governments learn from disasters and mistakes, ours has from this one...and imagine if our government didn't spend so much for our health, things might have been even worse.


----------



## padisha emperor

Yes.
the strong heat help to involve the healthcare system.

After that, lot of things were did by the government, to stop a such thing again.


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> Your article in interesting while a bit old, but it's true that the state is overspending, just like the US is overspending on it's military and other things. Your state is in deficit...  France hasn't met the EU deficit limite which is bas since all the countires signed to limit it. Hopefully this will be corected but I prefer our state being in deficit and receiving good health care and all the other benefits than people getting awful health cares and seeing poverty rise.




The problem is that in order to be a "couterbalance to the US" as Jaques Chirac calls it they need to be in the EU or they simply will not have the power necessary.  The EU has given them a deadline and they are likely to cut benefits to insure they meet their obligations.  Therefore your benefits will likely be cut in areas and be more like the UK where they pick and choose who receives them.  I would rather be able to get care regardless, much like in the US.  Nobody can be turned away from the hospital and care is at a high level.


----------



## Said1

j07950 said:
			
		

> Thats a bad example. Nothing like this had ever happened in France before...no one was prepared for the heat wave and things got out of control and the state took too long to notice what was happening since most senior citizens died alone in their own home without people even knowing for days...



That's not a bad example. Doesn't France have programs that are designed to help seniors needing limited assistance with things like bathing, getting groceries etc. Worthy social programs for the elderly  help in preventing horrible things like that from happening in emergencies. During the ice storm in Canada, the military and local police forces had to drag the elderly out of their homes and into shelters, but they did it, and very few died.



> Governments learn from disasters and mistakes, ours has from this one...and imagine if our government didn't spend so much for our health, things might have been even worse.



How much worse could it get? The old people stopped dying when the weather returned to normal.


----------



## Said1

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Yes.
> the strong heat help to involve the healthcare system.
> 
> After that, lot of things were did by the government, to stop a such thing again.



Such as?


----------



## j07950

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> The problem is that in order to be a "couterbalance to the US" as Jaques Chirac calls it they need to be in the EU or they simply will not have the power necessary.  The EU has given them a deadline and they are likely to cut benefits to insure they meet their obligations.  Therefore your benefits will likely be cut in areas and be more like the UK where they pick and choose who receives them.  I would rather be able to get care regardless, much like in the US.  Nobody can be turned away from the hospital and care is at a high level.


I'm not talking about the quality of the care provided in the US, it probably is of excellent quality to those who can afford it and of lesser quality to those who can't. IN France it's always been a tradition to get good health care for everyone. What you are saying is true, the state is going to have to do cutbacks in order to meet the deficit level authorized but will do reforms and has, in the health care system which isn't really popular here but is still way above average and better than in the UK by far, I live there so I'm aware of it. The government is likely to make cutbacks elsewhere as well in order to not take away too much of the benefits from the French health care system. If people start dying because they don't get health treatments whose going to be paying th taxes...lol
A bit of sarcasm, hope you get my point though...
PS: don't make this another France angainst US power talk, that's been discussed a lot recently...


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about the quality of the care provided in the US, it probably is of excellent quality to those who can afford it and of lesser quality to those who can't.


 A bit of a stretch here...as the facilities and doctors are the same...we dont have different doctors or hospitals for "poor folk". That is not to say that some doctors and hospitals are not better than others, though. If it is a lousy hospital or doctor, everyone gets lousy care and vice versa.


----------



## j07950

Patrice Dallem, French Red Cross, Response to heat waves in France.
Fragile or sick senior citizens were the main victims of the heat wave in August 2003.
Procedures and warning systems (four levels of alert) are now in place, that were painfully
lacking in 2003, resulting even in a political scandal. When the heat wave occurred, the
French Red Cross was actually ahead of the governmental institutions in dealing with the
consequences. Gave active assistant to hospitals, senior citizens institutions and made home
visits, and provided young volunteers, many who found deceased people in their home, with
psychological support.
The FRC is now, more than last year, involved in the government plans which goes into alert
level 1 by 1 June-30 October, and then on different alert levels as the occasion rises), and in
addition has its own heat wave action plan. The plan specifies the support given to public
authorities and the assistance given to vulnerable people (senior citizens as well as homeless
people), inside and outside Red Cross Centres. The French Red Cross supports their call
centre staff with psychological training, reinforces hospital units, and distributes water, gives
recommendation to old people to register with authorities so that they are eligible for help,
mobilized units to assist the homeless, set up air conditioned rooms for the homeless within
their communities, reinforces staff in retirement homes, and pays home visits.


----------



## Said1

j07950 said:
			
		

> Patrice Dallem, French Red Cross, Response to heat waves in France.
> Fragile or sick senior citizens were the main victims of the heat wave in August 2003.
> Procedures and warning systems (four levels of alert) are now in place, that were painfully
> lacking in 2003, resulting even in a political scandal. When the heat wave occurred, the
> French Red Cross was actually ahead of the governmental institutions in dealing with the
> consequences. Gave active assistant to hospitals, senior citizens institutions and made home
> visits, and provided young volunteers, many who found deceased people in their home, with
> psychological support.
> The FRC is now, more than last year, involved in the government plans which goes into alert
> level 1 by 1 June-30 October, and then on different alert levels as the occasion rises), and in
> addition has its own heat wave action plan. The plan specifies the support given to public
> authorities and the assistance given to vulnerable people (senior citizens as well as homeless
> people), inside and outside Red Cross Centres. The French Red Cross supports their call
> centre staff with psychological training, reinforces hospital units, and distributes water, gives
> recommendation to old people to register with authorities so that they are eligible for help,
> mobilized units to assist the homeless, set up air conditioned rooms for the homeless within
> their communities, reinforces staff in retirement homes, and pays home visits.




No offense, but most of the above are fairly basic services that should have been in place long before the heat wave considering the amount of money France does spend on social services.


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about the quality of the care provided in the US, it probably is of excellent quality to those who can afford it and of lesser quality to those who can't. IN France it's always been a tradition to get good health care for everyone. What you are saying is true, the state is going to have to do cutbacks in order to meet the deficit level authorized but will do reforms and has, in the health care system which isn't really popular here but is still way above average and better than in the UK by far, I live there so I'm aware of it. The government is likely to make cutbacks elsewhere as well in order to not take away too much of the benefits from the French health care system. If people start dying because they don't get health treatments whose going to be paying th taxes...lol
> A bit of sarcasm, hope you get my point though...
> PS: don't make this another France angainst US power talk, that's been discussed a lot recently...




You clearly didn't read my whole post.  Nobody can legally be turned away from a hospital or clinic regardless of their indigent status it is against the law.  

Therefore they receive a very high level of care and we pay for it at the State level.  While we could beef up that program a bit, admittedly, they are not at a subsistence level of care or even a poor level of healthcare because they are poor.  The studies never seem to actually inform people of how healthcare works here they simply put forward an opinion about it and it is usually an incorrect one.


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> A bit of a stretch here...as the facilities and doctors are the same...we dont have different doctors or hospitals for "poor folk". That is not to say that some doctors and hospitals are not better than others, though. If it is a lousy hospital or doctor, everyone gets lousy care and vice versa.



Get what you are saying...It's true but 42.6 million people in the US without health insurance is a lot...What is it...like 1/6 of population? Thats a lot of people who can get sick and not get treatments because they don't have health insurance and no money.
http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S. HCweb.pdf


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> Get what you are saying...It's true but 42.6 million people in the US without health insurance is a lot...What is it...like 1/6 of population? Thats a lot of people who can get sick and not get treatments because they don't have health insurance and no money.
> http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S. HCweb.pdf




And for the third and final time, they get healthcare and treatment.  It would be illegal for any hospital or care facility to turn them away because of an indigent status.  (BTW - not all of them are indigent and many are the truly wealthy who self-insure themselves).  If they are indigent they get all the same care I would get and it is paid for by the states.


----------



## j07950

Said1 said:
			
		

> No offense, but most of the above are fairly basic services that should have been in place long before the heat wave considering the amount of money France does spend on social services.


But like I said nothing like this had ever happened before and could not have been thought of happening. You guys in the US are used to harsh summers...It like rarely goes as high as 100°F in France...it's very rare especially in Paris.


----------



## j07950

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> And for the third and final time, they get healthcare and treatment.  It would be illegal for any hospital or care facility to turn them away because of an indigent status.  (BTW - not all of them are indigent and many are the truly wealthy who self-insure themselves).  If they are indigent they get all the same care I would get and it is paid for by the states.


And how many years do they spend paying it back???


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> And how many years do they spend paying it back???


forever  (we also pay for healthcare for millions of illegals)


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> And how many years do they spend paying it back???



The States not the Federal Government.  Most are required by their Constitutions to balance their budgets so the answer would be zero.


----------



## no1tovote4

This whole no insurance issue is one cobbled together by the Democrats in order for them to take more power from the states and federalize it.  For some reason there is never a program until it is a Federal program that they can overtax and inefficiently run with a big bureaucracy.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> Get what you are saying...It's true but 42.6 million people in the US without health insurance is a lot...What is it...like 1/6 of population? Thats a lot of people who can get sick and not get treatments because they don't have health insurance and no money.
> http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S. HCweb.pdf


 Please, please, please read this carefully.... you have ignored it though it has already been stated several times.....a hospital cannot turn away an individual simply because they have no insurance or no money...

If you continue to ignore what is being said about this I will once again become convinced that you are deliberately ignoring the facts so you can bash the US...


----------



## Said1

j07950 said:
			
		

> But like I said nothing like this had ever happened before and could not have been thought of happening. You guys in the US are used to harsh summers...It like rarely goes as high as 100°F in France...it's very rare especially in Paris.



I'm not American, I think I've pointed that out to you before, I'm Canadian.


Also, nothing like the ice storm in Jan 1998 has happened previously (that I can think of off the top of my head) in Ontario or Quebec . Some people were without heat and hydro for 3-4 weeks during in some pretty harsh temperatures. Very few died, and considering the extensive damage, (power lines ect) that's pretty good.


