# Our European Allies



## CSM

US warns EU over China embargo

BIG BRAWL?: Pentagon officials are unimpressed with the prospect of the Chinese military killing Americans with weapons from Europe, and will act to prevent it 

AFP , LONDON 
Saturday, Dec 25, 2004,Page 1 

The US is ready to hold back military technology from Euro-pean allies over EU steps to revoke its arms embargo on China, the Financial Times reported yesterday.

The British financial daily quoted unnamed Pentagon officials who said the US would likely withdraw government backing for measures to improve military technology transfers to European countries if the EU begins to sell arms to China.

At a Brussels summit on Dec. 17, EU leaders declared their "political will" to lift an arms embargo on China, possibly by next June, while stressing that Beijing must respect human rights and regional stability.

"This has the potential to be a big brawl," an anonymous senior Pentagon official involved in Chinese policy told the Financial Times. "They're talking about helping the Chinese kill Americans more effectively. This is not what Europe should be doing."

Another official told the newspaper: "If a situation arises where European systems are pointed [by China] at American personnel and platforms, one cannot just assume we're going to continue our arms sales.

"Efforts we've made to open, widen, deepen transatlantic defense industrial trade are going to be circumscribed," the officials said.

EU leaders said after summit talks that they were "looking forward to further progress in all areas" of the 25-nation bloc's relationship with China, hoping for greater economic cooperation with a country whose economy has grown in leaps and bounds since the arms embargo was imposed in the wake of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre.

The Financial Times said that Britain stands to be the hardest hit by any US retaliation over any EU moves to sell military technology to China.

British firms BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce are the Pentagon's two biggest suppliers.

Britain has an increasing reliance on US military technology, having won backing from the US Congress three months ago for special preferred status when applying to gain access to US military technology.

EU countries like France and Germany -- both major arms exporters -- agree with China that the ban is "outdated."

But the US argued that a resumption of European arms sales will undermine Taiwan and encourage domestic repression in China.

China wants access to cutting-edge technology to upgrade its weapons systems and to reduce its reliance on Russian exports, analysts said.

They said that with the US intent on maintaining its own arms embargo on China, Europe is the only other outlet capable of offering high-tech systems such as radars and sonars coveted in Beijing.  

France and Germany have no qualms about siding with despots and tyrants when it suits them. They ae even more inclined to do so when those despots and tyrants are in direct opposition to US interests.


----------



## padisha emperor

> France and Germany have no qualms about siding with despots and tyrants when it suits them. They ae even more inclined to do so when those despots and tyrants are in direct opposition to US interests.


CSM, you mean often that I'm close minded, but you're more, and also paranoiac !

France and Germany's aim is not the fall of USA.
France and Germany have better proprities and occupations !

And for the country who support bloody dictators......you're not the best country to make moral lessons about it, you did it maybe more than the other countries.


----------



## no1tovote4

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> CSM, you mean often that I'm close minded, but you're more, and also paranoiac !
> 
> France and Germany's aim is not the fall of USA.
> France and Germany have better proprities and occupations !
> 
> And for the country who support bloody dictators......you're not the best country to make moral lessons about it, you did it maybe more than the other countries.




Nah, France and Germany have both been around much longer and have supported more Dictators and Despots than the US sometimes even in their own countries.  

We are quickly catching up, but they still have the win in that regard....

The point is sometimes politics make strange bedfellows, lately it appears that France simply is attempting to be contrary so that they can be considered powerful in their own right not because of major differences of belief.  This is being done regardless of the natural fit as allies and that we are allies (see NATO).  France is doing this because they want to position themselves as the de facto leader of the EU.


----------



## padisha emperor

France and Germany are already the leaders of Europe.................................



> Nah, France and Germany have both been around much longer and have supported more Dictators and Despots than the US sometimes even in their own countries.



WWII, again................boring.

oh, don't be so sure...USA have a good level at it too.
Only in South Amreica and Central America, the USA are propbably better at this kind of thing.
So, afetr, add Africa and Asia......whow !
Champion USA


----------



## no1tovote4

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> France and Germany are already the leaders of Europe.................................
> 
> 
> 
> WWII, again................boring.
> 
> oh, don't be so sure...USA have a good level at it too.
> Only in South Amreica and Central America, the USA are propbably better at this kind of thing.
> So, afetr, add Africa and Asia......whow !
> Champion USA




As I said, politics make strange bedfellows.  And they aren't the indisputed leaders of the EU.  Positioning themselves in strength they are more likely to be the ones that end up being the leaders but it has not yet been settled that other countries are willing to put up with it.


----------



## onedomino

> Another official told the newspaper: "If a situation arises where European systems are pointed [by China] at American personnel and platforms, one cannot just assume we're going to continue our arms sales.


The solution is to point out that if European systems are transferred to China, then American systems will be pointed at Paris, Berlin, and Madrid. Maybe then the French public will comprehend the idiocy of its government's foreign policy (but probably not). Let's see exactly how much France wants a "multi-polar world."



> British firms BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce are the Pentagon's two biggest suppliers.


Of course this statement is false.



> But the US argued that a resumption of European arms sales will undermine Taiwan and encourage domestic repression in China.


And cause the Japanese to re-arm...big time. Possibly with nukes.



> France and Germany have no qualms about siding with despots and tyrants when it suits them. They ae even more inclined to do so when those despots and tyrants are in direct opposition to US interests.


No question about that. Thus we should end mil-tech transfers to Europe and any other country with Euro-sympathies, get our troops out of Germany, and park carrier battle groups off the coast of France.


----------



## padisha emperor

> No question about that. Thus we should end mil-tech transfers to Europe and any other country with Euro-sympathies, get our troops out of Germany, and park carrier battle groups off the coast of France.


For your bright idea of a naval force and carrier near the french coast....you can't, dear.
Look at the maritim rules.....


And look at the french fleet.

And post your carrier everywhere, at usefull place. North Korea ?


----------



## no1tovote4

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> For your bright idea of a naval force and carrier near the french coast....you can't, dear.
> Look at the maritim rules.....
> 
> 
> And look at the french fleet.
> 
> And post your carrier everywhere, at usefull place. North Korea ?




One is already there.

I would love to see your "fleet" do something about it.  LOL.


----------



## onedomino

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> For your bright idea of a naval force and carrier near the french coast....you can't, dear.
> Look at the maritim rules.....And look at the french fleet.
> 
> And post your carrier everywhere, at usefull place. North Korea ?



Do not call me "dear." Since when have the French been concerned with "rules?" Soon, the French will understand that their lust for a "multipolar world" will have very negative ramifications. Go ahead, transfer French weapons systems to China. Just get prepared for the consequences...like having American systems pointed at Paris. God, I miss the Cold War. At least the Russians were sane. The French are irrational.


----------



## no1tovote4

onedomino said:
			
		

> Do not call me "dear." Since when have the French been concerned with "rules?" Soon, the French will understand that their lust for a "multipolar world" will have very negative ramifications. Go ahead, transfer French weapons systems to China. Just get prepared for the consequences...like having American systems pointed at Paris. God, I miss the Cold War. At least the Russians were sane. The French are irrational.




They are not irrational, their current leadership is willing to sell his soul for more power for France regardless of common belief and a natural fit for allies he has begun to position France as an enemy so that there can be a "counterweight".  In so doing they are willing to give unnatural allies power such as weapons systems.

The French people are being convinced by their leaders to follow a path that may lead them where they never imagined they were going.


----------



## onedomino

> The French people are being convinced by their leaders to follow a path that may lead them where they never imagined they were going.


Quite correct, no1tovote4. Do the French honestly think that there will be no negative repercussions for selling advanced weapons systems that the Chinese will use to threaten Americans? Before it is too late, the French should imagine what it would be like to be the object of US military planning. Are the French ready for economic and military confrontation with America? They want a "multi-polar world?" Then they better get ready for the harsh economic and military costs of that geopolitical path.


----------



## padisha emperor

Don't you think that Iraq war will not have bad repercussions for USA ?
Same thing ofr the sale of weapons.
USA sold weapons and sent CIA advisors in Afghanistan during the war against CCCP. now, they fight against these afghans (some of the Al Quaeda HQ's member, like Bin Laden, were in this war and were trained by CIA guys.


So, of course the sale of weapons to China will probably have consequence. But I'm not sure that China will attack USA.
China has alreadu the Nuke weapon, no ? and an awesome army. So, if China really wants to attack USA, she is able to do it yet. Without the french weapons, even if they are good.

And : China will  probably not attack USA, or not soon : why this country would make war with the most powerful country of the wolrd. In this situation, i think that EU will jion USA. France too, of course, like for Cuba '62 : France was the first country who said that she will follow USA to the war if there is a war against USSR.

No1vote4.
You laugh about the french fleet.  of course, the US Navy is the bigger fleet of the wolrd, and has a lot of carriers.
But be sure that the french fleet, even if it is less numerous, is good.
And you probably respect the Royal Navy : now, the Marine Nationale has mor surface vessels than RN.
US army forces are awesome in comparison with the european states. but don't laugh at it al the same. A missile Exocet can be really bad. Ask for the Britains.......


----------



## onedomino

> And : China will probably not attack USA, or not soon : why this country would make war with the most powerful country of the wolrd. In this situation, i think that EU will jion USA. France too, of course, like for Cuba '62 : France was the first country who said that she will follow USA to the war if there is a war against USSR.


Do I really have to explain this to you? Obviously, China will not directly attack the US. It is not suicidal. But it may very well attack Taiwan. We realize that the French do not care about the democracy on Taiwan and would rather sell weapons to the totalitarian PRC. The US, however, will defend the democracy on Taiwan. And if Americans are shot at by French weapons in the hands of Chinese attacking Taiwan, then before Beijing, Americas first retaliatory Tomahawks should fly to Paris.

By the way, Americans realize that France would have been no help in combat against the Soviets. We understood General Patton when he said, I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French division behind me.

--------------

Est-ce que je dois vraiment expliquer ceci à vous?  Évidemment, la Chine n'attaquera pas directement les USA. Elle n'est pas suicidaire. Mais elle peut très bien attaquer Taiwan. Nous nous rendons compte que les Français ne s'inquiètent pas de la démocratie sur Taiwan et vendraient plutôt des armes à la RPC totalitarian. Les USA, cependant, défendront la démocratie sur Taiwan. Et si des Américains sont tirés à par les armes de French dans les mains de Taiwan attaquant chinois, puis avant Beijing, le premier Tomahawks de représailles de l'Amérique devrait voler à Paris.

D'ailleurs, les Américains se rendent compte que la France n'aurait été aucune aide dans le combat contre les Soviétiques. Nous avons compris le Général Patton quand il a dit, "J'aurions plutôt une division allemande devant moi qu'une division française derrière moi."


----------



## padisha emperor

thaks for the translation, but I prefer in english, sometime the automatic translators mad so awesome mistakse that the text is quite no more understandable.


For the fact that France let Taiwan without help in front of the PRC........

France already sold fregate to taiwan, type La Fayette, excellent ship, most modern fregates.
So, your argue is quite "fucked", no ?

France would have no help uS ? how do you know that ? War didn't came.
Look the french against communists : Indochina. better individula fighters than US troops in VN. So, what proof to say that france would had not follow USA ?
your arguments are based on air and clouds. Nothing strong. only wind.

USA will never attack paris. First, they love to much it.
And it will be a WWIII. The whole world would see that USA strike an ally country without real reasons.
The US government, fortunatly for the world, doesn't listen to  you.


Sale of weapons has a risk : the risk that a country can have casualties from an ally country's weapon.
Look falkland's war : a british ship was sunk by a missile Exocet, sale by France to Aergentina before the war.
But Fra,ce did'nt wish that british troops died .
As cynic and cruel it is, it is the risk of the job.


----------



## nosarcasm

the immature posturing , if you dont do what we say then we gonna
threaten you sure will help


 .


----------



## Johnney

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> And it will be a WWIII. The whole world would see that USA strike an ally country without real reasons.


you seriously believe that?  without real reason?  get off the oxy buddy, check into some rehab some place.


----------



## Johnney

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> !
> 
> France and Germany's aim is not the fall of USA.


maybe notfrane <i>and</i> germay, but you can bet your ass its frances


----------



## onedomino

> France already sold fregate to taiwan, type La Fayette, excellent ship, most modern fregates. So, your argue is quite "fucked", no?


No is correct. One small coastal warship is not the weapons trade that France wants to conduct with the PRC. 



> France would have no help uS ? how do you know that ? War didn't came. Look the french against communists : Indochina. better individula fighters than US troops in VN. So, what proof to say that france would had not follow USA ?


The French were not fighting the communists in Viet Nam because they were communists, as your note implies. They were fighting because they wanted to keep their colony. The French showed what great fighters they were when they were pounded at Dien Bien Fu in 1954 and lost control of their Southeast Asian fiefdom.



> your arguments are based on air and clouds. Nothing strong. only wind.


My argument is based on the evidence of French foreign policy since 1940 to the present day. Did the French military quickly capitulate to the Nazis? Yes, and with breath-taking speed. Did French military units fight against America in North Africa and Europe during WW2? Yes. How many soldiers did France send to the Korean War? 1119. What a magnificant contribution to the defense of freedom! Did the French kick NATO Headquarters out of Paris? Yes. Did the French help America fight the war against communism in Southeast Asia. No. Did the French help America defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan? No. Did the French help America defeat Sadaam Hussein? No. What evidence do I have that the French would not have helped America fight the Soviets? How much more of a history lesson to you want?



> Sale of weapons has a risk : the risk that a country can have casualties from an ally country's weapon. Look falkland's war : a british ship was sunk by a missile Exocet, sale by France to Aergentina before the war. But Fra,ce did'nt wish that british troops died. As cynic and cruel it is, it is the risk of the job.


You are quite right. Your argument is cynical and cruel. It is a perfect representation of the treachery of French foreign policy. Do you think the parents of the dead British sailors that were shipped home in boxes from the Faulkland Islands accept your cynical and cruel argument?


----------



## NATO AIR

from now on, we should end ALL military technology transfers to EU nations with the exception of Britain, Poland and Italy.  Pull US forces out of Germany and Spain.  Post them in Italy, Poland, Romania, Ukraine, etc etc.  The EU and China can have each other at this rate, the love fest is seemingly unstoppable, unless (as is expected) the French and Polish populaces reject the EU consitutition, hurling the EU into chaos

Padisha, your navy sucks more cock than a porno star.  Your carrier (s) is a piece of shit that had to be drydocked multiple times because of poor design, poor crew training and general all in all crapiness.  Your jets pale in comparision to our Super Hornets, our Raptors, our JSF's.  Your soldiers are LOSING a peacekeeping operation in the Ivory Coast, just like they lost Rwanda.  Keep up the great work, and your country's going to keep sliding down the shit hole it is now.


----------



## padisha emperor

Nato, the Rafale is the best fighgter of the wolrd, and even the Mirage 2000  kick your Falcon.

French army, be sure, is for quality better than US.

And an toher big difference : our casualties : our soldiers and our allies's soldiers are killed by ennemies, not by our bullets....Ask for english troops....I think they have a quite bad souvenir of some US troops.....

Onedomino : 


> The French were not fighting the communists in Viet Nam because they were communists, as your note implies. They were fighting because they wanted to keep their colony. The French showed what great fighters they were when they were pounded at Dien Bien Fu in 1954 and lost control of their Southeast Asian fiefdom.




They were fighting to keep Indochina to France, but anyway, they were fighting communists. I believe that USA fouight in VN for freedom of South Viet NAm....Was it wrong ? Was it only to fight some commies ? No...... i can't believe it ? USA ? Liars ? impossible !!!! .....

And for your last sentence : I can say the same thing for US : the US soldiers showed their valour when they lost in VN. Butit is wrong
Your statement is stupid : in Indochina,  French won lot of battle. But you know, the fight against an invisible ennemy, far from home, a guerrilla war......hard, really...like your VN.
But if there is one army who fought until the last ammo , it is the french army. And you can show it only with DIEN BIEN PHU : battle from 11/20/53 to 05/07/54. Hell from march to may. No white flag. the french were so brave and courageous tyat even radio moscow stop to  insult them, like they do usuallly against capitalists. Here, they respect these french soldiers.
15,000 against  more than 100,000..............and resistance dutring several monthes. read something correct abaout DBP, you will see that one thing cannot be denied : the valour, honour, courage of French.




> You are quite right. Your argument is cynical and cruel. It is a perfect representation of the treachery of French foreign policy. Do you think the parents of the dead British sailors that were shipped home in boxes from the Faulkland Islands accept your cynical and cruel argument?



first : a soldiers is paid to be prepared to fight, and alos to die.

Second : the trade of weapons has some risks.  You can not deny it.

And : this pathetic argue from you is worthless, from your part : do you think that the english parents of the several british soldiers killed by US SOLDIERS accept that ? hmmmm ? Different between US and France, here : both may kil unfortunatly allied soldiers. But : france do it not directly : it is the french weapons. USA do it directly. Since the Korea, i believe that 1/5 of the US KIA are killed by US soldiers........



> My argument is based on the evidence of French foreign policy since 1940 to the present day. Did the French military quickly capitulate to the Nazis? Yes, and with breath-taking speed. Did French military units fight against America in North Africa and Europe during WW2? Yes. How many soldiers did France send to the Korean War? 1119. What a magnificant contribution to the defense of freedom! Did the French kick NATO Headquarters out of Paris? Yes. Did the French help America fight the war against communism in Southeast Asia. No. Did the French help America defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan? No. Did the French help America defeat Sadaam Hussein? No. What evidence do I have that the French would not have helped America fight the Soviets? How much more of a history lesson to you want?


France capitulated quick, but nowithout fights. 90,000 french were killed during the campain of France '40. Think at Dunkirk (1940) too...........At Bir Hakeim (1942). Toulon(1942). Italy Campain(1943/44). Sienna(1944). Provence(1944). Vercors(1944). Paris(1944). Alsace(1944/45)................
The french who fought US troops in North Africa were VICHY soldiers. And for the most patr they rallied the Allies. they just obey to the order. (and know that since Mers El Kebir, the french of Vichy don't trust a lot the allies.)
For Korean. Number makes not quality. And some french officers got the Silver Star, from Gen. Ridgway's hands....
France kick NATO HQ, yes. And ? you always say that France sucks. Are you not hapy to be in Belgium ?
And France didn't really to be used as a chess piece in the giant chess game between USA and USSR. When you say that UAS were against colonialism. Was it for the human rights ? No......Only to be more mighty : USA put dictators to be mighter than Communists. So, the human rights, they don't care ! The end of colonialism would put in the "market" a lot of new States. USA wanted to put these new  States in USA's influenece area.


For the fact that  france didn't help against commnuists...Indochina ? no ? yes. so...

For the Afghanistan.....Amazing, how USA forget the help of some countries....
French Air Force gave a lot the intelligence informations, and french soldiers were on the ground too.....so shut up.
And french army is still here to help for the  reconstruction....

So, your "great arguments" have no valor...and proove nothing, except your unhability to reflexion.


Now : Did USa help france and Europe in 1914 ? no. in 1939/40 ? no ? they wiated until an attack to fight. Fucking isolationnists.
Did they help france Uk and Israel ni 1956 ? no, they impeacched them.....
Did France help USa in Gulf War ? yes. In kosovo ? oh yes ! in Afghanistan ? yes.


----------



## dilloduck

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Nato, the Rafale is the best fighgter of the wolrd, and even the Mirage 2000  kick your Falcon.
> 
> French army, be sure, is for quality better than US.
> 
> And an toher big difference : our casualties : our soldiers and our allies's soldiers are killed by ennemies, not by our bullets....Ask for english troops....I think they have a quite bad souvenir of some US troops.....
> 
> Onedomino :
> 
> 
> 
> They were fighting to keep Indochina to France, but anyway, they were fighting communists. I believe that USA fouight in VN for freedom of South Viet NAm....Was it wrong ? Was it only to fight some commies ? No...... i can't believe it ? USA ? Liars ? impossible !!!! .....
> 
> And for your last sentence : I can say the same thing for US : the US soldiers showed their valour when they lost in VN. Butit is wrong
> Your statement is stupid : in Indochina,  French won lot of battle. But you know, the fight against an invisible ennemy, far from home, a guerrilla war......hard, really...like your VN.
> But if there is one army who fought until the last ammo , it is the french army. And you can show it only with DIEN BIEN PHU : battle from 11/20/53 to 05/07/54. Hell from march to may. No white flag. the french were so brave and courageous tyat even radio moscow stop to  insult them, like they do usuallly against capitalists. Here, they respect these french soldiers.
> 15,000 against  more than 100,000..............and resistance dutring several monthes. read something correct abaout DBP, you will see that one thing cannot be denied : the valour, honour, courage of French.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> first : a soldiers is paid to be prepared to fight, and alos to die.
> 
> Second : the trade of weapons has some risks.  You can not deny it.
> 
> And : this pathetic argue from you is worthless, from your part : do you think that the english parents of the several british soldiers killed by US SOLDIERS accept that ? hmmmm ? Different between US and France, here : both may kil unfortunatly allied soldiers. But : france do it not directly : it is the french weapons. USA do it directly. Since the Korea, i believe that 1/5 of the US KIA are killed by US soldiers........
> 
> 
> France capitulated quick, but nowithout fights. 90,000 french were killed during the campain of France '40. Think at Dunkirk (1940) too...........At Bir Hakeim (1942). Toulon(1942). Italy Campain(1943/44). Sienna(1944). Provence(1944). Vercors(1944). Paris(1944). Alsace(1944/45)................
> The french who fought US troops in North Africa were VICHY soldiers. And for the most patr they rallied the Allies. they just obey to the order. (and know that since Mers El Kebir, the french of Vichy don't trust a lot the allies.)
> For Korean. Number makes not quality. And some french officers got the Silver Star, from Gen. Ridgway's hands....
> France kick NATO HQ, yes. And ? you always say that France sucks. Are you not hapy to be in Belgium ?
> And France didn't really to be used as a chess piece in the giant chess game between USA and USSR. When you say that UAS were against colonialism. Was it for the human rights ? No......Only to be more mighty : USA put dictators to be mighter than Communists. So, the human rights, they don't care ! The end of colonialism would put in the "market" a lot of new States. USA wanted to put these new  States in USA's influenece area.
> 
> 
> For the fact that  france didn't help against commnuists...Indochina ? no ? yes. so...
> 
> For the Afghanistan.....Amazing, how USA forget the help of some countries....
> French Air Force gave a lot the intelligence informations, and french soldiers were on the ground too.....so shut up.
> And french army is still here to help for the  reconstruction....
> 
> So, your "great arguments" have no valor...and proove nothing, except your unhability to reflexion.
> 
> 
> Now : Did USa help france and Europe in 1914 ? no. in 1939/40 ? no ? they wiated until an attack to fight. Fucking isolationnists.
> Did they help france Uk and Israel ni 1956 ? no, they impeacched them.....
> Did France help USa in Gulf War ? yes. In kosovo ? oh yes ! in Afghanistan ? yes.


 Quit being so selfish by spending l that money on you military-----help out the tsunami victims---you can afford to give more !!!!


----------



## padisha emperor

Why do you seak of money, dillo ? 
French military budget is far far behind the uS one. The US military budget is bigger than ther military budget of the 25 states behind US in the list.......
So, you should pay ?

And EU give, for the moment 30 millions of $, and France send also rescue team, doctors.............


----------



## dilloduck

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Why do you seak of money, dillo ?
> French military budget is far far behind the uS one. The US military budget is bigger than ther military budget of the 25 states behind US in the list.......
> So, you should pay ?
> 
> And EU give, for the moment 30 millions of $, and France send also rescue team, doctors.............


 Why do you need a military?


----------



## padisha emperor

What ?


----------



## dilloduck

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> What ?


 IS you English failing you?


----------



## padisha emperor

No, but what do you said that ?

Why need France a military force ? 
This question has no sense, try to complete please.


----------



## no1tovote4

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> "Quit being so selfish by spending l that money on you military-----help out the tsunami victims---you can afford to give more !!!!



Let's see, you tell us to not spend on the military and to give more.  This from a country that spends on their military but only gives 100,000 Euros to the effort?

Fertilize your own back yard before you look at mine.  Your sanctimonious attitude is getting very annoying.  We have promised 35 million dollars, have sent an Aircraft Carrier to help in the building of infrastructure and delivery of needed aide.  We promise support in many ways as well as whatever we will give personally and you still want to tell us what to give?!!!