----------



## Said1

CSM said:
			
		

> Please, please, please read this carefully.... you have ignored it though it has already been stated several times.....a hospital cannot turn away an individual simply because they have no insurance or no money...
> 
> If you continue to ignore what is being said about this I will once again become convinced that you are deliberately ignoring the facts so you can bash the US...



The article clearly states spending PER CAPITA in the second or third paragraph. In case you didn't know J, that means per person.


----------



## no1tovote4

Said1 said:
			
		

> I'm not American, I think I've pointed that out to you before, I'm Canadian.
> 
> 
> Also, nothing like the ice storm in Jan 1998 has happened previously (that I can think of off the top of my head) in Ontario or Quebec . Some people were without heat and hydro for 3-4 weeks during in some pretty harsh temperatures. Very few died, and considering the extensive damage, (power lines ect) that's pretty good.




You guys did a great job with that one.  We sometimes have to move people into shelters from the cold, but not at the level you did then.


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> forever  (we also pay for healthcare for millions of illegals)


Thats my point. I quiet like the idea of everyone getting health care in France and not having to pay back for the treatments forever like in the US. We pay amounts in tax each month and this pays for most of our care. And most people also have what is called here "Mutuel", don't know how it's called in the US, which pays for the remaining of the cost if there is one. This mutuel is a fee payed every month and does not increase even if you have an operation that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. 
I was never trying to say your health care wasn't of good quality, only that people who can't afford the costs sometimes don't go get treated because they know they can't pay it back...
So to end this I'm happy our government spends so much on health care... for it's people..instead of other things...


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> Thats my point. I quiet like the idea of everyone getting health care in France and not having to pay back for the treatments forever like in the US. We pay amounts in tax each month and this pays for most of our care. And most people also have what is called here "Mutuel", don't know how it's called in the US, which pays for the remaining of the cost if there is one. This mutuel is a fee payed every month and does not increase even if you have an operation that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.
> I was never trying to say your health care wasn't of good quality, only that people who can't afford the costs sometimes don't go get treated because they know they can't pay it back...
> So to end this I'm happy our government spends so much on health care... for it's people..instead of other things...




And you didn't read my answer.  Most states require their government to have a balanced budget, they therefore spend no time "paying it back" as deficit spending is not allowed.  Since this is paid for at the State and not the Federal level the answer is none.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> Thats my point. I quiet like the idea of everyone getting health care in France and not having to pay back for the treatments forever like in the US. We pay amounts in tax each month and this pays for most of our care. And most people also have what is called here "Mutuel", don't know how it's called in the US, which pays for the remaining of the cost if there is one. This mutuel is a fee payed every month and does not increase even if you have an operation that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.
> I was never trying to say your health care wasn't of good quality, only that people who can't afford the costs sometimes don't go get treated because they know they can't pay it back...
> So to end this I'm happy our government spends so much on health care... for it's people..instead of other things...


 If your health care is free...why do you need a Mutual? I do not understand.


----------



## padisha emperor

Noody is bashing the US here......


But the US health care system is realy not perfect for the poors.

they have to pay, and some have not the money to pay the medical intervention.

the main difference with France is that in France, the State pay for a large part the medical cares.
The medics are payed by the social security system,then you can be really poor and have the same cares than a rich, the same medic.
The social security pay.
of course, there is a big hole in it budget, but it is the price to pay to have a population who can get the best for the health care.


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> Please, please, please read this carefully.... you have ignored it though it has already been stated several times.....a hospital cannot turn away an individual simply because they have no insurance or no money...
> 
> If you continue to ignore what is being said about this I will once again become convinced that you are deliberately ignoring the facts so you can bash the US...


I got that...but people spend years paying back for the costs...thats a set back and people often don't choose to get treated...


----------



## padisha emperor

sorry...I miss one page


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> I got that...but people spend years paying back for the costs...thats a set back and people often don't choose to get treated...


If people are foolish enough to not get treatment --c'est la vie

they can pay it back $1 a month if they like---illegals don't pay back anything!


----------



## Said1

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> You guys did a great job with that one.  We sometimes have to move people into shelters from the cold, but not at the level you did then.



I was expecting my daughter around the same time the freezing rain started.  On top of being extremely pregnant, we had people staying with us, older people we were keeping an eye on - very pretty scary. I wish I had a scanner, I would post some of the pictures we took of fallen trees, hydro wires and telephone poles (not to mention soliders  )


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> I got that...but people spend years paying back for the costs...thats a set back and people often don't choose to get treated...


 Once again, you are only seeing what you want to....the uninsured and poor pay nothing...get it...NOTHING!  No1 has been laying it out for you and you refuse to see it or are deliberately ignoring it...


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> If your health care is free...why do you need a Mutual? I do not understand.


Because not all costs are payed by the state health care system, you should have come across that if you documented yourself. It mays for most stuff but there is often a difference between cost and what it pays back, which is where the "mutuel" comes in...mutuels don't cost a whole lot anyway. And through cut backs like you were stating before the state reimbourses less than it use to, which is why the mutuel is useful. Most people can afford it and if they cant then there are other solutions...


----------



## no1tovote4

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Noody is bashing the US here......
> 
> 
> But the US health care system is realy not perfect for the poors.
> 
> they have to pay, and some have not the money to pay the medical intervention.
> 
> the main difference with France is that in France, the State pay for a large part the medical cares.
> The medics are payed by the social security system,then you can be really poor and have the same cares than a rich, the same medic.
> The social security pay.
> of course, there is a big hole in it budget, but it is the price to pay to have a population who can get the best for the health care.




Please read this carefully.

They (the poor) do not have to pay for their healthcare.  If they are truly poor the State that they are in pays for their healthcare.  (Not the Federal Government the State).  Social Security is payroll tax and not income tax and is already in a shambles, we should not take a system that is working take it away and create a huge Federal Bureaucracy just to make the French and Democrats happy.

Admittedly it can be improved, but so can almost every government run program in every country, but that doesn't mean we should break what is working because people that have incomplete information regard our system as poor.


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> Because not all costs are payed by the state health care system, you should have come across that if you documented yourself. It mays for most stuff but there is often a difference between cost and what it pays back, which is where the "mutuel" comes in...mutuels don't cost a whole lot anyway. And through cut backs like you were stating before the state reimbourses less than it use to, which is why the mutuel is useful. Most people can afford it and if they cant then there are other solutions...


so you pay taxes AND pay for your health care !


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> Because not all costs are payed by the state health care system, you should have come across that if you documented yourself. It mays for most stuff but there is often a difference between cost and what it pays back, which is where the "mutuel" comes in...mutuels don't cost a whole lot anyway. And through cut backs like you were stating before the state reimbourses less than it use to, which is why the mutuel is useful. Most people can afford it and if they cant then there are other solutions...


 You lost me...what do you mean if I "documented" myself?  I asked a simple question and you take a cheap jab at me?

How do your poor and unisnured pay for the Mutual? It sounds to me like the French government is in essence paying the basic medical insurance for their citizens and any differences in actual cost and what the government pays is borne by the citizen...


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> I got that...but people spend years paying back for the costs...thats a set back and people often don't choose to get treated...




Once again if they are indigent they pay none of it back the state pays for it (State not Federal Government).  You are clearly not informed how healthcare works here, being misinformed I have been trying to inform you but you seem to be ignoring the answer for your preconceived notion.

Many studies have been put out about the level of "insured" without informing people that those who are uninsured can get care and don't have to pay for it.  The states are required to pay for it.  Since the states on a large part have Constitutions that require balanced budgets they do not spend years paying for it, they pay for it right away.

Some people do pay for their own healthcare, most of those are the truly rich but some would pay for their own and have to make payments they were not indigent to begin with.  However they are still not denied care and they are not put into the poor house in order to make these payments either.

The system here is not as broken as you have been led to believe.


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> so you pay taxes AND pay for your health care !


No we pay taxes for our health care, and whatever little isn't covered we have Mutuels for that.


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> No we pay taxes for our health care, and whatever little isn't covered we have Mutuels for that.




Copayments.  It sounds like a bad HMO on steroids.


----------



## Said1

j07950 said:
			
		

> No we pay taxes for our health care, and whatever little isn't covered we have Mutuels for that.




 :bangheads Meaning you pay taxes for health care and pay for it!!!!!!


----------



## dilloduck

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> Copayments.  It sounds like a bad HMO on steroids.


 :rotflmao:  :rotflmao:  :rotflmao:  made me spew coffee on that one  !!!!


----------



## j07950

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> Once again if they are indigent they pay none of it back the state pays for it (State not Federal Government).  You are clearly not informed how healthcare works here, being misinformed I have been trying to inform you but you seem to be ignoring the answer for your preconceived notion.
> 
> Many studies have been put out about the level of "insured" without informing people that those who are uninsured can get care and don't have to pay for it.  The states are required to pay for it.  Since the states on a large part have Constitutions that require balanced budgets they do not spend years paying for it, they pay for it right away.
> 
> Some people do pay for their own healthcare, most of those are the truly rich but some would pay for their own and have to make payments they were not indigent to begin with.  However they are still not denied care and they are not put into the poor house in order to make these payments either.
> 
> The system here is not as broken as you have been led to believe.


I've been doing some research and what you are saying seems true... But if I remember correctly this wasn't the case when I still lived in the US in 1998. Is all this recent??? 
Also there are limits to this free health care for all:
http://californiaconnected.org/salons/
Prof. Tom Rice, UCLA 
re: The impact for workers
There are several important consequences of our health insurance problems: 
1. 43 million people are uninsured and most do not receive the same quantity or quality of care as those who are insured. 

2. The cost of private health insurance is making it increasingly difficult for workers to afford coverage. We are seeing fewer employers offer coverage and fewer workers being able to purchase coverage that is subsidized by their employers. Furthermore, to keep premium increases even at the 15% annual level, patient cost sharing requirements are rising quickly, making care even less affordable. 