Go talk to Chirac, get upset about the sorry amount that your country is giving.  And don't go talking about the EU, you are only one member country.  This means the entirety of Europe is still giving less than already promised by the US!  What a judgemental and hypocritical ass!


----------



## onedomino

It is not easy debating Padisha because he simply re-writes history to support his arguments. The following is an example of Padisha re-written history:



> For the Afghanistan.....Amazing, how USA forget the help of some countries....French Air Force gave a lot the intelligence informations, and french soldiers were on the ground too.....so shut up.


Your statement is untrue. The only on-the-ground military support the US received during the invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent destruction of the Taliban government was from the UK, Australia, and the Northern Alliance. _*The French did not lift a finger to help America fight the Taliban on-the-ground during the invasion of Afghanistan.*_ I am sure you realize this. So please stop re-writing history to support your disingenuous arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan 

------------------


----------



## padisha emperor

one domine, i apologize, i believed that french gorund forces were here.....but i'm pretty sure that the french special forces were sent.

anyway, you can be right, sorry again.

no1vote4 : 
france give 1 million dollars, and EU 30 millions. be sure that in these 30 millions, France has her part.


Then : who speak of military's budget ?
USA is the country who spend the more money to the military's budget.
US military budget : more than the 25 other bigger military budget.

So, shut up.
france sent medical experts, and will probably send the army soon, like in every tragedy, like for the Turkey's earthquake few years ago.
french firemen, also.


----------



## no1tovote4

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> france give 1 million dollars, and EU 30 millions. be sure that in these 30 millions, France has her part.



And that still makes it less for all of Europe than the US (35 million plus the help I outlined) alone.  That is how many countries?  Definitely more than 1.

This doesn't even count the personal donations that will come from our country.  Attempting to sit a high horse and say WE can give more when YOU are clearly unwilling to give more and we already are is simply disingenuous and hypocritical.

Now if somebody from Australia were to talk to us about our commitment there it would mean something.  Per capita they have promised more than any other country.  However attempting to compare the EU (which is comprised of how many countries?) to the US which is one country and then to STILL COME UP SHORT tells me that we have a little more committed than do you.

Give up, you offer a piddling little amount and attempt to make us take up the slack.  By the time we are done you shouldn't be surprised to find that 40-60% of the money that goes there comes from our country alone.  Not for Governmental money but donations and all involved.

To say we aren't giving enough is simply a disgusting judgement from somebody in your position.


----------



## no1tovote4

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> So, shut up.



And you should stop attempting to order people around on the board.  Nobody here has told you to shut up, we have simply asked that you stop trying to tell us how much we should give of ourselves when we are clearly giving more than your country is, even before the private donations have been counted or sent.


----------



## padisha emperor

of course, no1, you're pure, like a new born lamb, an angel....

No1 : UAS have more money than any other country.look for UNO : they pay 22% of the contributions.
normal, then , if they pay more.

And the EU's 30 millions and France's 1 million don't count also the personnal gift.
Some moeny research and call for money and gift were already launched by association, by people.......

France is one of the first country for the financial help on the individual point of view. french are generous.


----------



## no1tovote4

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> of course, no1, you're pure, like a new born lamb, an angel....
> 
> No1 : UAS have more money than any other country.look for UNO : they pay 22% of the contributions.
> normal, then , if they pay more.
> 
> And the EU's 30 millions and France's 1 million don't count also the personnal gift.
> Some moeny research and call for money and gift were already launched by association, by people.......
> 
> France is one of the first country for the financial help on the individual point of view. french are generous.




And so are we, we gave more than the entire EU plus personal donation and other help but you judge us poorly because you simply are not willing to listen to reason at all.

However according to percentages the US is more generous when donating to charities than the French.

I never said we were pure, I simply said LOOK TO YOUR OWN.  Take the log out of your eye before attempting to remove the splinter from mine.

Go to some French board and start talking about the sorry piddling portion you are paying.  Shoot you can even include the EU in that.  As I said before how many countries are in the EU?  How many are you attempting to compare to our one?  Per capita you have given less than we have, and as I stated before the only country that gave more per capita was Australia.  When an Aussie comes on the site and tells me his country is more generous I will listen, but you?  You have no room to even get close to considering claiming the high ground here.

I never claimed we were perfect, but you clearly think France is.  Until you can see the problem you will never find a solution.  Go, find a French site and complain.  Once you have made France perfect then come here and tell me how to live and what to do.  Until then you are simply pointing out problems that are happening here while ignoring the issues of your own country.


----------



## CSM

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> No1 : UAS have more money than any other country.look for UNO : they pay 22% of the contributions.
> normal, then , if they pay more.


Because the US normally pays more (by your statement) we SHOULD pay more????If we are already contributing MORE through the UN, why should we be expected to contribute EVEN MORE????? If France has it's way and the US becomes economically bankrupt, who will pay then? France? In one post you accuse the US of not caring about the rest of the world, in another you call us isolationist and in this one you call us stingy. It has become very apparent that you really dont care what the US does, you just hate the United States of America. Then you get all upset when the posters of this board, many of whom are Americans, verbally bash the heck out of you and France. I have news for you, France's military is NOT the best in the world (despite your assertions to the contrary) and the Rafael and Mirage 2000 have yet to be proven in combat. Saying that anything France does is the best is just so much hot air on your part.


----------



## padisha emperor

I meant that USA, richer country of the world, are able to pay more.
So, they can pay more to help  Asian People.

And go and look at the thread about tsunami : 

France : 15  millions of euros (about 20 millions dollars), + 30 millions for EU, + a french help of food, doctors.....

And France's population give a lot, actually. Every inhabitant pay, it is normal, the rich countries HAVE TO help the victims.
It is our duty.


----------



## CSM

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> I meant that USA, richer country of the world, are able to pay more.
> So, they can pay more to help  Asian People.
> 
> And go and look at the thread about tsunami :
> 
> France : 15  millions of euros (about 20 millions dollars), + 30 millions for EU, + a french help of food, doctors.....
> 
> And France's population give a lot, actually. Every inhabitant pay, it is normal, the rich countries HAVE TO help the victims.
> It is our duty.


 Who says it is our duty????


----------



## no1tovote4

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> I meant that USA, richer country of the world, are able to pay more.
> So, they can pay more to help  Asian People.
> 
> And go and look at the thread about tsunami :
> 
> France : 15  millions of euros (about 20 millions dollars), + 30 millions for EU, + a french help of food, doctors.....
> 
> And France's population give a lot, actually. Every inhabitant pay, it is normal, the rich countries HAVE TO help the victims.
> It is our duty.




350,000,000 to start with.  As I said it would go higher.  It didn't take too much brainpower to predict that we would end up paying more than the original offer.  Also a Carrier Group (The USS Abraham Lincoln) and Marines galore not counted in that money as well as our personal donations.


----------



## Johnney

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> 350,000,000 to start with.  As I said it would go higher.  <b>It didn't take too much brainpower to predict that we would end up paying more than the original offer.</b>  Also a Carrier Group (The USS Abraham Lincoln) and Marines galore not counted in that money as well as our personal donations.


as usual.  but why is tis an issue?  we al know whose going to step up to the plate when the time(s) come.  whether were expected to or its our "duty" is another story.  we do it because of who we are.  were a giving nation.


----------



## CSM

Johnney said:
			
		

> as usual.  but why is tis an issue?  we al know whose going to step up to the plate when the time(s) come.  whether were expected to or its our "duty" is another story.  we do it because of who we are.  were a giving nation.


 Exactly my point. The US does not need the EU or anyone else to tell us what our "duty" is.


----------



## dilloduck

CSM said:
			
		

> Exactly my point. The US does not need the EU or anyone else to tell us what our "duty" is.


 Hey--giving is religious dogma!!!!!!  it should be illegal !!!!


----------



## Johnney

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Hey--giving is religious dogma!!!!!!  it should be illegal !!!!


yes it should be, we need to look in our own backyard  first


----------



## no1tovote4

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Hey--giving is religious dogma!!!!!!  it should be illegal !!!!




:rotflmao:

That's twice today old man!

 :cof: 

You need to come here and clean the coffee from my screen!

J/K.  I would rep you for the good laugh, but I need to spread it around more.


----------



## no1tovote4

Johnney said:
			
		

> as usual.  but why is tis an issue?  we al know whose going to step up to the plate when the time(s) come.  whether were expected to or its our "duty" is another story.  we do it because of who we are.  were a giving nation.




It became an idiotic pissing contest.  Who can give more.  My point was we were arguing about a moot point to begin with, there was little doubt the US would give more than any other nation in order to help in that region.


----------



## Johnney

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> It became an idiotic pissing contest.  Who can give more.  My point was we were arguing about a moot point to begin with, there was little doubt the US would give more than any other nation in order to help in that region.


it should have never come up about us being stingy in the first place.  whose got the deepest pockets... we already know, and retard had no business making that statement.


----------



## j07950

onedomino said:
			
		

> It is not easy debating Padisha because he simply re-writes history to support his arguments. The following is an example of Padisha re-written history:
> 
> Your statement is untrue. The only on-the-ground military support the US received during the invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent destruction of the Taliban government was from the UK, Australia, and the Northern Alliance. _*The French did not lift a finger to help America fight the Taliban on-the-ground during the invasion of Afghanistan.*_ I am sure you realize this. So please stop re-writing history to support your disingenuous arguments.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan
> 
> ------------------


Sorry about getting involved:
Since October 21, 2001, French reconnaissance aircraft and air tankers have contributed to the air campaign over Afghanistan. They were reinforced from the winter of 2001 to the summer of 2002, by French naval aviation forces and French Air Force transport planes and fighters. France was indeed the only country, along with the United States, to have flown bombing missions over Afghanistan, in direct support of American ground troops, in particular during operation Anaconda. From October 23, 2001 to September 30, 2002, a total of 12,000 flying hours were conducted in support of operations in Afghanistan by the French Mirage IV reconnaissance aircraft, the C135 tankers, the C160 and C130 transports, the E2C and the Super Etendard from the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, and the Mirage 2000D strike aircraft. The Mirage 2000D and Super Etendard destroyed 33 targets linked to Al Qaeda or the Talibans in direct support of American Special Forces. Today, 130 military are based in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, helping to operate the airport and supporting 2 transport aircraft engaged in the support of the French contingent in Afghanistan.

French forces arrived early on the ground. From December 2, 2001 to January 27, 2002, a reinforced company secured in Mazar-e-Sharif the detachment of US engineers repairing the airfield in order to fly in humanitarian assistance. In total, some 5,500 French soldiers were sent to the region. Today, 200 special troops are involved alongside American troops in the fight against the remnants of the Talibans in Southern Afghanistan.

Today, France is still largely involved in Afghanistan. Currently, 540 French troops are deployed in that country as part of the International Security Assistance Force, whose duty is to maintain security at the Kabul airport and its surroundings. And France is also playing a significant role in training the new Afghan army, alongside the US and the United Kingdom, having organized three battalions of 500 men and being presently involved in the training of all Afghan officers.

With the Navy contribution to OEF, a total of 1,470 French troops are involved in the stabilization of Afghanistan. They currently amount to 1,820 with the arrival of the EUROCORPS in Kabul during the summer.

http://www.consulfrance-atlanta.org/forces_francaises.htm


----------



## j07950

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> And that still makes it less for all of Europe than the US (35 million plus the help I outlined) alone.  That is how many countries?  Definitely more than 1.
> 
> This doesn't even count the personal donations that will come from our country.  Attempting to sit a high horse and say WE can give more when YOU are clearly unwilling to give more and we already are is simply disingenuous and hypocritical.
> 
> Now if somebody from Australia were to talk to us about our commitment there it would mean something.  Per capita they have promised more than any other country.  However attempting to compare the EU (which is comprised of how many countries?) to the US which is one country and then to STILL COME UP SHORT tells me that we have a little more committed than do you.
> 
> Give up, you offer a piddling little amount and attempt to make us take up the slack.  By the time we are done you shouldn't be surprised to find that 40-60% of the money that goes there comes from our country alone.  Not for Governmental money but donations and all involved.
> 
> To say we aren't giving enough is simply a disgusting judgement from somebody in your position.


I for myself ain't saying you're not doing enough...
But don't say anything about france being selfish and bringing out ridiculous figures.
The french government is top among G7 in contributing part of it's budget to foreign development, reconstruction etc... with 0,42%. Thats more than the US, but who cares really... 
The french government has vowed to hand out 45 million euros which is about 58.5 million dollars. Public donations are increasing everyday in france and is more than 18 million dollars right now ans counting. 
As a whole the EU is handing out 567 M USD so the US isn't the main contributer, than again who cares. Is this the most important? Who wins in handing out money to Asia, what a stupid debates.


----------



## 5stringJeff

j07950 said:
			
		

> Sorry about getting involved:
> Since October 21, 2001, French reconnaissance aircraft and air tankers have contributed to the air campaign over Afghanistan. They were reinforced from the winter of 2001 to the summer of 2002, by French naval aviation forces and French Air Force transport planes and fighters. France was indeed the only country, along with the United States, to have flown bombing missions over Afghanistan, in direct support of American ground troops, in particular during operation Anaconda. From October 23, 2001 to September 30, 2002, a total of 12,000 flying hours were conducted in support of operations in Afghanistan by the French Mirage IV reconnaissance aircraft, the C135 tankers, the C160 and C130 transports, the E2C and the Super Etendard from the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, and the Mirage 2000D strike aircraft. The Mirage 2000D and Super Etendard destroyed 33 targets linked to Al Qaeda or the Talibans in direct support of American Special Forces. Today, 130 military are based in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, helping to operate the airport and supporting 2 transport aircraft engaged in the support of the French contingent in Afghanistan.
> 
> French forces arrived early on the ground. From December 2, 2001 to January 27, 2002, a reinforced company secured in Mazar-e-Sharif the detachment of US engineers repairing the airfield in order to fly in humanitarian assistance. In total, some 5,500 French soldiers were sent to the region. Today, 200 special troops are involved alongside American troops in the fight against the remnants of the Talibans in Southern Afghanistan.
> 
> Today, France is still largely involved in Afghanistan. Currently, 540 French troops are deployed in that country as part of the International Security Assistance Force, whose duty is to maintain security at the Kabul airport and its surroundings. And France is also playing a significant role in training the new Afghan army, alongside the US and the United Kingdom, having organized three battalions of 500 men and being presently involved in the training of all Afghan officers.
> 
> With the Navy contribution to OEF, a total of 1,470 French troops are involved in the stabilization of Afghanistan. They currently amount to 1,820 with the arrival of the EUROCORPS in Kabul during the summer.
> 
> http://www.consulfrance-atlanta.org/forces_francaises.htm




And yet, PE tries to claim that France won the 1991 Gulf War! :rotflmao:


----------



## j07950

gop_jeff said:
			
		

> And yet, PE tries to claim that France won the 1991 Gulf War! :rotflmao:


Did he?
Well maybee you miss understood him, I hope so...


----------



## padisha emperor

gop jeff, thank you for your contribution.

j07950 only answered to onedomino to show the french operation in Afghanistan.
Does he said that the french were the first and the mightiest on the ground ? No. So, what the matter ?

For the competition about "who give more money", sure it is stupid. The most important is that all this money would be in a great quantity, and above all that the States keep their promises of money : for the Bam's earthquake, in Iran, I believe that in fact less than 10% of the money promised for the help was given. (Heard it on a television programm, so, it is not necessary a primary and sure information source, but I think that it could be really possible)
I hope, that here, it wouldn't be like that, and that ALL the money promised will be given.


----------



## onedomino

j07950 said:
			
		

> Sorry about getting involved:
> French forces arrived early on the ground. From December 2, 2001 to January 27, 2002, a reinforced company secured in Mazar-e-Sharif the detachment of US engineers repairing the airfield in order to fly in humanitarian assistance. In total, some 5,500 French soldiers were sent to the region. Today, 200 special troops are involved alongside American troops in the fight against the remnants of the Talibans in Southern Afghanistan.


You should be. The fact remains true that the French did not lift a finger to aid the Americans on the ground during the invasion of Afghanistan. The stuff you posted has no bearing on the ground war which began on October 7th and was over before mid-December. American and Northern Alliance forces destroyed the Taliban in Mazar-i-Sharif on November 10th. Your post points out that a company of French soldiers showed up in Mazar-i-Sharif on December 2nd. So what? Kabul fell on November 12th, Konduz on November 25th, and Kahdahar on December 7th. French forces did not fight on the ground with the forces from America, UK, Australia, and the Northern Alliance. Regarding the 200 French forces today? Well, that huge contingent is 200 more than absolute zero.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan#Military_operations 

---


----------



## j07950

onedomino said:
			
		

> You should be. The fact remains true that the French did not lift a finger to aid the Americans on the ground during the invasion of Afghanistan. The stuff you posted has no bearing on the ground war which began on October 7th and was over before mid-December. American and Northern Alliance forces destroyed the Taliban in Mazar-i-Sharif on November 10th. Your post points out that a company of French soldiers showed up in Mazar-i-Sharif on December 2nd. So what? Kabul fell on November 12th, Konduz on November 25th, and Kahdahar on December 7th. French forces did not fight on the ground with the forces from America, UK, Australia, and the Northern Alliance. Regarding the 200 French forces today? Well, that huge contingent is 200 more than absolute zero.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan#Military_operations
> 
> ---


You're just out to get people wrong, you probably spend your day on here doing so...do you even work?
as for the 200 or so troop it's more like: Almost 8,400 soldiers are now deployed under the forces command in Afghanistan. 

Meanwhile a US-led military coalition of over 18,000 troops including French special forces is battling Taliban-led militants in the south and southeast of Afghanistan. 

And maybee we didn't have troops on the ground from day one but we were still very much involved.
And it's funny because in this article ( http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/11/16/ret.france.force/) it says that a lot of other nations like italy and canada and germany also hadn't sent troops to begin with...isn't that funny, why boast france for not doing so?
Maybee the US and UK didn't need help immediatly and didn't ask for it...Isn't that a possibility?


----------



## j07950

I've looked everywhere and couldn't find a single article stating that France refused to help in Afghanistan when the US first invaded. I think it's because the US didn't ask for help, and didn't need it. Especially knowing the french airforce was helping out since day one and that some of the most important missions were air campaigns. 
Stop trying to look for guilty people. Who cares who helped and who didn't, France never refused to help, and they still are very very active there. 
Go get a job and if you've actually got one, do some work, you don't get paid to post offensive posts on the internet. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1703807.stm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/fran-n23.shtml


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> I've looked everywhere and couldn't find a single article stating that France refused to help in Afghanistan when the US first invaded. I think it's because the US didn't ask for help, and didn't need it. Especially knowing the french airforce was helping out since day one and that some of the most important missions were air campaigns.
> Stop trying to look for guilty people. Who cares who helped and who didn't, France never refused to help, and they still are very very active there.
> Go get a job and if you've actually got one, do some work, you don't get paid to post offensive posts on the internet.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1703807.stm
> http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/fran-n23.shtml




I would suggest you be a little careful about pissing peope off around here--re-read the rules.


----------



## j07950

Sir Evil said:
			
		

> Probably due to the fact that France has been an outspoken opponent against the US, the fact that they have been doing the world dirty through the oil for food scandal!


Don't make me laugh!!!
Please name all the other countries who are also involved, don't limit yourself to France, even if you obviously have something against it. Tons of other countries were involved...
http://johnkerryquestionfairy.blogspot.com/2004/10/newsweek-democrat-donor-received-22.html


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> I would suggest you be a little careful about pissing peope off around here--re-read the rules.


Why because you say stupid things and have no proof to back it up? The guy says france didn't back up US in Afghanistan...where is the proof? I haven't found any and wouldn't mind being showed some.
Please enlighten me!!!


----------



## j07950

Sir Evil said:
			
		

> Very true, but none agreed to use there veto power to block actions against Iraq!  That does indeed make me laugh!!


Who gives a shit about Irak...90% of the world was aginst it...give me a break...stop whining about it...if you can't finish a war you started then you shouldn't have gone into it. How can you expect other nations to go into war with you when its based on lies (even if there are other motives which are good one but in the end which no one knows about)? No one is suicidal enough to follow the US whenever it decides to. Stop crying about it and looking for enemies.


----------



## j07950

Oh and by the way...no ones had the balls enough to use their veto except for france and russia...even if they somehow has ties in irak and interests, so did other nations.


----------



## j07950

Sir Evil said:
			
		

> First it's Iraq, not Irak you illiterate bastard!  Based on lies eh, care to speak of those lies?   what a frog!


 In french it's Irak, if you are more literate than please write your next posts in French if you think I'm such a bastard...Let me guess, you probably did some in high school but forgot, right???
Give me a break.


----------



## j07950

I only put the top 10 as this would be too long...
http://www.politicalstrategy.org/2003_03_10_weblog_archive.htm

Top 30 Bush - Iraq Lies: A Reference For Seekers of Truth

So many lies have been spread by the Administration and their minions that it is hard to keep track. I suppose thats part of their strategy. Overwhelm the opposition and the public with so much misinformation that the truth will never be clear. They can then press forward in an ambiguous cloud of fear and what if? scenarios. Thus, we should take pains to document the trail of deceit. As our part, we have created this list, sort of a handy tip-sheet to refute the arguments of the tin-pot, would-be murderers who insist on seizing Iraqi oil in exchange for the blood of our military men and women and the Iraqi citizenry..

So here we go.

1) It is only appropriate that we start the list with the most recent fabrication: 

A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector said [March 6] in a report that called into question U.S. and British claims about Iraq's secret nuclear ambitions.

Documents that purportedly showed Iraqi officials shopping for uranium in Africa two years ago were deemed "not authentic" after careful scrutiny by U.N. and independent experts, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told the U.N. Security Council.

And the Administrations response?

"We fell for it, said one U.S. official who reviewed the documents."

Yeah right! As though the Administration had absolutely nothing to do with this "mysterious" fabrication.

Anyway, in no particular order, here are the other top lies currently being circulated by the Administration and the right-wing propaganda machine.

2) The Bush Administration insists Iraq is developing an 800-mile-plus range missile. A prior UN resolution made it illegal for Iraq to build missiles that had a range in excess of 93 miles.

In fact, The al-Samoud 2, the missile to which the administration refers, has indeed been flying too far in tests by about 15 miles and that is because it isn't yet loaded down with its guidance system. 

3) The administration claimed they had satellite photographs that showed new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites. However, when the U.N. went into the new buildings they found "nothing".

4) The administration asserted that specific presidential palaces were places the inspectors would find incriminating evidence. Again, they found "nothing".

5) It was reported that an al Qaeda informant claimed that terrorists had found a way of smuggling radioactive material through airports without being detected. 

Unfortunately, the informant then failed a polygraph test.

"'This piece of that puzzle turns out to be fabricated and therefore the reason for a lot of the alarm, particularly in Washington this week, has been dissipated after they found out that this information was not true,' Vince Cannistraro, former CIA counter-terrorism chief, told the news network."

Even so, the Orange alert status, which was activated when the Administration made these claims public, remained. But wait, if the reason for the heightened alert status was proven false, then why keep it? Good Question. Lets seeif I were Bush and I wanted to paralyze the populace with fear in order to force them behind me in all my criminal dealings, I would certainly take advantage of this miscue by allowing the alert to remain. Nothing like a little orange to make people see red. Besides, how many people could have possibly even heard about the whole Hoax thing?

True to form, Tom Ridge made no mention of the Hoax to anyone so why should Bush.

"We have not received any additional intelligence that would lead us to either raise or lower the threat level at this time."

6) Rupert Murdoch helped the Administration by spreading this lie (as though Fox News and the NY Post wasn't enough):

"Saddam Hussein's senior bodyguard has fled with details of Iraq's secret arsenal. His revelations have supported US President George W. Bush's claim [that] there is enough evidence from UN inspectors to justify going to war. [The bodyguard] has provided Israeli intelligence with a list of sites that the inspectors have not visited."

They include:

~ An underground chemical weapons facility at the southern end of the Jadray Peninsula in Baghdad.

~ A SCUD assembly area near Ramadi. The missiles come from North Korea.

~ Two underground bunkers in Iraq's Western Desert. These contain biological weapons.

And

"William Tierney, a former UN weapons inspector who has continued to gather information on Saddam's arsenal, said Mahmoud's information is 'the smoking gun'."

Needless to say, all of these have proven to be 100% false.