3. The impact on the competitiveness of U.S. firms is probably overstated, however. It may be true that it costs Ford $1,000 per car to provide health insurance. Most if not all of these costs, however, are borne by workers through lower salaries. The bigger problem is for firms that employ large numbers of minimum wage workers. They can't lower wages if health insurance costs increase, so they are unable to afford to hire as many low-income workers. Of course, many of these firms don't offer health insurance coverage in the first place. 

Not trying to bash, obviously the US health care service is a lot better than it used to be...But don't accuse the French government of overspending on it's people...thats not fair....this was the actual discussion, don't know how it evolved into the US's health care system.


----------



## padisha emperor

no1, I said i miss one page..i didn't see you already answer, don't be nervous...


Said1 and the others, no, we don't pay twice.

the french State pay about 70% of the health care, of any kind.
The mutuals are taken by people, if they want- sometimes they have to take one, like in the big companies, like Air France - and the mutual pay the 30%  who are not paid by the State.
the French healthcare system is really excellent, and it is not far to be free.


----------



## j07950

Said1 said:
			
		

> :bangheads Meaning you pay taxes for health care and pay for it!!!!!!


You can laugh all you want but even as you say we pay taxes for health care and pay for it...its way way way less than what you pay...Don't know whats wrong with that...


----------



## HorhayAtAMD

My question about the American health care system is that if no one can be turned away from hospital, why pay for health insurance? Can you get a checkup of any sort? If you walk into emergency with a suspected broken thumb (or some other ailment that will fix itself eventually), will anyone do anything for you? I have to admit that I get a bit confused about why people pay for health insurance in the US if they can get all the care they need without it? Basically, what does health insurance give you that would cost you a fortune if you didn't have it?


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> You can laugh all you want but even as you say we pay taxes for health care and pay for it...it way way way less than what you pay...Don't know whats wrong with that...


 
If you like it--keep it-------just don't trash the US health care systems with lies. Learn something about it before you criticize it


----------



## Said1

j07950 said:
			
		

> You can laugh all you want but even as you say we pay taxes for health care and pay for it...its way way way less than what you pay...Don't know whats wrong with that...



I don't think the little smilies were laughing. 

And for the third time, I'm CANADIAN, like from Canada eh. I pay nothing when I go to the hospital, we have socialized heath care here too. If our provincial government doesn't pay for certain services, I have the option of paying cash, or using private insurance if I have it (which I do).


----------



## j07950

Still not overly impressed with everything I've been reading...
Check this out: http://www.matthewholt.net/2003/10/industry-price-discrimination-lives.html

Yeah I see what you mean...HorhayAtAMD...don't know what the answer is, there are probably things that prevent people who can afford health care of not maying for it...interesting question.


----------



## dilloduck

HorhayAtAMD said:
			
		

> My question about the American health care system is that if no one can be turned away from hospital, why pay for health insurance? Can you get a checkup of any sort? If you walk into emergency with a suspected broken thumb (or some other ailment that will fix itself eventually), will anyone do anything for you? I have to admit that I get a bit confused about why people pay for health insurance in the US if they can get all the care they need without it? Basically, what does health insurance give you that would cost you a fortune if you didn't have it?




More choices


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> I've been doing some research and what you are saying seems true... But if I remember correctly this wasn't the case when I still lived in the US in 1998. Is all this recent???
> Also there are limits to this free health care for all:
> http://californiaconnected.org/salons/
> Prof. Tom Rice, UCLA
> re: The impact for workers
> There are several important consequences of our health insurance problems:
> 1. 43 million people are uninsured and most do not receive the same quantity or quality of care as those who are insured.
> 
> 2. The cost of private health insurance is making it increasingly difficult for workers to afford coverage. We are seeing fewer employers offer coverage and fewer workers being able to purchase coverage that is subsidized by their employers. Furthermore, to keep premium increases even at the 15% annual level, patient cost sharing requirements are rising quickly, making care even less affordable.
> 
> 3. The impact on the competitiveness of U.S. firms is probably overstated, however. It may be true that it costs Ford $1,000 per car to provide health insurance. Most if not all of these costs, however, are borne by workers through lower salaries. The bigger problem is for firms that employ large numbers of minimum wage workers. They can't lower wages if health insurance costs increase, so they are unable to afford to hire as many low-income workers. Of course, many of these firms don't offer health insurance coverage in the first place.
> 
> Not trying to bash, obviously the US health care service is a lot better than it used to be...But don't accuse the French government of overspending on it's people...thats not fair....this was the actual discussion, don't know how it evolved into the US's health care system.



As I said, it can be improved but it simply isn't as bad as everybody seems to think it is.  For some reason everybody believes that people that have no insurance simply go without here and it isn't the case.  While their level of care isn't subsistence it isn't the highest either.  A multimillionaire is going to be able to afford some better care than I can, and I better care than the indigent.  I can pay for a private room, they cannot, etc.


----------



## freeandfun1

j07950 said:
			
		

> You can laugh all you want but even as you say we pay taxes for health care and pay for it...its way way way less than what you pay...Don't know whats wrong with that...



actually, I wonder if you really pay less.  You pay for your coverage in high taxes, we pay for our coverage in insurance premiums.  If they are both compared, I really wonder which one is more expensive based on what you get....

Just because YOU might not be paying the taxes, that doesn't mean that nobody is.....  Somebody is paying for your healthcare so in the long run, it probably isn't any cheaper....


----------



## dilloduck

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> As I said, it can be improved but it simply isn't as bad as everybody seems to think it is.  For some reason everybody believes that people that have no insurance simply go without here and it isn't the case.  While their level of care isn't subsistence it isn't the highest either.  A multimillionaire is going to be able to afford some better care than I can, and I better care than the indigent.  I can pay for a private room, they cannot, etc.



The US happens to think that being responsible for oneself as much as possible is good for the people and good for the government. It's just that simple.


----------



## no1tovote4

HorhayAtAMD said:
			
		

> My question about the American health care system is that if no one can be turned away from hospital, why pay for health insurance? Can you get a checkup of any sort? If you walk into emergency with a suspected broken thumb (or some other ailment that will fix itself eventually), will anyone do anything for you? I have to admit that I get a bit confused about why people pay for health insurance in the US if they can get all the care they need without it? Basically, what does health insurance give you that would cost you a fortune if you didn't have it?




If you can afford insurance they (the states) will not pay for your services, you have to.  Therefore if you can afford insurance you either have to get insurance or pay for your own healthcare.


----------



## j07950

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> As I said, it can be improved but it simply isn't as bad as everybody seems to think it is.  For some reason everybody believes that people that have no insurance simply go without here and it isn't the case.  While their level of care isn't subsistence it isn't the highest either.  A multimillionaire is going to be able to afford some better care than I can, and I better care than the indigent.  I can pay for a private room, they cannot, etc.


I agree with that...Like I said I've just done some reading and agree with what you are saying. I understand that now...
"A multimillionaire is going to be able to afford some better care than I can, and I better care than the indigent." See thats not true in France. People get the same treatments. And the cost is cheaper, even if you pay for mutuels...
Here is how it works...just found that in english for you guys..:
France
France is has a population similar to Britain's; 59,330,000 in this case. This is comparable to the Western region of the US, which the Census Bureau measures at 63,197,932. France has an infant mortality rate of 4.51 deaths/1,000 live births, better than Britain and considerably better than the US. France's life expectancy at birth is 74.85 years for men and 82.89 years for women; better by half a year for men and by three years for women. 
The per capita GDP of France is toward the high end for European countries at $23,300, and 9.4% of it is spent on health care. This gives a relatively high $2190 per capita, or just slightly more than half of US expenses. 
The country has had a national health insurance system since 1928, but universal coverage did not occur until 1978. The French health care system is primarily funded by Sickness Insurance Funds (SIF's), which are autonomous, not-for-profit, government-regulated bodies with national headquarters and regional networks. They are financed by compulsory payroll contributions (13% of wage), of employers (70% of contributions) and employees (30% of contributions). SIF's cover 99% of the population and account for 75% of health expenditures. The 3 main SIF's (CNAMTS, MSA, and CANAM) cover about 95% of the population, and the remaining 5% of the insured population are covered under 11 smaller schemes. The remainder of health expenditures is covered by the central government, by patients' out-of-pocket payments, and by Mutual Insurance Funds (MIF's), which provide supplemental and voluntary private insurance to cover cost-sharing arrangements and extra billings. MIF's cover 80% of the population and account for 6% of health expenditures. The major public authority in the French health system is the Ministry of Health. Below this are 21 regional health offices that regulate each of the 95 provinces. 
Patients are free to choose their providers and have no limits on the number of services covered. GP's have no formal gatekeeper function. Private physicians are paid on a fee-for-service basis and patients subsequently receive partial or full reimbursement from their health insurance funds. The average charge for an office visit to a GP and a specialist are $18 and $25, respectively. Private hospitals are profit-making and non-profit making, usually with fee-for-service physicians. Public hospitals employ salaried physicians, who make up 1/3 of all GP's in France. All medical and nursing education is free.


----------



## padisha emperor

freeandfun, be sure, the french health care system is quite free.
We pay taxes, but after, the mediacl acres are free.
the State pay 70%.
It comes from taxes, but not only.
It is why the social security is in deficit.
but the french citizens have one of the best - I even believe it is the best, with some scandinavian countries - healthcare system.

don't compaer the french and the US health care system. 
Our is really really cheaper.
And to refer to no1, even the poors have a private room.
not social inequalities.