7) As a centerpiece to it's argument for invading Iraq, the Administration has boldly pursued the idea that Saddam and al Qaeda are in cahoots. The CIA and the FBI disagree: 

"analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency have complained that senior administration officials have exaggerated the significance of some intelligence reports about Iraq, particularly about its possible links to terrorism, in order to strengthen their political argument for war, government officials said."

and

"At the Federal Bureau of Investigation, some investigators said they were baffled by the Bush administration's insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's network. "We've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's there," a government official said."

This is consistent with what they were saying back in October: 

"They are politicizing intelligence, no question about it," said Vincent M. Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism chief. "And they are undertaking a campaign to get George Tenet [the director of central intelligence] fired because they can't get him to say what they want on Iraq."

In addition, in a January 30, interview, Blix revealed that: 

 he had seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to al Qaeda, which Mr. Bush also mentioned in his speech. 

Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice alleged that al-Qaeda operatives have had a direct relationship with the Iraqi government:

"There clearly are contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented,"

She did not document them and a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, indicated the evidence for linkage is tenuous, based on sources of varying reliability. 

8) Central to the Saddam - al Qaeda connection claim is the assertion that Czech authorities had evidence of a meeting between one of the September 11 hijackers, Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi agent in Prague in April 2001.

Both Czech President Vaclav Havel and Czech intelligence refuted this report. To this day, members of the Administration cite the Prague report as evidence of an Iraq - al Qaeda connection.

9) The Administration latched onto the idea that Ramzi Yousef, who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, escaped from New York on a false passport provided by Iraqi intelligence. The reasoning for this speculation is so far-fetched as to be laughable.

10) Bush and Co. claimed that al-Qaeda refugees from the war in Afghanistan have found refuge in Iraq. Some of this relates to a group called Ansar al, which has taken over a small area near the Iranian border. This part of Iraq, however, is in Kurdish hands and outside the direct control of the Iraqi Government.


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> Oh and by the way...no ones had the balls enough to use their veto except for france and russia...even if they somehow has ties in irak and interests, so did other nations.




The balls???----You mean the needed the money and to hell with the Iraqi people.


----------



## j07950

Sir Evil said:
			
		

> Nope, never learned the language at all and don't care to!  Sorry, no breaks for you! Never for a newbie with a bad attitude!


So who's the illiterate...you stupid fuck, don't care to learn another language because you don't need to I bet, right? That's a bit sorry, shows how some of you people think the rest of the world is going to make the effort to learn english and follow you. How imature.


----------



## j07950

Sir Evil said:
			
		

> Pretty much all hearsay!  If it was all facts, why no other nations like France for instance stand up and do anything about it?


Because we don't do war for nothing, we're in an age when wars have done so much damage that we think it is wiser to try and find alternatives, obviously you go dive head first into it whenever possible.


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> The balls???----You mean the needed the money and to hell with the Iraqi people.


Yeah and you waited more than 10 years to free the iraqi people right...how generous of you.


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> Because we don't do war for nothing, we're in an age when wars have done so much damage that we think it is wiser to try and find alternatives, obviously you go dive head first into it whenever possible.


The war is not for nothing--we tried alternatives-----TRUE OR NOT TRUE ??


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> The war is not for nothing--we tried alternatives-----TRUE OR NOT TRUE ??


True up until bush decided to go to war and couldn't then prove what he said were the reasons for going to war.
Oh by the way who is makiing the money now? US comapnies rebuilding Iraq, and who's going to get the oil contracts...please, don't talk about money.


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> True up until bush decided to go to war and couldn't then prove what he said were the reasons for going to war.
> Oh by the way who is makiing the money now? US comapnies rebuilding Iraq, and who's going to get the oil contracts...please, don't talk about money.


 The US is spending billions in Iraq--not making it--Saddam could have prevented the WHOLE war by abdicating and living a life of luxury in France.


----------



## j07950

Sir Evil said:
			
		

> And rightfully so!  We are the ones spilling blood there so why should anyone else have first chance to make the money with contracts?


But that's one of the reasons the US went into it...you can't even see that...obviously those contracts would go back to the US, that was the idea. So now companies and some important buisness men are going to make billions while you tax payers are paying for the war. Very sad...
And what the hell are you talking about the french getting their asses kicked...you make no sence...speak english...oops that's your native language..forgot.


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> But that's one of the reasons the US went into it...you can't even see that...obviously those contracts would go back to the US, that was the idea. So now companies and some important buisness men are going to make billions while you tax payers are paying for the war. Very sad...
> And what the hell are you talking about the french getting their asses kicked...you make no sence...speak english...oops that's your native language..forgot.



Buy some stock you idiot


----------



## CSM

*sigh* well as I said yesterday, many have come to this board with these same tired arguments and here we are again with the new guy resorting to name calling and bashing away....any takers on how long it is before he gets banned?


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> So who's the illiterate...you stupid fuck, don't care to learn another language because you don't need to I bet, right? That's a bit sorry, shows how some of you people think the rest of the world is going to make the effort to learn english and follow you. How imature.


 I didn't want to learn another language because I didn't need to...you are absolutely correect...so what?


----------



## dilloduck

CSM said:
			
		

> *sigh* well as I said yesterday, many have come to this board with these same tired arguments and here we are again with the new guy resorting to name calling and bashing away....any takers on how long it is before he gets banned?


 
Those who make nasty allegations with no proof tend to go quickly--maybe he wants to be banned


----------



## CSM

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Those who make nasty allegations with no proof tend to go quickly--maybe he wants to be banned


 I dont think it's the nasty allegations with no proof so much as the "you are stupid" and the "you ignorant fuck" type of statements. The arrogance of these people is beyond belief.


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Those who make nasty allegations with no proof tend to go quickly--maybe he wants to be banned


I've brought no proof?...are you joking...I didn't start this...I'm only replying to what you guys have been saying. You're the ones not bringing proof...Bu I know the truth hurts...paying for a war that other are going to benefit like US comanies and such... oh and the iraqi people, that is the only positive point, whenever people will actually stop being killed.


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> I dont think it's the nasty allegations with no proof so much as the "you are stupid" and the "you ignorant fuck" type of statements. The arrogance of these people is beyond belief.



Right and I'm the only one here insulting:

First it's Iraq, not Irak you illiterate bastard!  Based on lies eh, care to speak of those lies?


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> I've brought no proof?...are you joking...I didn't start this...I'm only replying to what you guys have been saying. You're the ones not bringing proof...Bu I know the truth hurts...paying for a war that other are going to benefit like US comanies and such... oh and the iraqi people, that is the only positive point, whenever people will actually stop being killed.


 

Prove the US got into war so American businesses could make money !!


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Proove the US got into war to American businesses could make money !!


Don't need to prove it...it's obvious...that wasn't the only reason...some others were good, but most have been proved wrong (lies)...the reasons for going to war at least...
There are other goods reasons but maybee the US government doesn't think people are smart enough to understand...maybee those would convince people the war was a good thing afterall


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> Don't need to prove it...it's obvious...that wasn't the only reason...some others were good, but most have been proved wrong (lies)...the reasons for going to war at least...
> There are other goods reasons but maybee the US government doesn't think people are smart enough to understand...maybee those would convince people the war was a good thing afterall


  The hell you don't---you don't get off saying shit like that around here without paying for it-----lets see your proof asshole !!!


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> The hell you don't---you don't het off saying shit like that around here without paying for it-----lets see your proof asshole !!!


Who are those rebuilding contracts going to? Those oil contracts? Then let's see it this way...prove this wasn't one of the reasons...
If you want me to prove it was can you actually prove it wasn't?
Then again you aren't part of all this, it's not like your government is going to tell you guys. Wars have often been for strategic and ressourses purposes...that's a fact, and to be fair, that's a bit normal...it's the survival of the fitest...but why deny?
Obviously the US isn't going to steal oil from iraq but it'll get the contracts and benefit from it more than anyone else.


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> Who are those rebuilding contracts going to? Those oil contracts? Then let's see it this way...prove this wasn't one of the reasons...
> If you want me to prove it was can you actually prove it wasn't?
> Then again you aren't part of all this, it's not like your government is going to tell you guys. Wars have often been for strategic and ressourses purposes...that's a fact, and to be fair, that's a bit normal...it's the survival of the fitest...but why deny?
> Obviously the US isn't going to steal oil from iraq but it'll get the contracts and benefit from it more than anyone else.



Can't prove it can you-----retract it then or get out of here---We engage in the truth--not speculation.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> Who are those rebuilding contracts going to? Those oil contracts? Then let's see it this way...prove this wasn't one of the reasons...
> If you want me to prove it was can you actually prove it wasn't?
> Then again you aren't part of all this, it's not like your government is going to tell you guys. Wars have often been for strategic and ressourses purposes...that's a fact, and to be fair, that's a bit normal...it's the survival of the fitest...but why deny?
> Obviously the US isn't going to steal oil from iraq but it'll get the contracts and benefit from it more than anyone else.



 Let us assume for the moment that you are correct in all you say. 

My question then becomes....SO WHAT?


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Can't prove it can you-----retract it then or get out of here---We engage in the truth--not speculation.


But truth is so hidden...you guys are blind, you have such faith in your government...That is so risky...I know my government lies and dosn't always tell the truth...it's their role. Otherwise there would be chaos.
You also can't prove it wasn't one of the reasons by the way.
If you think this war was so valid why didn't you join?
Here is an interesting article: http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=668


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> Let us assume for the moment that you are correct in all you say.
> 
> My question then becomes....SO WHAT?



So what? Well nothing...but don't blame us for not participating...that's all I'm asking. It's not our fault we don't believe in the same things.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> Don't need to prove it...it's obvious...that wasn't the only reason...some others were good, but most have been proved wrong (lies)...the reasons for going to war at least...
> There are other goods reasons but maybee the US government doesn't think people are smart enough to understand...maybee those would convince people the war was a good thing afterall



J07950, your post sounds just like this:

 France is an arrogant, hypocritical country populated by ignorant fools. I dont need to prove it...it is obvious.

You and I both know that such statements are intentionally inflamatory...and without proof, serve only one purpose.


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> But truth is so hidden...you guys are blind, you have such faith in your government...That is so risky...I know my government lies and dosn't always tell the truth...it's their role. Otherwise there would be chaos.
> You also can't prove it wasn't one of the reasons by the way.
> If you think this war was so valid why didn't you join?
> Here is an interesting article: http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=668




I didn't make any allegations---YOU did--we're more aware of our govt than you think and are fully aware of their failures---Now prove that we went to war to make US companies rich !!!!!---Fucked up didn't ya ?

Don't EVEN challenge my willingness to fight for my country.


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> J07950, your post sounds just like this:
> 
> France is an arrogant, hypocritical country populated by ignorant fools. I dont need to prove it...it is obvious.
> 
> You and I both know that such statements are intentionally inflamatory...and without proof, serve only one purpose.


 Are you just blind? Geezz
You just don't have an open mind. But who cares what were the reasons, if you believe in this war than so be it. I really hope to be proven wrong in the years to come, I really do.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> So what? Well nothing...but don't blame us for not participating...that's all I'm asking. It's not our fault we don't believe in the same things.


 Could not agree more. I personally dont care if France and the EU does not participate....until they start pointing fingers at the US and start making accusations as if they hold the moral high ground.  That is the whole point of this debate (at least for me it is). France nor any other nation on this planet is not without flaw and every country has its own issues....yes even the US...

It is not about who has the bigger army or who has the better social programs....


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> Could not agree more. I personally dont care if France and the EU does not participate....until they start pointing fingers at the US and start making accusations as if they hold the moral high ground.  That is the whole point of this debate (at least for me it is). France nor any other nation on this planet is not without flaw and every country has its own issues....yes even the US...
> 
> It is not about who has the bigger army or who has the better social programs....


When we believe something is wrong I think we have the right to express that...otherwise I totally agree with you.

Here are some interesting facts on US profits...actually read it...
http://www.countercurrents.org/us-polya191104.htm


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> Are you just blind? Geezz
> You just don't have an open mind. But who cares what were the reasons, if you believe in this war than so be it. I really hope to be proven wrong in the years to come, I really do.



 You have no idea as to the state of my mind. I am not blind; just because I dont see things your way does not make me blind. Just because I dont agree with you does not mean I'm close minded. Just because I dont speak French does not mean I'm ignorant.


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> Are you just blind? Geezz
> You just don't have an open mind. But who cares what were the reasons, if you believe in this war than so be it. I really hope to be proven wrong in the years to come, I really do.