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> I agree with that...Like I said I've just done some reading and agree with what you are saying. I understand that now...
> "A multimillionaire is going to be able to afford some better care than I can, and I better care than the indigent." See thats not true in France. People get the same treatments. And the cost is cheaper, even if you pay for mutuels...
> Here is how it works...just found that in english for you guys..:
> France
> France is has a population similar to Britain's; 59,330,000 in this case. This is comparable to the Western region of the US, which the Census Bureau measures at 63,197,932. France has an infant mortality rate of 4.51 deaths/1,000 live births, better than Britain and considerably better than the US. France's life expectancy at birth is 74.85 years for men and 82.89 years for women; better by half a year for men and by three years for women.
> The per capita GDP of France is toward the high end for European countries at $23,300, and 9.4% of it is spent on health care. This gives a relatively high $2190 per capita, or just slightly more than half of US expenses.
> The country has had a national health insurance system since 1928, but universal coverage did not occur until 1978. The French health care system is primarily funded by Sickness Insurance Funds (SIF's), which are autonomous, not-for-profit, government-regulated bodies with national headquarters and regional networks. They are financed by compulsory payroll contributions (13% of wage), of employers (70% of contributions) and employees (30% of contributions). SIF's cover 99% of the population and account for 75% of health expenditures. The 3 main SIF's (CNAMTS, MSA, and CANAM) cover about 95% of the population, and the remaining 5% of the insured population are covered under 11 smaller schemes. The remainder of health expenditures is covered by the central government, by patients' out-of-pocket payments, and by Mutual Insurance Funds (MIF's), which provide supplemental and voluntary private insurance to cover cost-sharing arrangements and extra billings. MIF's cover 80% of the population and account for 6% of health expenditures. The major public authority in the French health system is the Ministry of Health. Below this are 21 regional health offices that regulate each of the 95 provinces.
> Patients are free to choose their providers and have no limits on the number of services covered. GP's have no formal gatekeeper function. Private physicians are paid on a fee-for-service basis and patients subsequently receive partial or full reimbursement from their health insurance funds. The average charge for an office visit to a GP and a specialist are $18 and $25, respectively. Private hospitals are profit-making and non-profit making, usually with fee-for-service physicians. Public hospitals employ salaried physicians, who make up 1/3 of all GP's in France. All medical and nursing education is free.



Americans prefer to be more self reliant than French people I guess


----------



## padisha emperor

dillo, are you saying that the gratuitousness of the french health crae system is a bad thing because people are a little bit more dependant ?


your motto is : " they are dead, but they are dead as undependant people " ?


----------



## dilloduck

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> dillo, are you saying that the gratuitousness of the french health crae system is a bad thing because people are a little bit more dependant ?
> 
> 
> your motto is : " they are dead, but they are dead as undependant people " ?




no---scroll up and read what I said----that's exactly what I meant .


----------



## no1tovote4

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> freeandfun, be sure, the french health care system is quite free.
> We pay taxes, but after, the mediacl acres are free.
> the State pay 70%.
> It comes from taxes, but not only.
> It is why the social security is in deficit.
> but the french citizens have one of the best - I even believe it is the best, with some scandinavian countries - healthcare system.
> 
> don't compaer the french and the US health care system.
> Our is really really cheaper.
> And to refer to no1, even the poors have a private room.
> not social inequalities.




Americans tend to put a greater value on self-reliance and incentive based economics.  To simply say we are wrong because those who pay less get good care but share a room is just an attack on cultural values and not an argument against our healthcare system.

We incentivize getting people off of the government dole, and we do not cheer every time we make government reliance a standard.


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Americans prefer to be more self reliant than French people I guess


Thats really good but when it comes to health it's best to be able to count on your health fees being paid for, because if you are say just above the poor threshold and have to pay for your own insurance you might not be able to afford it.

Oh by the way here is an example of the cost of health here:
I'm a student, since I don't work I don't pay taxes for health care so I pay a student insurance, which costs me like 200 dollars for the whole year, and the rest is covered by my dads Mutuel. So whoever much I spend on health care, my 200 dollars/year insurance pays for it and the rest my dads mutuel pays for it. 
My dad pays a mutuel which is like 200 dollars/month but covers the whole family. My mom doesn't work but is still covered by the national health care insurance and the rest by my dads mutuel... Not too bad I believe.
Oh and Mutuels are according to how much you make in most cases...


----------



## padisha emperor

don't tell me that the US culture does that the US have a not really good healthcare system, please !

If people continue your thought, they will allow that a man who have a fracture or a knife in the back wouldn't have cares because he cannot pay.....

For a country who say that he is so generous, wow !
not with it own citizens in need....


----------



## rtwngAvngr

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> don't tell me that the US culture does that the US have a not really good healthcare system, please !
> 
> If people continue your thought, they will allow that a man who have a fracture or a knife in the back wouldn't have cares because he cannot pay.....
> 
> For a country who say that he is so generous, wow !
> not with it own citizens in need....



Our healthcare system is the best in the world. ALL innovations come from our healthcare system.  Any person walking into an ER with a knife in his WILL be treated, by law he must be.

You're 100% wrong.


----------



## j07950

No padisha emperor, I don't think thats what he was saying. Just that Americans tend to want to be more dependant on that sort of things, but at the end of the day everyone gets treated. Even if the costs are huge for those who aren't poor enough to get free health care. And the private room thing doesn't matter, who cares about that...


----------



## no1tovote4

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> don't tell me that the US culture does that the US have a not really good healthcare system, please !
> 
> If people continue your thought, they will allow that a man who have a fracture or a knife in the back wouldn't have cares because he cannot pay.....
> 
> For a country who say that he is so generous, wow !
> not with it own citizens in need....




Wrong, if they continue my thought he would get care.  He would just spend time in a room with other people.  By incentivizing self-reliance and getting off of the government dole it is clearly a cultural value.  He gets good health care, just not the same level of choices that somebody with insurance would get.


----------



## Said1

j07950 said:
			
		

> All medical and nursing education is free.



It isn't free, students pay tuition fees, and there is a shortage of nurses.


----------



## j07950

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Our healthcare system is the best in the world. ALL innovations come from our healthcare system.  Any person walking into an ER with a knife in his WILL be treated, by law he must be.
> 
> You're 100% wrong.



"Our healthcare system is the best in the world". I think thats an overstatment, it is for those who are rich but not for everyone. The french system isn't even the best so I'm not here to contradict you. But we're used to your overstatments...by now...


----------



## padisha emperor

> No padisha emperor, I don't think thats what he was saying. Just that Americans tend to want to be more dependant on that sort of things, but at the end of the day everyone gets treated. Even if the costs are huge for those who aren't poor enough to get free health care. And the private room thing doesn't matter, who cares about that...



I agree with that.

i was exaggerating.


I'm not sure that the US health care system is the best of the world, really not.


----------



## j07950

Said1 said:
			
		

> It isn't free, students pay tuition fees, and there is a shortage of nurses.


Tuition fees include the health insurance and library use and other stuff...do you want to know how much tuition fees are??? 350 dollars for the year...lol Please!!!So what if there is a shortage of nurse? There is in most important sectors...where does this come into what we are talking about?


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> Tuition fees include the health insurance and library use and other stuff...do you want to know how much tuition fees are??? 350 dollars for the year...lol Please!!!So what if there is a shortage of nurse? There is in most important sectors...where does this come into what we are talking about?


 Because health care professionals would rather work elsewhere


----------



## CSM

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> I agree with that.
> 
> i was exaggerating.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that the US health care system is the best of the world, really not.


 Yeah yeah , we know, the French have the best everything...you have told us many times.


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Because health care professionals would rather work elsewhere


Thats true...they don't get paid as much as in other countries because we do not overcharge on health care...they still make good money though.


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> Yeah yeah , we know, the French have the best everything...you have told us many times.


I don't think we do...I think I've said that before...that wasn't even the topic to begin with...it kind of escalated that way...such a shame


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> No padisha emperor, I don't think thats what he was saying. Just that Americans tend to want to be more dependant on that sort of things, but at the end of the day everyone gets treated. Even if the costs are huge for those who aren't poor enough to get free health care. And the private room thing doesn't matter, who cares about that...




There you go.  The "costs are huge" part is something that could be worked on, but it is also part of the incentive built into our cultural values.  It provides a large incentive to excel.  There are risks but the advantage is obvious to us.  When everybody tells us that we are the richest country in the world, it is clear to us that our cultural values worked!


----------



## CSM

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> I agree with that.
> 
> i was exaggerating.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that the US health care system is the best of the world, really not.


 Tell you what, why dont you get the French government to come over to the US and provide some care for us poor unfortunate Americans?


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> No padisha emperor, I don't think thats what he was saying. Just that Americans tend to want to be more dependant on that sort of things, but at the end of the day everyone gets treated. Even if the costs are huge for those who aren't poor enough to get free health care. And the private room thing doesn't matter, who cares about that...




NO---INDEPENDENT of the govt-----do you teach your children that the state will take care of all their medical needs---what kind of message does that send ?----Don't be responsible--let the state or your Daddy take care of everything


----------



## Said1

j07950 said:
			
		

> Thats true...they don't get paid as much as in other countries because we do not overcharge on health care...they still make good money though.




Price caps. It makes a socialized system so undesireable to work within, health care professionals go elsewhere. Say hello to your future, it only goes downhill from here.


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> I don't think we do...I think I've said that before...that wasn't even the topic to begin with...it kind of escalated that way...such a shame




Not you.  padishah.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> I don't think we do...I think I've said that before...that wasn't even the topic to begin with...it kind of escalated that way...such a shame


 That was sarcasm for PE...not directed to you particularly. It seems that every time there is a discussion with PE involved, we end up hearing how inferior the US is to France.


----------



## padisha emperor

"WHO ranked the French health care system number one among the 191 member countries surveyed, stating that it provides the best overall health care. Judging took into consideration five criteria: overall level of health within a population; health inequalities within a population (how much economic status affects health); health system responsiveness (patient satisfaction); responsiveness within the population (how well people in various economic groups are served); and distribution of costs (who foots the bill).

One of the key takeaways is that wealth does not always ensure success. The U.S. health system, for example, spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country, but ranks only 37th out of 191. The United Kingdom, which spends just 6% of GDP on health services, ranks 18th. And several small countries  San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore  are rated close behind second-placed Italy.

Emphasising that big isnt always better, editor-in-chief of the report, Dr Philip Musgrove, said that it isnt just how much you invest in total, or where you put facilities geographically. Its the balance among inputs that counts  for example, you have to have the right number of nurses per doctor.

HOW HEALTHY REALLY

Has the French system struck that delicate balance? Health coverage for virtually the entire resident population is a main feature of this relatively complex system. In its recent Economic Survey of France, OECD reports that roughly 75% of total health spending is publicly funded, 10% is paid for by supplementary insurance (mostly mutual insurers), and the remaining portion is paid for directly by patients. Supplementary insurance has expanded greatly over the past decades to eliminate co-payments and now covers about 80% of the population.

To bridge the coverage gap even further, the state introduced universal health insurance in January 2000. The plan provides basic coverage to all legal residents, regardless of their employment status. In addition, it offers free supplementary coverage to people who earn less than FF 3,500 per month per person. The plan therefore provides health care to those that were previously deprived or badly insured, including persons in unstable employment situations, or foreigners waiting for official residency papers.

The performance of the system is also judged by the health of its population. France ranks high in terms of overall health and mortality figures. In 1997, female life expectancy at birth (82.3 years) was second only to Japan. Old-age disability is on a marked downward trend, particularly for men, in line with trends in the U.S. and Japan. The same is true for infant mortality, which is just above the very low levels in Scandinavian countries.

Clearly the French system is good, but it is also expensive. Health spending in France as a percentage of GDP far outstrips the average for OECD countries. Facing an ageing population with growing health care needs and pressure to bring spending under control, the French system has already begun exploring ways to reform itself. But there is risk in tampering with a system that people like. According to Health Economics, roughly 66% of the population reports being fairly satisfied with the system, compared with 40% in the United Kingdom and just 20% in Italy. The question is, if costs must be brought under control, can the aspects that make the French system so popular  quality of care, freedom of choice, and equality of access - be safeguarded?"


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> Tell you what, why dont you get the French government to come over to the US and provide some care for us poor unfortunate Americans?


Don't think you need to...Since 1998 when I was still in the US and the health care was quiet bad you've done really good so I think you're going in the right direction...it should get better and like no1tovote4 the costs is something that will hopefully get worked on...


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> Don't think you need to...Since 1998 when I was still in the US and the health care was quiet bad you've done really good so I think you're going in the right direction...it should get better and like no1tovote4 the costs is something that will hopefully get worked on...



If you depend on you govt for your health you will forget how to take care of yourselves. If the government goes broke, so does your health !


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> That was sarcasm for PE...not directed to you particularly. It seems that every time there is a discussion with PE involved, we end up hearing how inferior the US is to France.


Yeah I know...don't know if that is his aim...maybee he's just not expressing himself correctly...It's a hard thing to do in english to express yourself without chocking people or missinterpreting what your trying to say ...


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> Don't think you need to...Since 1998 when I was still in the US and the health care was quiet bad you've done really good so I think you're going in the right direction...it should get better and like no1tovote4 the costs is something that will hopefully get worked on...


 I guess what makes me so ...testy...is the fact that you guys make it sound like we have people keeling over in the streets. Our health costs are indeed high, but very few countries put as much effort into medical research as the US does, which goes a long way towards keeping costs down. Also, the European countries are far smaller than the US geographically and with samller populations. At first glance that would seem not to matter, but when you consider the cost of transporting supplies, building enough facilities, and accomodating the number of people, the geographic size and number of patients does matter.


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> Yeah I know...don't know if that is his aim...maybee he's just not expressing himself correctly...It's a hard thing to do in english to express yourself without chocking people or missinterpreting what your trying to say ...


 Maybe the French government should be helping him with that problem too!


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> If you depend on you govt for your health you will forget how to take care of yourselves. If the government goes broke, so does your health !


Our government is already broke...that doesn't mean we aren't taken care of...things are being done to reduce costs but without cutting the quality and access to health care...hopefully it will be fixed but health is one of  the most important thing to the government here.


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> Our government is already broke...that doesn't mean we aren't taken care of...things are being done to reduce costs but without cutting the quality and access to health care...hopefully it will be fixed but health is one of  the most important thing to the government here.



Use some of that money Chirac stole to supplement your income


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> I guess what makes me so ...testy...is the fact that you guys make it sound like we have people keeling over in the streets. Our health costs are indeed high, but very few countries put as much effort into medical research as the US does, which goes a long way towards keeping costs down. Also, the European countries are far smaller than the US geographically and with samller populations. At first glance that would seem not to matter, but when you consider the cost of transporting supplies, building enough facilities, and accomodating the number of people, the geographic size and number of patients does matter.


I totally agree with what you're saying, it obviously is more complex, but states have a lot of power so maybee this should be put into the hands of the states but with the same quality of care and coverage. But like I said I know i'ts improved a lot and this takes time, we can't expect this thing to be solved overnight


----------



## no1tovote4

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Use some of that money Chirac stole to supplement your income




Ouch.


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Use some of that money Chirac stole to supplement your income


Don't really understand what you're saying. But if we cut back health care and get more income then it's the same thing, we'll be paying more for our health care.


----------



## padisha emperor

CSM, be fair :
I don't believe that France is better than USA, who cares ?
but you're always bashing us and France, it can be very irritating, above all when your statements are wrong.

You spend the most part of your time when i'me here to bashing France.
(not only you, of course, and maybe you less than the others, to be fair)

My goal isd not to bashing USA, it would be stupid.
But i would like to make you understand some things about France. You believe wrong things about France, like I believe wrog things about USA. you try to make me involve, then i will be in the truth.
Same aim for me.






Dillo : I don't think that a good health care system give a relieved population...


----------



## j07950

Oh I see what you're getting at...not again...think we've talked about this enough and again France isn't the only one involved...talk about the other countries too...


----------



## no1tovote4

Wow, I think this is one of the better discussions we have had on the board!  I might nominate this thread as the Thread of the Month next month.


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> Don't really understand what you're saying. But if we cut back health care and get more income then it's the same thing, we'll be paying more for our health care.



Simple---your system is dependent of the health of the state-----MY health care is dependent on me !


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Simple---your system is dependent of the health of the state-----MY health care is dependent on me !


Like I said before the state of our state isn't great financially but this doesn't hurt our health care...


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Simple---your system is dependent of the health of the state-----MY health care is dependent on me !


So if you loose your job you're in deep shit right? It's a lot of responsibility...


----------



## CSM

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> Wow, I think this is one of the better discussions we have had on the board!  I might nominate this thread as the Thread of the Month next month.


 I agree...it has been good...as long as we stay away from which country is better, we seem to have some pretty good discussions.


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> I agree...it has been good...as long as we stay away from which country is better, we seem to have some pretty good discussions.


Think so too...


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> So if you loose your job you're in deep shit right? It's a lot of responsibility...


 Sure is but we try to teach our people to be up to the task----we have faith in their ability to do it ! Our liberals would like us to be dependent on the govt like you are .


----------



## CSM

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> CSM, be fair :
> I don't believe that France is better than USA, who cares ?
> but you're always bashing us and France, it can be very irritating, above all when your statements are wrong.
> 
> You spend the most part of your time when i'me here to bashing France.
> (not only you, of course, and maybe you less than the others, to be fair)
> 
> My goal isd not to bashing USA, it would be stupid.
> But i would like to make you understand some things about France. You believe wrong things about France, like I believe wrog things about USA. you try to make me involve, then i will be in the truth.
> Same aim for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dillo : I don't think that a good health care system give a relieved population...



 You are correct PE...I am sure I have some misconceptions about France and I know you have some misconceptions about the US. where we seem to really cross swords (so to speak) is when the debate degenerates into France (or the US) is better because....

I will try to avoid that in the future.


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> Don't really understand what you're saying. But if we cut back health care and get more income then it's the same thing, we'll be paying more for our health care.




The US still has a strong Libertarian (Libertarian not Liberal) streak that runs at the very heart of our society.  This inculcates itself in our societal norms all the way from how we apply for work to what kind of healthcare we get.  It, as I have said before, gives us incentive to excel and is a never-ending self-argument for higher thought and greater acheivements.  

While this is different in other cultures one cannot expect us to have the same type of government run healthcare as a core value when we have begun the trip on a different side of that mountain.


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Sure is but we try to teach our people to be up to the task----we have faith in their ability to do it ! Our liberals would like us to be dependent on the govt like ou are .


I see what you are saying but I prefer knowing I'll get health treatment even if I loose my job. Being dependent on health care isn't a bad thing I think, as long as you get treated no matter what financial state your government is in, such as in France. It's That much pressure off, especially knowing the world we live in is more and more complex and stressful. I preder not having to think about being able to afford health care.


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> I see what you are saying but I prefer knowing I'll get health treatment even if I loose my job. Being dependent on health care isn't a bad thing I think, as long as you get treated no matter what financial state your government is in, such as in France. It's That much pressure off, especially knowing the world we live in is more and more complex and stressful. I preder not having to think about affording health care.



Preferring not to think allows others to think for you .  Be careful!


----------



## padisha emperor

> where we seem to really cross swords (so to speak) is when the debate degenerates into France (or the US) is better because....
> 
> I will try to avoid that in the future.



it would be a good thing if we avoid together it 

because it is sur that a thread without kids' fights is far better


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Preferring not to think allows others to think for you .  Be careful!


Oh I know...but don't worry we tend to let the government know when we think something is wrong. We don't have so many trikes in France for nothing...


----------



## j07950

Got to go...See ya all


----------



## dilloduck

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> it would be a good thing if we avoid together it
> 
> because it is sur that a thread without kids' fights is far better


 
A lot of this antagonism started with what Americans perceived to be the French effort to interfere with our tactics to defend ourselves against terrorism and in general undermine our influence world wide for the benefit of France. Americans in general were shocked at this and got angry. I think we understand where you stand now and will be less prone to expect your help in the future. The less we expect from you the less we will care how you respond when we need help. Sorry we over estimated your concern.


----------



## freeandfun1

j07950 said:
			
		

> "A multimillionaire is going to be able to afford some better care than I can, and I better care than the indigent." See thats not true in France. People get the same treatments. And the cost is cheaper, even if you pay for mutuels...



Bullshit.  A multi-millionaire in France is most likely going to go to the USA to get the best treatment if he is really sick.  Is the average Joe in France going to be able to do the same?  No.


----------



## j07950

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> Bullshit.  A multi-millionaire in France is most likely going to go to the USA to get the best treatment if he is really sick.  Is the average Joe in France going to be able to do the same?  No.