 You are only here to piss people off and have NO proof to verify your claims!


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> You have no idea as to the state of my mind. I am not blind; just because I dont see things your way does not make me blind. Just because I dont agree with you does not mean I'm close minded. Just because I dont speak French does not mean I'm ignorant.


I never said you were ignorant for not speaking french. It was a response to SIR EVIL  who wrote: First it's Iraq, not Irak you illiterate bastard! Based on lies eh, care to speak of those lies? what a frog!
Just because I spelt Iraq wrong (well just in the french way)


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> When we believe something is wrong I think we have the right to express that...otherwise I totally agree with you.
> 
> Here are some interesting facts on US profits...actually read it...
> http://www.countercurrents.org/us-polya191104.htm



 I read it..it is bullshit....The good Doctor admits to having an axe to grind...

I now understand though why you think the way you do. I sincerely hope that the nations of the world take the good doctor's advice and brings sanctions and boycotts against the US....I can hardly wait.


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> You are only here to piss people off and have NO proof to verify your claims!


Neither do you...


----------



## j07950

You wont even consider information you haven't found yourself, even if it's from your own country or own media...What the hell are we talking for...you're saying you're open minded, than how can you call whatever link I put bullshit...It's a vicious cirlce. I've learned a lot of things since coming here on what for instance france has done wrong, and some good reasons for the war which I hadn't thought of, but you completly refuse to hear anything...
I think I'll rest my case.


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> Neither do you...



I understand your jealously of the US but at least try to criticize us with something that you can verify or validate----you claimed the US went to war so American business could get rich---can you prove that or was it just a guess?

You look sorta silly when you can't back up what you claim so any criticism you may have is gonna fall on deaf ears. Now you just like another whiny foreigner who can't get this way so you toss out lies to vent your frustration. I'm glad to see you frustrated---it's sorta payback for the fact that the US tried to settle this peacefully in the UN and your country frustrated our efforts.

rest your case??  you never had one !


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> You wont even consider information you haven't found yourself, even if it's from your own country or own media...What the hell are we talking for...you're saying you're open minded, than how can you call whatever link I put bullshit...It's a vicious cirlce. I've learned a lot of things since coming here on what for instance france has done wrong, and some good reasons for the war which I hadn't thought of, but you completly refuse to hear anything...
> I think I'll rest my case.


 I read it and rejected it. I would call that consideration... 

I never said I was open minded...I am not.

 I have a great distrust of ANY media. I also can read an article and understand the intent of the author in writing it. If she had merely stated the statistics I would have seriously considered looking at them as fact. Her last few paragraphs made it clear that her intent in writing the article was soley to bash the US.


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> I understand your jealously of the US but at least try to criticize us with something that you can verify or validate----you claimed the US went to war so American business could get rich---can you prove that or was it just a guess?
> 
> You look sorta silly when you can't back up what you claim so any criticism you may have is gonna fall on deaf ears. Now you just like another whiny foreigner who can't get this way so you toss out lies to vent your frustration. I'm glad to see you frustrated---it's sorta payback for the fact that the US tried to settle this peacefully in the UN and your country frusrated our efforts.



Peacefully in the UN...you were asking for war, how is that peaceful.
Plus I don't know how I'm suppose to be jealous of the US, I've lived there and know how it is. I still have many friends and go back often so I don't see how I'm suppose to be jealous as I feel quiet american myself. My little sister was born in the US so I think I have more attachment to the US than most foreigners. 

PS: didn't say US went to war so American business could get rich, I said that was one of the reasons...


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> I read it and rejected it. I would call that consideration...
> 
> I never said I was open minded...I am not.
> 
> I have a great distrust of ANY media. I also can read an article and understand the intent of the author in writing it. If she had merely stated the statistics I would have seriously considered looking at them as fact. Her last few paragraphs made it clear that her intent in writing the article was soley to bash the US.


Thats fair, but the stats still stand for themselves...


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> Peacefully in the UN...you were asking for war, how is that peaceful.
> Plus I don't know how I'm suppose to be jealous of the US, I've lived there and know how it is. I still have many friends and go back often so I don't see how I'm suppose to be jealous as I feel quiet american myself. My little sister was born in the US so I think I have more attachment to the US than most foreigners.
> 
> PS: didn't say US went to war so American business could get rich, I said that was one of the reasons...




A reason that you can't even come close to proving.


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> A reason that you can't even come close to proving.



LOL


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> LOL


 hey--there's some proof  !!!!!


----------



## j07950

You're probably going to reject this but I've heard of it in documentaries on TV in the UK a few times:
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6288


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> You're probably going to reject this but I've heard of it in documentaries on TV in the UK a few times:
> http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6288




And where does it say we went to war so Cheney could make money?


----------



## j07950

dilloduck said:
			
		

> And where does it say we went to war so Cheney could make money?


You're not going to find that anywhere because you can't say that and not get sued...you know that. 
According to Molly Ivins of the salt lake tribune:

Between 1997 and 2000, while Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, the company sold $73 million worth of oil field equipment and services to Saddam Hussein. 
    At least Halliburton was not selling luxury cars to the Baathist elite. Halliburton, the oilfield equipment company, merely kept Saddam Hussein's oil fields pumping, the only thing that allowed the s.o.b. to stay in power. Halliburton cleverly ran its business with Saddam through two of its subsidiaries, Dresser Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser, in order to avoid the sanctions. 
    Unlike the Germans, the French and the Russians, Halliburton was not punished by the Bush administration for dealing with the dictator. Instead, it got the largest reconstruction contract given by this administration, with an estimated value between $5 billion and $15 billion. And the company got the contract without competitive bidding


----------



## j07950

Halliburton is probably not the only company that can get the job done in Iraq. Because Halliburton was given the opportunity without granting other companies to bid on Iraq reconstruction, it's tough to know for sure. Why the favoritism? Some have suggested a personal profit motivation on the part of the vice president, who continues to receive deferred compensation worth $150,000 a year. He retains Halliburton stock options worth more than $18 million.

http://subvatican.com/democrat/halliburton.html


----------



## j07950

I bet that's bull shit and doesn't explain why halliburton got the contracts right?


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> You're not going to find that anywhere because you can't say that and not get sued...you know that.
> According to Molly Ivins of the salt lake tribune:
> 
> Between 1997 and 2000, while Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, the company sold $73 million worth of oil field equipment and services to Saddam Hussein.
> At least Halliburton was not selling luxury cars to the Baathist elite. Halliburton, the oilfield equipment company, merely kept Saddam Hussein's oil fields pumping, the only thing that allowed the s.o.b. to stay in power. Halliburton cleverly ran its business with Saddam through two of its subsidiaries, Dresser Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser, in order to avoid the sanctions.
> Unlike the Germans, the French and the Russians, Halliburton was not punished by the Bush administration for dealing with the dictator. Instead, it got the largest reconstruction contract given by this administration, with an estimated value between $5 billion and $15 billion. And the company got the contract without competitive bidding




Molly Ivins is a left-wing hack and has always been.  Lately she has become particularly screeching but that doesn't make her right or even get close to evidence.  She writes an opinion column and skews facts in order to "make her point".  It is like giving a Rush Limbaugh quote and saying it is fact, it isn't, it is an opinion.

I can opine all day!  Will you quote me as stating fact?


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> I bet that's bull shit and doesn't explain why halliburton got the contracts right?



Yep.  You quote an opinion column as fact, and Molly Ivins to boot!

LOL.  :rotflmao:


----------



## j07950

Ok so what about:
Halliburton is probably not the only company that can get the job done in Iraq. Because Halliburton was given the opportunity without granting other companies to bid on Iraq reconstruction, it's tough to know for sure. Why the favoritism? Some have suggested a personal profit motivation on the part of the vice president, who continues to receive deferred compensation worth $150,000 a year. He retains Halliburton stock options worth more than $18 million.

http://subvatican.com/democrat/halliburton.html


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> You're not going to find that anywhere because you can't say that and not get sued...you know that.
> According to Molly Ivins of the salt lake tribune:
> 
> Between 1997 and 2000, while Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, the company sold $73 million worth of oil field equipment and services to Saddam Hussein.
> At least Halliburton was not selling luxury cars to the Baathist elite. Halliburton, the oilfield equipment company, merely kept Saddam Hussein's oil fields pumping, the only thing that allowed the s.o.b. to stay in power. Halliburton cleverly ran its business with Saddam through two of its subsidiaries, Dresser Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser, in order to avoid the sanctions.
> Unlike the Germans, the French and the Russians, Halliburton was not punished by the Bush administration for dealing with the dictator. Instead, it got the largest reconstruction contract given by this administration, with an estimated value between $5 billion and $15 billion. And the company got the contract without competitive bidding




LOL nice try----so we are supposed to read between the lines of an article written by a rabid liberal and ASSUME what you claim is true?? Halliburton issue has been discussed a million times here---do some research becuase you point (that you can't even prove) has been refuted in numereous ways. They also have had employees killed while working in Iraq and other contractors have simply quit because it was too dangerous. If Hallibuton makes a profit helping in Iraq--good for them---no one else will do it and most CAN"T do it. No one is being fooled here but you.


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> I bet that's bull shit and doesn't explain why halliburton got the contracts right?




There are one or two European companies, but they are in Germany and France.  When you exlude those you get only one that can do what Halliburton does with the experience necessary and the ability combined with the resources.

Since the US was unwilling to let countries that would not help profit from the sacrifice of those who did I can definitely see why Halliburton got the contract.


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> Ok so what about:
> Halliburton is probably not the only company that can get the job done in Iraq. Because Halliburton was given the opportunity without granting other companies to bid on Iraq reconstruction, it's tough to know for sure. Why the favoritism? Some have suggested a personal profit motivation on the part of the vice president, who continues to receive deferred compensation worth $150,000 a year. He retains Halliburton stock options worth more than $18 million.
> 
> http://subvatican.com/democrat/halliburton.html




I already did.  See my previous post.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> Thats fair, but the stats still stand for themselves...


 Regarding the statistics....The premise is that the statistics show "excess mortality" based on the fact that mortality rates from a "reasonably well run country" would be much lower. Indeed, the author, in other articles, shows that mortality rates for modern nations (specifically North America and Europe) are much lower. I have no argument with that

Where I take issue is the author tries to portray "excess mortality" as soley the US's fault. I should mention that prior to recent events in Iraq, the author used similar statistics and the idea of "excess mortality" to blame Australia for the issues in Indonesia. The author also used the same tactic regarding the UK and India. 

The point I am trying to make here and the reason I reject the article (and past articles) is that the author has ignored the very premise on which the statistics are presented....a reasonably well run country as compared to what? If we use the US, Australia and European nations as a baseline, it seems to me that the statistics support the idea that democratic modern nations have lower mortality rates than Third world countries with other forms of government....In other words, I disagree with the conclusion the author reaches and not the statistics per say.

You should also know that the history of the aforementioned author shows the individual to be a political activist with much anti American, anti-Semite, and in some cases, anti European leanings. The author is VERY pro-Muslim as well.


----------



## j07950

Sen. Frank Lautenberg said $205,298 was paid to Cheney in deferred salary by Halliburton in 2001, and $162,392 last year. Lautenberg said Halliburton stock options held by Cheney were 100,000 shares at $54.50 per share, 33,333 shares at $28.125 and 300,000 shares at $39.50 per share. 

How do you knwo it's the only company abale to do it since there was no bid for the job. You're just assuming this.


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> Regarding the statistics....The premise is that the statistics show "excess mortality" based on the fact that mortality rates from a "reasonably well run country" would be much lower. Indeed, the author, in other articles, shows that mortality rates for modern nations (specifically North America and Europe) are much lower. I have no argument with that
> 
> Where I take issue is the author tries to portray "excess mortality" as soley the US's fault. I should mention that prior to recent events in Iraq, the author used similar statistics and the idea of "excess mortality" to blame Australia for the issues in Indonesia. The author also used the same tactic regarding the UK and India.
> 
> The point I am trying to make here and the reason I reject the article (and past articles) is that the author has ignored the very premise on which the statistics are presented....a reasonably well run country as compared to what? If we use the US, Australia and European nations as a baseline, it seems to me that the statistics support the idea that democratic modern nations have lower mortality rates than Third world countries with other forms of government....In other words, I disagree with the conclusion the author reaches and not the statistics per say.
> 
> You should also know that the history of the aforementioned author shows the individual to be a political activist with much anti American, anti-Semite, and in some cases, anti European leanings. The author is VERY pro-Muslim as well.


That's faire...I was only interested in the money figures...


----------



## j07950

Really enjoyed the discussion but I've got work to do guys...I'll be back...got essays for next monday...


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> Sen. Frank Lautenberg said $205,298 was paid to Cheney in deferred salary by Halliburton in 2001, and $162,392 last year. Lautenberg said Halliburton stock options held by Cheney were 100,000 shares at $54.50 per share, 33,333 shares at $28.125 and 300,000 shares at $39.50 per share.
> 
> How do you knwo it's the only company abale to do it since there was no bid for the job. You're just assuming this.



Name even one that had the experience in the area and resources to do the job that isn't a French or German company and then we can talk about it.  It will become clear to you that it was the only viable option for the US if they were planning on excluding companies from those countries.



			
				j07950 said:
			
		

> Really enjoyed the discussion but I've got work to do guys...I'll be back...got essays for next monday...



Goodbye.


----------



## Johnney

j07950 said:
			
		

> Because we don't do war for nothing, we're in an age when wars have done so much damage that we think it is wiser to try and find alternatives, obviously you go dive head first into it whenever possible.


kind of sounds like you dont go to war for nothing.  to hell with other countries as long as frogville makes out for the better


----------



## Johnney

CSM said:
			
		

> I didn't want to learn another language because I didn't need to...you are absolutely correect...so what?


exactly, it will be a cold day in hell before i travel outside the US again


----------



## Said1

j07950 said:
			
		

> How do you knwo it's the only company abale to do it since there was no bid for the job. You're just assuming this.



What difference does it make to you? If know one else bid, what's all the hubub  Bub?


----------



## freeandfun1

j07950 said:
			
		

> you people think the rest of the world is going to make the effort to learn english and follow you.



We sure do, because they are!

France is pissed cuz French is no longer the world's banking language.  I remember when all Letter's of Credit were in French, but no longer.

You lose cuz the French suck!  Now go suck on a tailpipe someplace.  You are annoying.


----------



## freeandfun1

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> There are one or two European companies, but they are in Germany and France.  When you exlude those you get only one that can do what Halliburton does with the experience necessary and the ability combined with the resources.
> 
> Since the US was unwilling to let countries that would not help profit from the sacrifice of those who did I can definitely see why Halliburton got the contract.



And the French company is owned by Haliburton..... lol


----------



## dilloduck

j07950 said:
			
		

> You're not going to find that anywhere because you can't say that and not get sued...you know that.
> According to Molly Ivins of the salt lake tribune:
> 
> Between 1997 and 2000, while Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, the company sold $73 million worth of oil field equipment and services to Saddam Hussein.
> At least Halliburton was not selling luxury cars to the Baathist elite. Halliburton, the oilfield equipment company, merely kept Saddam Hussein's oil fields pumping, the only thing that allowed the s.o.b. to stay in power. Halliburton cleverly ran its business with Saddam through two of its subsidiaries, Dresser Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser, in order to avoid the sanctions.
> Unlike the Germans, the French and the Russians, Halliburton was not punished by the Bush administration for dealing with the dictator. Instead, it got the largest reconstruction contract given by this administration, with an estimated value between $5 billion and $15 billion. And the company got the contract without competitive bidding



You could only be successfully sued if it was a lie--Thats' why she didn't say it! Like I said--quit making allegations that you cannot prove and someone may actually listen to what you have to say. Now you're just on the Flaming Bozo list of foreign whiners.


----------



## j07950

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> We sure do, because they are!
> 
> France is pissed cuz French is no longer the world's banking language.  I remember when all Letter's of Credit were in French, but no longer.
> 
> You lose cuz the French suck!  Now go suck on a tailpipe someplace.  You are annoying.



LOL...You guys are so funny...
Comments like "the French suck" are so childish...did I ever say anything like americans suck? Nope...
Your such a sorry bunch of whinners...got nothing else to do all day than gang up on foreigners even if some of what they say makes sence. Go and do some work if you guys actually get paid to do something. You're all a bunch or republicans and love your deer president so much...that's why there is no real debate in here. Whatever is said by bush you worshipe. I'd like to see some Democrates in here...


----------



## Johnney

j07950 said:
			
		

> LOL...You guys are so funny...
> Comments like "the French suck" are so childish...


sad part is its true


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> LOL...You guys are so funny...
> Comments like "the French suck" are so childish...did I ever say anything like americans suck? Nope...
> Your such a sorry bunch of whinners...got nothing else to do all day than gang up on foreigners even if some of what they say makes sence. Go and do some work if you guys actually get paid to do something. You're all a bunch or republicans and love your deer president so much...that's why there is no real debate in here. Whatever is said by bush you worshipe. I'd like to see some Democrates in here...




There are some.  Bullypulpit, ACLUDem, Missileman, Nakedemperor, Lolita and others.  There is even a truly arrogant French guy under the name of Padisha Emperor.  This site leans right, but isn't 100% Republican.

Personally I am Libertarian, not Republican.  I just lean more towards the Republican view.  Getting upset and "insulting" everybody on the site because one or two people insult you isn't the way to go.  Show a thicker skin and continue.  So far you don't insult and are one of the least arrogant French posters that I have seen, one of the first that will actually debate rather than simply post Anti-US sites and expect us all to agree.


----------



## j07950

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> There are some.  Bullypulpit, ACLUDem, Missileman, Nakedemperor, Lolita and others.  There is even a truly arrogant French guy under the name of Padisha Emperor.  This site leans right, but isn't 100% Republican.
> 
> Personally I am Libertarian, not Republican.  I just lean more towards the Republican view.  Getting upset and "insulting" everybody on the site because one or two people insult you isn't the way to go.  Show a thicker skin and continue.  So far you don't insult and are one of the least arrogant French posters that I have seen, one of the first that will actually debate rather than simply post Anti-US sites and expect us all to agree.



I know I shouldn't get all upset because eventhough I'm not a strong french supporter I can't stand people insulting us for the sake of it.  The mentality of these people is "we think you hate us so we hate you"...Such childiness...
They don't actually want to have a debate, they all agree and can't stand different point of views. Their only interest is to despise the rest of the world.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> I know I shouldn't get all upset because eventhough I'm not a strong french supporter I can't stand people insulting us for the sake of it.  The mentality of these people is "we think you hate us so we hate you"...Such childiness...
> They don't actually want to have a debate, they all agree and can't stand different point of views. Their only interest is to despise the rest of the world.



 Exactly! it is not that they cannot tolerate a different point of view; it is that they get defensive when they feel they are being insulted just for the sake of it. For the most part, they do not despise the rest of the world, they are just scornful of what they percieve as another European bent only on bashing the US.

You are not the first foriegner to post on this board. Most of the others got themselves banned rather quickly. They were guilty of exactly what you accuse some here of...their interests were soley in bashing the US and the people who post here. 

I have great hope that this will not be the case with you.


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> Exactly! it is not that they cannot tolerate a different point of view; it is that they get defensive when they feel they are being insulted just for the sake of it. For the most part, they do not despise the rest of the world, they are just scornful of what they percieve as another European bent only on bashing the US.
> 
> You are not the first foriegner to post on this board. Most of the others got themselves banned rather quickly. They were guilty of exactly what you accuse some here of...their interests were soley in bashing the US and the people who post here.
> 
> I have great hope that this will not be the case with you.


I surely wasn't, I'm trying to explain why some of us Europeans feel this way about some of the descisions the US makes. You criticize us on this message board for opposing but don't care in knowing truly why. I'm just trying to get my point of view across about why we are against some US policies.


----------



## freeandfun1

j07950 said:
			
		

> I surely isn't, I'm trying to explain why some of us Europeans feel this way about some of the decisions the US makes. You criticize us on this message board for opposing but don't care in knowing truly why. I'm just trying to get my point of view across about why we are against some US policies.



Fair enough, but if you want us to understand your point of view, don't you think you should try to understand ours?  I hate double standards and that is why I get "short".

I do not despise the rest of the world.  I have lived and worked overseas and my company depends on exports (95% of our business).  I have traveled far and often and I have many friends all over the world.  Some agree with us, some don't.  With them though I can have a civil debate because they listen, ponder my point of view and then either agree or offer a thoughtful and compelling counter argument.

I agree with the others that, at least, you don't hit and run.  But you have to admit that you are as close minded as you are accusing us of being.  That is not a good way or even an educating way to have a debate about issues.

You condescending attitude "you are all Bush lovers... blah, blah, blah" doesn't help.  If you want to provide a counterpoint, do so by using facts and not conjecture or opinion.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> I surely wasn't, I'm trying to explain why some of us Europeans feel this way about some of the descisions the US makes. You criticize us on this message board for opposing but don't care in knowing truly why. I'm just trying to get my point of view across about why we are against some US policies.



I understand. 

I can tell you from some of the links you have provided and some of your statements that you have made, you come across as an anti American European...because we have seen those links and heard that rhetoric many times over the past year especially...mostly because of the anti Bush posters during the Presedential elections.

That is why I asked you early on if you had links to opposing views. I provided a few which you seemed to reject out of hand (I laughed when you expressed skepticism at the government websites).

Also try to understand that when you post your views, people are naturally going to try to counter those views.


----------



## j07950

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> Fair enough, but if you want us to understand your point of view, don't you think you should try to understand ours?  I hate double standards and that is why I get "short".
> 
> I do not despise the rest of the world.  I have lived and worked overseas and my company depends on exports (95% of our business).  I have traveled far and often and I have many friends all over the world.  Some agree with us, some don't.  With them though I can have a civil debate because they listen, ponder my point of view and then either agree or offer a thoughtful and compelling counter argument.
> 
> I agree with the others that, at least, you don't hit and run.  But you have to admit that you are as close minded as you are accusing us of being.  That is not a good way or even an educating way to have a debate about issues.
> 
> You condescending attitude "you are all Bush lovers... blah, blah, blah" doesn't help.  If you want to provide a counterpoint, do so by using facts and not conjecture or opinion.



I've often said it when I agree with you guys, never heard anyone of you say you agreed with anything I said. The fact is that everyone here except foreigners agree with Bush's policy, so there is no real debate between americans. It would be nice to find americans that are opposed to what is happening. It would be more interesting as whatever we foreigners say is just bad because we're foreigners. I have used a lot of facts but they are always turned down, just because they are writen by liberals or democrates, that makes sence as the republican party is watching out for it's people, it would never say anything negative on the Bush policies, doesn't that make sence. Maybee I'm narrow minded as you say as much as I accuse you of being, I really am trying to be openminded though and have learned a lot from you guys (being openminded I think).


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> I've often said it when I agree with you guys, never heard anyone of you say you agreed. The fact is that everyone here except foreigners agree with Bush's policy, so there is no real debate between americans. It would be nice to find americans that are opposed to what is happening. It would be more interesting as whatever we foreigners say is just bad because we're foreigners. I have used a lot of facts but they are always turned down, just because they are writen by liberals or democrates, that makes sence as the republican party is watching out for it's people, it would never say anything negative on the Bush policies, doesn't that make sence. Maybee I'm narrow minded as you say as much as I accuse you of being, I really am trying to be openminded though and have learned a lot from you guys (being openminded I think).


 I have agreed with you at least twice that I know of....maybe more... and said so. I think you were probably too involved to notice.


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> I have agreed with you at least twice that I know of....maybe more... and said so. I think you were probably too involved to notice.


I do remember, sorry, you're one of the very few. Thanks for that.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> I do remember, sorry, you're one of the very few. Thanks for that.


 Seriously, many on this board relish a real debate and exchange of views. That interest in exchange of ideas dissipates when they hear and see the same sources that are used to bash the hell out of the US. Many here are well aware that US foriegn policy is not always perfect and not always correct...and they want to talk about it too but they do not want to hear that some other nation is superior or better and the US is evil, our leaders are corrupt, etc....we get enough of that from Michael Moore, Hollywood, and many of our own news networks.


----------



## freeandfun1

CSM said:
			
		

> Seriously, many on this board relish a real debate and exchange of views. That interest in exchange of ideas dissipates when they hear and see the same sources that are used to bash the hell out of the US. Many here are well aware that US foriegn policy is not always perfect and not always correct...and they want to talk about it too but they do not want to hear that some other nation is superior or better and the US is evil, our leaders are corrupt, etc....we get enough of that from Michael Moore, Hollywood, and many of our own news networks.