Are you trying to pick a fight? Read far back...I wasn't the one that said this: "A multimillionaire is going to be able to afford some better care than I can, and I better care than the indigent." It's another one of you...
And again thats an opinion and a proof that you're trying again to say the US is the best...I thought we'd stopped making that sort of statement?


----------



## Said1

j07950 said:
			
		

> "A multimillionaire is going to be able to afford some better care than I can, and I better care than the indigent."



Free wasn't refering to no1's comments, he was replying to yours:



> See thats not true in France. People get the same treatments. And the cost is cheaper, even if you pay for mutuels...


----------



## Merlin1047

After reading through this whole thing I come away with a few general impressions.

1.  The specifics of any given situation aside, it is patently ridiculous to be lectured on our "responsibility" by citizens of a nation whose government is as corrupt and evil as the government of that vile scum Chirac.

The french have been content to allow Saddam to murder and torture hundreds of thousands, invade neighboring countries and commit ecologic terrorism.  They have never so much as offered a "Sacre bleu" in protest.  The french blissfully ignored the atrocities being perpetrated in Iraq for two truly disgusting reasons.  One, they were busy making money helping to defraud the oil for food program and selling arms to Saddam.  Two, their jealous and spiteful hatred of the US compelled them to oppose anything we are doing.

So until the french clean up their own government, they are in no position to be critical of any other nation, much less to start getting self-righteous and lecture the people of the United States on "resposibility".

2.  In regard to french social programs, our two french posters repeatedly make statements that the money to pay for health care and other programs are paid out by various state agencies.  Apparently the french government tends an orchard of money trees.  Here in the USA, the source of the money being so generously spent by the government is the pockets of the taxpayer.  Perhaps that's different in france.  Perhaps the french government has other sources of income such as the oil for food program.

3.  Both french posters are typical of the attitude of communists / socialists.  If you read through their posts, they hold the government responsible for taking care of their needs.  It never occurs to them that they have the responsibility for managing their own lives.  The government is their nanny and they cheerfully lie down with their heads in the government's lap.

Want to look at the future of America if the left comes to power?  Look no further than these two.

4.  I cannot believe that anyone in this country would believe that the Apollo moon program was faked.  I had heard that there were people like that out there, but I was never confronted with it first hand.  Do you people have ANY idea of the MASSIVE scale of such a fraud?  Tens of thousands of people would have to be in on the lie.  Just how long do you think that would work?  I can understand the french attitude - they view themselves as the real master race and they believe that if they could not do it, then no one can.  But for an American to take such an attitude is incomprehensible to me.

5.  As far as the basic subject of this thread - you can bet your aunt Gertie's last dollar that Chirac and his cronies are plotting some way to undermine our relief efforts.  That is apparently the french way as their economy crumbles and their nation sinks ever deeper into irrelevancy.  It seems to me that the only contribution of which the french are capable these days is to criticize the efforts of others.  France today is a country with a national Napoleonic complex.


----------



## NATO AIR

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> 5.  As far as the basic subject of this thread - you can bet your aunt Gertie's last dollar that Chirac and his cronies are plotting some way to undermine our relief efforts.  That is apparently the french way as their economy crumbles and their nation sinks ever deeper into irrelevancy.  It seems to me that the only contribution of which the french are capable these days is to criticize the efforts of others.  France today is a country with a national Napoleonic complex.



They're already trying to undermine us through the UN... trying to embarass and blackmail the US into bowing before the incompetent UN and letting it run the show. fuck that. with lives on the line and people in need, America will not let that happen.  maybe with clinton in charge the french backed UN could have pulled this, but not anymore.



> http://www.diplomadic.blogspot.com/
> The post below reports on the impending arrival of Ms. Margareeta Wahlstrom "United Nations Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator and the Secretary-General's Special Coordinator for Humanitarian Assistance in Tsunami-affected countries."
> 
> She has spoken! At a large meeting this afternoon, she and the local UN rep, Mr. Bo "Please Wear Blue" Asplund have announced the arrival of yet another "United Nations Joint Assessment Team." But this one is very, very ultra- special. According to the UNocrats, it's not "just another assessment team." Oh, no, banish that thought! You see, "This assessment team will coordinate all the other assessment teams." In addition, the UN will set up a "Civil-Military Coordination Office to coordinate [that word! that word!] all military assistance because the military do not have experience in disaster relief (!)"
> 
> Let the mockery begin . . . .


----------



## Merlin1047

NATO AIR said:
			
		

> They're already trying to undermine us through the UN... trying to embarass and blackmail the US into bowing before the incompetent UN and letting it run the show. fuck that. with lives on the line and people in need, America will not let that happen.  maybe with clinton in charge the french backed UN could have pulled this, but not anymore.



Amen.

But I think I've figured out one of the reasons the UN can't get anything done.  The UN has deteriorated into a pack of posturing children playing at governing the world - with OUR money.  Their pompous self-congratulatory attitude is puzzling given their abjectly ineffective efforts.

And another reason they never get anything done is more mundane.  They sent "Ms. Margareeta Wahlstrom "United Nations Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator and the Secretary-General's Special Coordinator for Humanitarian Assistance in Tsunami-affected countries".  Good God!!!!!  With a title like that she needs a twenty foot long desk just to hold the nameplate.


----------



## j07950

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> After reading through this whole thing I come away with a few general impressions.
> 
> 1.  The specifics of any given situation aside, it is patently ridiculous to be lectured on our "responsibility" by citizens of a nation whose government is as corrupt and evil as the government of that vile scum Chirac.
> 
> The french have been content to allow Saddam to murder and torture hundreds of thousands, invade neighboring countries and commit ecologic terrorism.  They have never so much as offered a "Sacre bleu" in protest.  The french blissfully ignored the atrocities being perpetrated in Iraq for two truly disgusting reasons.  One, they were busy making money helping to defraud the oil for food program and selling arms to Saddam.  Two, their jealous and spiteful hatred of the US compelled them to oppose anything we are doing.
> 
> So until the french clean up their own government, they are in no position to be critical of any other nation, much less to start getting self-righteous and lecture the people of the United States on "resposibility".
> 
> 2.  In regard to french social programs, our two french posters repeatedly make statements that the money to pay for health care and other programs are paid out by various state agencies.  Apparently the french government tends an orchard of money trees.  Here in the USA, the source of the money being so generously spent by the government is the pockets of the taxpayer.  Perhaps that's different in france.  Perhaps the french government has other sources of income such as the oil for food program.
> 
> 3.  Both french posters are typical of the attitude of communists / socialists.  If you read through their posts, they hold the government responsible for taking care of their needs.  It never occurs to them that they have the responsibility for managing their own lives.  The government is their nanny and they cheefully lie down with their heads in the government's lap.
> 
> Want to look at the future of America if the left comes to power?  Look no further than these two.
> 
> 4.  I cannot believe that anyone in this country would believe that the Apollo moon program was faked.  I had heard that there were people like that out there, but I was never confronted with it first hand.  Do you people have ANY idea of the MASSIVE scale of such a fraud?  Tens of thousands of people would have to be in on the lie.  Just how long do you think that would work?  I can understand the french attitude - they view themselves as the real master race and they believe that if they could not do it, then no one can.  But for an American to take such an attitude is incomprehensible to me.
> 
> 5.  As far as the basic subject of this thread - you can bet your aunt Gertie's last dollar that Chirac and his cronies are plotting some way to undermine our relief efforts.  That is apparently the french way as their economy crumbles and their nation sinks ever deeper into irrelevancy.  It seems to me that the only contribution of which the french are capable these days is to criticize the efforts of others.  France today is a country with a national Napoleonic complex.




See while we'd made some progress as we went along you just come back and bring out the same old stuff that has been talked about over and over. If France is so weak and all than why do you even bother writting about it, what use is it to people to know about it?
Stuff you acuse our government of doing can be said about your govenment (in different ways and different areas) as well, and a lot of other governments, stop concentrating on France and talk about other countries as well as, that will be interesting, unless you're only aware of France because all you're interested in doing is bashing it. It's easy to come after everything has been said and done and give your judgement...Give us a break.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

j07950 said:
			
		

> See while we'd made some progress as we went along you just come back and bring out the same old stuff that has been talked about over and over. If France is so weak and all than why do you even bother writting about it, what use is it to people to know about it?
> Stuff you acuse our government of doing can be said about your govenment (in different ways and different areas) as well, and a lot of other governments, stop concentrating on France and talk about other countries as well as, that will be interesting, unless you're only aware of France because all you're interested in doing is bashing it. It's easy to come after everything has been said and done and give your judgement...Give us a break.




France is the most dishonest about it.  They lie straight to our faces and talk shit behind our backs.  Let's just drop all this "ally" talk.  France is no ally.  Your nation better think long and hard about whether it wants to continue down this illogical anti american path.


----------



## Merlin1047

j07950 said:
			
		

> See while we'd made some progress as we went along you just come back and bring out the same old stuff that has been talked about over and over.



Because it's true.  I know you would love to ignore the actions of your government, but the fact remains that french corruption and callous profiteering were directly attributable to the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis.  I know you'd love to be able to forget about that little detail, but I'm going to rub your face in that every chance I get.



			
				j07950 said:
			
		

> If France is so weak and all than why do you even bother writting about it, what use is it to people to know about it?



Because you are pretenders.  You posture, pose and strut as if anything your government said or did actually mattered.  You point accusing fingers at the US every chance you get.  You spout about being a friend of the US when the fact is that your government is probably our worst enemy.



			
				j07950 said:
			
		

> Stuff you acuse our government of doing can be said about your govenment



That's a damn lie.  We have NEVER sold arms to an enemy of one of our allies while they were engaged in a conflict.  We have NEVER attempted to subvert the effort of an ally's military.  We have NEVER aided an ally's enemy with arms and money thereby placing the lives of their military in even greater danger.  France has done all of these things.  You deserve the status of leper among nations.



			
				j07950 said:
			
		

> stop concentrating on France and talk about other countries




Why?  I don't know of any other government more worthy of villification than your's.  Your whining will not change the facts that your government is run by dishonest and dishonorable men.



			
				j07950 said:
			
		

> It's easy to come after everything has been said and done and give your judgement...Give us a break.



:rotflmao:  :rotflmao:  :rotflmao:  :rotflmao:


----------



## Said1

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> Because it's true.  I know you would love to ignore the actions of your government, but the fact remains that french corruption and callous profiteering were directly attributable to the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis.  I know you'd love to be able to forget about that little detail, but I'm going to rub your face in that every chance I get.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are pretenders.  You posture, pose and strut as if anything your government said or did actually mattered.  You point accusing fingers at the US every chance you get.  You spout about being a friend of the US when the fact is that your government is probably our worst enemy.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a damn lie.  We have NEVER sold arms to an enemy of one of our allies while they were engaged in a conflict.  We have NEVER attempted to subvert the effort of an ally's military.  We have NEVER aided an ally's enemy with arms and money thereby placing the lives of their military in even greater danger.  France has done all of these things.  You deserve the status of leper among nations.
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  I don't know of any other government more worthy of villification than your's.  Your whining will not change the facts that your government is run by dishonest and dishonorable men.
> 
> 
> 
> :rotflmao:  :rotflmao:  :rotflmao:  :rotflmao:




Wow Merlin, talk about right in the kisser....POW ZOOM!!


----------



## j07950

Since  youre all interested in some of the wrong things France has done (got to agree with some of them) I think there are other interesting facts:

Id like you to explain to me how French corruption and callous profiteering were directly attributable to the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis??

So I guess political leaders involved in the Oil for food programme only were from France and Russia right:
Documents such as those unearthed by Britains Telegraph newspaper which show that a top Labour Party member of Parliament who bitterly opposed Tony Blairs part in the war was allegedly on Saddams payroll. The paper reports that George Galloway, an outspoken member of the governing Labor Party, received an annual cut from Iraq's exports under the oil-for-food program worth approximately $585,500.

The latest data provide the most authoritative account to date of Iraq's business dealings. Firms based in Russia, France, Switzerland, Britain and Turkey purchased about $32 billion of Iraqi crude through the U.N. oil-for-food deal, about half of all oil sold by Hussein's government under the U.N. program, according to the list. Four U.S. companies are listed as having purchased $482 million worth of Iraqi crude. The list includes direct sales to Texaco, which bought $28.3 million in oil, and Mobil Export Corp., which paid $152 million. Purchases by Chevron Products Co. and Phoenix came to $140.2 million and $162.25 million, respectively.

Here is an interesting article:  http://www.sundayherald.com/27572

Other interesting things:

Full List Of 24 U.S. Weapons Suppliers To Iraq:​"Of course we know the Iraqis have weapons of mass destruction. We have the receipts."
A = nuclear program, 
B = bioweapons program, 
C = chemical weapons program, 
R = rocket program, 
K = conventional weapons, military logistics,​ 
U.S. CORPORATIONS:
1 Honeywell (R, K) 
2 Spectra Physics (K) 
3 Semetex (R) 
4 TI Coating (A, K) 
5 Unisys (A, K) 
6 Sperry Corp. (R, K) 
7 Tektronix (R, A) 
8 Rockwell (K) 
9 Leybold Vacuum Systems (A) 
10 Finnigan-MAT-US (A) 
11 Hewlett-Packard (A, R, K) 
12 Dupont (A)	13 Eastman Kodak (R) 
14 American Type Culture Collection (B) 
15 Alcolac International (C) 
16 Consarc (A) 
17 Carl Zeiss - U.S (K) 
18 Cerberus (LTD) (A) 
19 Electronic Associates (R) 
20 International Computer Systems (A, R, K) 
21 Bechtel (K) 
22 EZ Logic Data Systems, Inc. (R) 
23 Canberra Industries Inc. (A) 
24 Axel Electronics Inc. (A)​
USA CENSORSED IRAQ REPORT​According to the German Press Agency DPA, the Iraq weapons dossier report (from which 
the above information came), was reduced from a 12,000 page report to only 3,000 pages. 
Non-permanent members of the UN Security Council received only a truncated version of the weapons dossier. 
Data concerning foreign suppliers of Iraq are missing. 
All information about the supplies from - and the support of - foreign companies, research labs 
and governments from the mid-1970's on, related to Iraqi arms programs, have been deleted. 
The permanent Council members, the USA, Russia, China, France and Great Britain are aware of this censorship. 
From information gathered from UN diplomats censorship was agreed on primarily upon the urging of the US. 
Among the constant members of the Security Council it was the USA that stood out by giving the strongest support 
to Saddam Hussain's regime by arming it with the means of mass destruction. 
The report makes clear how strongly the Reagan and the first Bush administrations 
supported the arming of Iraq, from 1980 up to the Gulf conflict of 1990-91.
Guess who authorized all this? DONALD RUMSFELD 

Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein - Baghdad December 20, 1983. 
Guess who Bush Jr chose to surround himself with, in the present U.S. congress? 
The very same men who served under Reagan and his father... including Rumsfeld.


Saddam is an evil man who used poison gas on his own people, has killed political rivals, and violates the human rights of his people, especially the Kurds. The Iraqi people deserve to be liberated from him. Well, certainly Saddam is an evil man. He used poison gas against Iraqis collaborating with Iran in their decade-long war. And after he did it, the U.S. continued to support him, giving him intelligence information and military equipment (interesting). A principle emissary from the Reagan Administration to Saddam at that time was Donald Rumsfeld. And yes, he has killed political rivals -- some of them for the CIA, who used Saddam to get rid of the previous ruler of Iraq (who wanted Kuwait returned to Iraq). And yes, Saddam has been guilty of human rights violations -- although not nearly to the extent of US allies like Turkey and Saudi Arabia. As a matter of fact, until 1990 Saddam was hailed by the United States as the most enlightened leader in the Middle East.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/18/i...1030606992&ei=1&en=078f424219c1eb05&oref=regi


There was a time when Hussein was an appreciated ally. During the'80s, Baghdad was regarded as a bulwark against militant Shiiteextremism. According to the principle of "the enemy of the enemy ismy friend," the Reagan and H.W. Bush administrations approved theselling of poisonous chemicals and biological viruses, such asanthrax and bubonic plague, to Iraq. At the time, the country wasfighting an eight-year war against Iran.

When Iraq attacked Iran in 1980, the United States didn't show anyinterest. Things changed, however, in 1982, when Iranian troopsmanaged to enter Basra, Iraq's second largest city. The United Stateswas afraid the Iranian breakthrough might threaten U.S. oil supplies.According to The Washington Post, "The United States would dowhatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the warwith Iran."  
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld even visited Iraq in December1983, offering diplomatic relations to Hussein. In the course of thisnew "diplomatic friendship," Iraq was removed from the StateDepartment's terrorism list in February 1982. Saddam was called uponto perform friendship services, such as the training of severalhundred Libyans who were sent to Iran by the United States so theycould overthrow the Quaddafi government.

When former military analyst Kenneth M. Pollack warned his CIAcolleagues that Saddam was a "very nasty character," nobody paidattention to him. Now the Bush administration justifies their plans to attack Iraq with the argument of Hussein's use of chemical weapons" against his own people." Certainly nobody talks about the chemicals'origins now.


Saddam has ignored and violated resolutions of the United Nations Security Council relative to inspections and disarmament and must be removed to protect the credibility and integrity of the United Nations. This one is a doozy! The fact is that Saddam has complied pretty well with those resolutions. Sometimes he had to be dragged kicking and screaming by the inspectors, but the job got done. Is Saddam in technical violation of some of those resolutions? Probably. When all his missiles were destroyed, he kept plans and molds so that his arsenal could be rebuilt in the future. But does anyone really think that George W. Bush and his conservative supporters care one whit about the "credibility and integrity of the United Nations"?? You've got to be kidding. If we were the least bit interested in that, the US government would not have spent the last several decades protecting Israel from punishment for their flagrant and continuing violation of UN Resolution 242.

http://www.rmbowman.com/ssn/iraq2.htm
Here is the authors BIO since you like doing backup checks: http://www.rmbowman.com/catholic/bio97.htm



PS: There are shit loads of other things I could point to...


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Your corrupt nation wanted to keep Hussein the murderous tyrant in power, because you were making money.  It's simple.  Are you retarded?


----------



## j07950

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Your corrupt nation wanted to keep Hussein the murderous tyrant in power, because you were making money.  It's simple.  Are you retarded?



Interesting article: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2004/1010relations.htm

Thats what you were led to believe (a way to explain why france was against it...) but that has never been proven has it. I'm not denying that French companies were involved (so were american companies) and people tied with the the french government (but than again that also happened in the UK) but where is the final report on this? Has it been proven that the French government was bought to go against the war in Iraq? Get me some proof...please...Real proof not just your wise words. 
All this is unfortunate but don't use this scandal (Where countries all over the world and US companies) to expain why some  countries were against the war. 


"To curry favor around the world, Iraq set up a system in which some individuals and companies were able to profit by manipulating the oil-for-food program. Among those enriched in this process, the report said, were French, Russian and other officials. Administration spokesmen said Friday that the US did not endorse the allegations that anyone was enriched by Iraq's practices, only that Iraq was trying to buy influence and weaken sanctions. "It doesn't say that those transactions were completed," said Richard Boucher, a State Department spokesman. "It doesn't say whether or not governments intervened. It doesn't say whether or not the individuals declined. It doesn't really say what happened." 

But that was not the tone adopted by Cheney and other officials caught up in President Bush's shrill re-election campaign. In Florida on Thursday, Cheney said Saddam used oil funds to corrupt "some employees of the United Nations as well as other governments in the hopes that they would work with him to undermine the sanctions." 

Oh and do read what I have posted before, I doubt you read it in the 3 minutes it was posted before you replied.


----------



## j07950

Go check these out...they are very recent articles on the Oil for food scandal (apart from our disagreements check it out): 
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2004/1208ruggie.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2004/1210offsuccess.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2004/1228smuggling.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2004/1009usidentified.htm


----------



## Said1

j07950 said:
			
		

> Go check these out...they are very recent articles on the Oil for food scandal (apart from our disagreements check it out):
> http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2004/1208ruggie.htm
> http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2004/1210offsuccess.htm
> http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2004/1228smuggling.htm
> http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2004/1009usidentified.htm




The Global Policy Fourm is a joke. YOU will find everything you want to read there.


----------



## j07950

Said1 said:
			
		

> The Global Policy Fourm is a joke. YOU will find everything you want to read there.


I guess you didn't read it than. Why should I believe what you guys are saying ( your sources being US newspapers which obviously won't go against US interest) when you don't even consider outside information?

Yeah I know you're Canadian.

The bottom line is nothing has been proven. I also like the fact that the French Bank BNP Paribas, which administered the programme on behalf of the UN is at the center of all this. It makes sence but I find interesting that Among those to profit indirectly from the contracts was Nadhmi Auchi, a British-based businessman who is 34th in The Sunday Times Rich List with a personal fortune of £898m.
Auchi, who lives in a mansion in Kingston upon Thames, southwest London, owns shares in BNP Paribas through his company General Mediterranean Holdings (GMH). He was previously a significant shareholder in Paribas, had a place on a shareholder committee and was an influential figure in the merger of the two banks.
If French banks are involved than how much responsibility can you put on the french government if foreign buisnessmen have influence on commitees 
overseing the banks affairs...
http://www.worldthreats.com/Europe/MI6 Probes French To Iraq.htm

Forgot to say that Nadhmi Auchi is one of Saddam's cousin...interesting how France has been investigating into a few scandals led by Nadhmi Auchi , knowing he was a cousin of Saddam. Did Saddam not want to use his money to influence France on this one???


(In November Auchi, 66, was given a 15-month suspended sentence and fined £1.4m by a French court for receiving illegal commissions to help Elf build an oil refinery in Spain. Despite this setback, Auchi, a British citizen who lives in London, is forging ahead with the rebuilding of Iraq, his birthplace. His General Mediterranean Holdings company is claimed to have £1.08 billion of net assets but we hold with last year's valuation, less the fine and legal costs.) (We cut £500m from Auchi's wealth this year following reports that magistrates in France want to question him over his alleged role in the Elf-Aquitaine scandal that has rocked the French establishment. Iraqi-born Auchi, 64, now a British citizen, has protested that he has done nothing wrong. However, given the uncertainty and the fact that his interests include aviation and hotels - areas badly hit by September 11 - we exercise our usual caution in doing our sums. Auchi runs General Mediterranean Holdings, a Luxembourg-registered firm with interests in banking, pharmaceuticals and leisure. We can see assets of £75m in four British companies. )


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Give it up j___, there are mountains of evidence condemning your country.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

There is no moral justification for france's treacherous actions.


----------



## Said1

j07950 said:
			
		

> I guess you didn't read it than. Why should I believe what you guys are saying ( your sources being US newspapers which obviously won't go against US interest) when you don't even consider outside information?
> 
> Yeah I know you're Canadian.
> 
> The bottom line is nothing has been proven. I also like the fact that the French Bank BNP Paribas, which administered the programme on behalf of the UN is at the center of all this. It makes sence but I find interesting that Among those to profit indirectly from the contracts was Nadhmi Auchi, a British-based businessman who is 34th in The Sunday Times Rich List with a personal fortune of £898m.
> Auchi, who lives in a mansion in Kingston upon Thames, southwest London, owns shares in BNP Paribas through his company General Mediterranean Holdings (GMH). He was previously a significant shareholder in Paribas, had a place on a shareholder committee and was an influential figure in the merger of the two banks.
> If French banks are involved than how much responsibility can you put on the french government if foreign buisnessmen have influence on commitees
> overseing the banks affairs...
> http://www.worldthreats.com/Europe/MI6 Probes French To Iraq.htm
> 
> 
> (In November Auchi, 66, was given a 15-month suspended sentence and fined £1.4m by a French court for receiving illegal commissions to help Elf build an oil refinery in Spain. Despite this setback, Auchi, a British citizen who lives in London, is forging ahead with the rebuilding of Iraq, his birthplace. His General Mediterranean Holdings company is claimed to have £1.08 billion of net assets but we hold with last year's valuation, less the fine and legal costs.)




The point you seem to keep missing is that no one said it was France, and only France. We know there were others "possibly" invovled, and the biggest crook of all was Sevan, the head of the oil for food program. There are plenty of other threads discussing  many different aspects of all the dirty deals that were going on with Saddam, try reviving one.

Also, many of the papers you listed have articles saying the exact opposite of what you posted, do don't act as if it's the gospel.


----------



## j07950

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Give it up j___, there are mountains of evidence condemning your country.


So is there on behalf of the US but was I here crying about it to begin with like you???
Haven't heard you denying the things I've put down...is that because you can't deny it?


----------



## Said1

And BTW, in order to neg rep some one, you need to have some power points. You have 0. Nice try.  :


----------



## j07950

Said1 said:
			
		

> The point you seem to keep missing is that no one said it was France, and only France. We know there were others "possibly" invovled, and the biggest crook of all was Sevan, the head of the oil for food program. There are plenty of other threads discussing  many different aspects of all the dirty deals that were going on with Saddam, try reviving one.
> 
> Also, many of the papers you listed have articles saying the exact opposite of what you posted, do don't act as if it's the gospel.


Exactly...so where is the real truth??? It's exactly what I'm saying, nothing has been proved of yet...so don't condemn the French Government saying it sided with saddam because of corruption in the Oil for Food program, because nothing has been proven except that french companies (led by foreigners) were involded in it (ain't denying that). It's easy to jump at necks and accuse. I'd just like to get some proof if France really was bribed and influenced by saddam into voting in it's favour. I'm talking about the government because what are companies going to do. Plus the figures talked about don't explain france siding with saddam, they are tiny compared to what the French budget is...I don't see how that would influence France in doing such harm to its relationship with the US.


----------



## j07950

Said1 said:
			
		

> And BTW, in order to neg rep some one, you need to have some power points. You have 0. Nice try.  :


Yeah I know but I've given up, everyone is against me...My rep points go up and down...very sad...
But that proves that I'm bothering people by trying to contradict them, they obviously don't like that whether it's true or not. I'm not bothered. I sometime agree and sometimes disagree with people here.


----------



## j07950

Got to go sleep, it's like 1:50 AM, haven't had much sleep of late talking to you guys. Nice talk again...


----------



## Said1

j07950 said:
			
		

> Exactly...so where is the real truth??? It's exactly what I'm saying, nothing has been proved of yet...so don't condemn the French Government saying it sided with saddam because of corruption in the Oil for Food program



I've never said that, although I agree with the statement wholeheartedly.



> I'd just like to get some proof if France really was bribed and influenced by saddam into voting in it's favour. I'm talking about the government because what are companies going to do.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you bring Halburton up a few times??



> Plus the figures talked about don't explain france siding with saddam, they are tiny compared to what the French budget is...I don't see how that would influence France in doing such harm to its relationship with the US.



People have been known to benefit personally while acting on behalf of their country, don't be so naive.


----------



## Said1

j07950 said:
			
		

> Got to go sleep, it's like 1:50 AM, haven't had much sleep of late talking to you guys. Nice talk again...




Smell ya!


----------



## Said1

j07950 said:
			
		

> Yeah I know but I've given up, everyone is against me...My rep points go up and down...very sad...
> But that proves that I'm bothering people by trying to contradict them, they obviously don't like that whether it's true or not. I'm not bothered. I sometime agree and sometimes disagree with people here.



And obviously I bothered you!  :


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Said1 said:
			
		

> And BTW, in order to neg rep some one, you need to have some power points. You have 0. Nice try.  :



This  buffon tried to neg rep me too!  The French excel at being ineffectual.


----------



## j07950

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> This  buffon tried to neg rep me too!  The French excel at being ineffectual.


Of course I did, you talk crap, as a matter of fact a few people sent me messages saying not to bother replying to you because you talk bull shit all the time...
You probably created another profile to give yourself rep points in order to seem important.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

j07950 said:
			
		

> Of course I did, you talk crap, as a matter of fact a few people sent me messages saying not to bother replying to you because you talk bull shit all the time...
> You probably created another profile to give yourself rep points in order to seem important.



None of this changes the fact that your nation is morally reprehensible.


----------



## j07950

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> None of this changes the fact that your nation is morally reprehensible.


----------



## Said1

>



Apparently you do, since you're the one who feels attacked.


----------



## Shattered

j07950 said:
			
		

> Of course I did, you talk crap, as a matter of fact a few people sent me messages saying not to bother replying to you because you talk bull shit all the time...
> You probably created another profile to give yourself rep points in order to seem important.



Whee..  The magical "silent support" that manages to crop up every time someone on a public board feels beaten..


----------



## rtwngAvngr

j07950 said:
			
		

>



Spoken like a true Frenchman!


----------



## padisha emperor

> None of this changes the fact that your nation is morally reprehensible



But it is not the only one.

Breaking the international laws, the principe of non-ingerence and  attack without declaration of war, mandate of UNO or a real reason who don't interfere with the sovereignity, a soevreign and independant country....what for a violation !
Killing civilians, and wounded guys crouch on the ground, is it not morally reprehensible ?

Not to bashing USA, but don't say that france is lmorally reprehensible when US are too, and stop to bashing us when you are not in a good position to do it.


----------



## dilloduck

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> But it is not the only one.
> 
> Breaking the international laws, the principe of non-ingerence and  attack without declaration of war, mandate of UNO or a real reason who don't interfere with the sovereignity, a soevreign and independant country....what for a violation !
> Killing civilians, and wounded guys crouch on the ground, is it not morally reprehensible ?
> 
> Not to bashing USA, but don't say that france is lmorally reprehensible when US are too, and stop to bashing us when you are not in a good position to do it.



If the security council had shown solidarity, Saddam may have left without anyone having to fire a shot. France was too busy making money to consider that.


----------