I would add that we are tired about hearing how "corrupt" our leaders are while those making the accusations ignore the corruption in their own countries.


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> Seriously, many on this board relish a real debate and exchange of views. That interest in exchange of ideas dissipates when they hear and see the same sources that are used to bash the hell out of the US. Many here are well aware that US foriegn policy is not always perfect and not always correct...and they want to talk about it too but they do not want to hear that some other nation is superior or better and the US is evil, our leaders are corrupt, etc....we get enough of that from Michael Moore, Hollywood, and many of our own news networks.


Totally agree with you...
Begining with "Many here are well aware that US foriegn policy is not always perfect " I think we should be able to have a debate if everyone agrees with you. That's what I've been trying to say but then you have people coming up saying the french sucks and thats that...I mean how are we suppose to exchange ideas this way?
But overall I agree with you...


----------



## j07950

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> I would add that we are tired about hearing how "corrupt" our leaders are while those making the accusations ignore the corruption in their own countries.


I've said many times that leaders from all countries are corrupt in some way, even the french, I've said it numerous times.


----------



## freeandfun1

j07950 said:
			
		

> I've said many times that leaders from all countries are corrupt in some way, even the french, I've said it numerous times.



I was no necessarily aiming that at you.  As CSM was covering, the reason many of us tire of "debating" with the Anti-Bushites and the Anti-Americans is that they ignore their own culpability in the world's problems.  Just like when Democrats come on here, bash Bush for Halliburton but ignore the fact that Clinton gave Halliburton no-bid contracts for Kosovo, or that Terry McAuliffe made $18 million off a $100K investment in Global Xing, etc., etc.


----------



## j07950

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> I was no necessarily aiming that at you.  As CSM was covering, the reason many of us tire of "debating" with the Anti-Bushites and the Anti-Americans is that they ignore their own culpability in the world's problems.  Just like when Democrats come on here, bash Bush for Halliburton but ignore the fact that Clinton gave Halliburton no-bid contracts for Kosovo, or that Terry McAuliffe made $18 million off a $100K investment in Global Xing, etc., etc.



Yeah I know...
I'm not an anti-american...just an anti-bush.
The whole Halliburton thing is complicated but Dick Cheaney still being linked doesn't really help either does it?! That's mostly what it's about...I believe.
I know France has done many bad things...won't deny that.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> Yeah I know...
> I'm not an anti-american...just an anti-bush.
> The whole Halliburton thing is complicated but Dick Cheaney still being linked doesn't really help either does it?! That's mostly what it's about...I believe.
> I know France has done many bad things...won't deny that.



 I guess I dont understand the anti-Bush sentiment you express....despite the rhetoric that was spewed during the presidential campaign, the President of the United States does not wield absolute power. In fact, much of our foriegn, economic, domestic policy, etc. is the responsibility of the Congress.


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> I guess I dont understand the anti-Bush sentiment you express....despite the rhetoric that was spewed during the presidential campaign, the President of the United States does not wield absolute power. In fact, much of our foriegn, economic, domestic policy, etc. is the responsibility of the Congress.


Yeah I know but Bush is the one who goes to congree with demands, but since the congree is in his favour (I think, but I can check) and has more republican seats it makes sence that they vote in favour of his demands. It's this way in France too...


----------



## freeandfun1

j07950 said:
			
		

> The whole Halliburton thing is complicated but Dick Cheaney still being linked doesn't really help either does it?! That's mostly what it's about...I believe.



Why is it a bad thing?  Cheney was in the private sector before he became Veep and he had a right to earn a living.  Many companies pay out deferred compensation as it is a cheaper and easier way to get quality people.  I am glad that Cheney and Bush have actually worked in the private sector.  I believe it helps them better understand the economy and how businesses operate.  I would much prefer somebody like that than a career politician that has no idea what it is like to make a payroll, go to a bank looking for commercial financing, etc., etc.  A matter-of-fact, in my opinion that is what is wrong with the Democratic Party.  They used to be called the "Party of the Working Man" because they knew what the working man was going through.  Now the Democratic party is made up of career politician and attorneys that have no clue what the "Working Man" goes through.  THEY are the party that is out of touch.

As for your comment the about the French having done bad/corrupt things too....

Thanks for acknowleging it.  But now you must, if you are intellectually honest, acknowledge that their main reason for opposing the war was their corrpution.  Not because of it being "wrong".  What good is the UN if a two bit dictator like Saddam can thumb his nose at them?  What good is the UN if they are not going to enforce their own resolutions and sanctions?

And as I have mentioned a thousand times on this site, it is easy for countries like France, Germany, etc. to say, "we had him contained".  Who is "we"?  Does the US have a mouse in its pocket?  The US and GB were containing him and it we a massive burden to our economies and our military.  Therefore, after ten years we had no choice but to go in and shut him down IMHO.


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> Yeah I know but Bush is the one who goes to congree with demands, but since the congree is in his favour (I think, but I can check) and has more republican seats it makes sence that they vote in favour of his demands. It's this way in France too...



 Actually, the President cant DEMAND anything. Most actions have to be presented as a bill by a Congressman (either a representative or Senator). There are exceptions and the President has limited powers (particularly over the military). The Congress however, actually controls the budget and he who controls the budget controls the nation. 

In reality, there are many many bills that go before Congress that are Republican based and that dont get passed...There are some really interesting food fights that go on in our Congress!


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> Actually, the President cant DEMAND anything. Most actions have to be presented as a bill by a Congressman (either a representative or Senator). There are exceptions and the President has limited powers (particularly over the military). The Congress however, actually controls the budget and he who controls the budget controls the nation.
> 
> In reality, there are many many bills that go before Congress that are Republican based and that dont get passed...There are some really interesting food fights that go on in our Congress!


Yeah same thing in ours...I love watching it on TV.
But the congree being represented by more republicans is in better position to vote for things such as budget extensions and things the president wants done. The bills presented by the republican congressmen are in relation to what the president wants...in some way or another. 

As for France maybee the governments reason for not going to war might have in some way been because of coruption, "we" the people were against it, even if the government had been for it. Chirac wasn't totally saying no in the begining about a possible war, he said to get ready if needed. Then it decided against it for a few reasons...That was it...but the fact of the matter is we didn't believe in it, like many other countries all over the world. So corruption or not...it doesn't matter, but it might be true. Than again you can't prove that's their reason since everyone knew the corruption was happening (France and other countries for that matter).


----------



## CSM

Here is a link (objective as I could find) about the US congress;

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761554908/Congress_of_the_United_States.html

Please note the last line in the introduction! It is not Bush who shapes our foriegn policy!


----------



## freeandfun1

j07950 said:
			
		

> Yeah same thing in ours...I love watching it on TV.
> But the congree being represented by more republicans is in better position to vote for things such as budget extensions and things the president wants done. The bills presented by the republican congressmen are in relation to what the president wants...in some way or another.



You are assuming that the GOP votes lockstep with the President when they don't.  A matter-of-fact, there are a lot of GOPers that are very upset with the President and blocking or trying to block many of his proposals.


----------



## freeandfun1

j07950 said:
			
		

> As for France maybee the governments reason for not going to war might have in some way been because of coruption, "we" the people were against it, even if the government had been for it. Chirac wasn't totally saying no in the begining about a possible war, he said to get ready if needed. Then it decided against it for a few reasons...That was it...but the fact of the matter is we didn't believe in it, like many other countries all over the world. So corruption or not...it doesn't matter, but it might be true. Than again you can't prove that's their reason since everyone knew the corruption was happening (France and other countries for that matter).



Fair enough that the "people" were against it.  Don't forget though, that is why we elect leaders.  So that they can make the "hard" decisions.

Again, please answer my questions about what good is the UN if a two-bit dictator can thumb their nose at them?  What good is the UN if they don't enforce their own sanctions and resolutions?


----------



## j07950

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> Fair enough that the "people" were against it.  Don't forget though, that is why we elect leaders.  So that they can make the "hard" decisions.
> 
> Again, please answer my questions about what good is the UN if a two-bit dictator can thumb their nose at them?  What good is the UN if they don't enforce their own sanctions and resolutions?



That's at least reassuring about congress...

The UN as an institution is great and a great idea if run correctly. There are problems of corruption, so fire everyone and reconstruct from the base. Thats what I think...


----------



## freeandfun1

j07950 said:
			
		

> There are problems of corruption, so fire everyone and reconstruct from the base. Thats what I think...



I say just disband it and work within worldwide treaties.  The UN has always relied on the US to do everything yet they turn around and bitch when we do.  If it were not for the US, there would be no UN.

Now I have an honest question for you about the UNSC.  Why should France have a seat?  Please give me an honest and COMPELLING reason.


----------



## j07950

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> I say just disband it and work within worldwide treaties.  The UN has always relied on the US to do everything yet they turn around and bitch when we do.  If it were not for the US, there would be no UN.
> 
> Now I have an honest question for you about the UNSC.  Why should France have a seat?  Please give me an honest and COMPELLING reason.



Well why shouldn't it?
It's always had a huge diplomatic role. Can you see anyone else filling in? And why don't you think it shouldn't?


----------



## j07950

I think French peacekeeping troops do a lot of good around the world. Here is a proof. Note that the author is american and from Washington:
http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/1128/

PS: Ivory coast not a good example of late


----------



## CSM

j07950 said:
			
		

> I think French peacekeeping troops do a lot of good around the world. Here is a proof. Note that the author is american and from Washington:
> http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/1128/
> 
> PS: Ivory coast not a good example of late



 While I agree with the article, you should be aware that it is an opinion piece. As I stated before, opinion pieces are not necessarily proof.

Many nations (including France) have provided peace keeping forces throught the world and those troops have served honorably, professionally and well...yes, even the French soldier despite the jokes.


----------



## j07950

CSM said:
			
		

> While I agree with the article, you should be aware that it is an opinion piece. As I stated before, opinion pieces are not necessarily proof.
> 
> Many nations (including France) have provided peace keeping forces throught the world and those troops have served honorably, professionally and well...yes, even the French soldier despite the jokes.


Yup it is an opinion piece but can't be denied. And the French troops are very numerous all over the world. We aren't no small player in this area. And I'll agree with you when you say other nations have provided peace keeping forces throught the world and those troops have served honorably, professionally and well...


----------



## freeandfun1

j07950 said:
			
		

> Well why shouldn't it?
> It's always had a huge diplomatic role. Can you see anyone else filling in? And why don't you think it shouldn't?



Based on size, international influence, etc. I could name a few countries that are more qualified.  What about Japan?  

Actually, I think one country from each major region of the world would be more apporpriate.

Europe:  A unified EU rep
South Asia:  India
East Asia:  China
South America:  Brazil
North America:  USA

France is not the country they once were.  I know you and other French don't like to hear that, but it is true.  I just think that their influence is not as great as it once was and therefore, their place on the UNSC is outdated.

You can tell that their influence is not what it used to be by the fact that their government has become VERY corrupt.  If one has influence, they don't have to bribe or be bribed to get things done.


----------



## j07950

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


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> I've often said it when I agree with you guys, never heard anyone of you say you agreed with anything I said. The fact is that everyone here except foreigners agree with Bush's policy, so there is no real debate between americans. It would be nice to find americans that are opposed to what is happening. It would be more interesting as whatever we foreigners say is just bad because we're foreigners. I have used a lot of facts but they are always turned down, just because they are writen by liberals or democrates, that makes sence as the republican party is watching out for it's people, it would never say anything negative on the Bush policies, doesn't that make sence. Maybee I'm narrow minded as you say as much as I accuse you of being, I really am trying to be openminded though and have learned a lot from you guys (being openminded I think).



Not only did I say it, but I gave you rep points when I agreed with what you said.  You were even shocked that for a time you were on the positive side in points.


----------



## padisha emperor

I hope this link will inform you about France.

Embassy of France


----------



## dilloduck

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> I hope this link will inform you about France.
> 
> Embassy of France




oh hell dish---France is composed of all types of people and politics---why don't you just tell us the things that you want us to know---in a nutshell please.


----------



## padisha emperor

there are herer all the things you asked me :
french foreign policy - of course, offcical version, but it can give you an idea - 
french history
french foreign legion
french economy
french society
french industry......


The ,you'ld know more things and avoid to say stupid things about France.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

j07950 said:
			
		

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



Screw off, communist.


----------



## Merlin1047

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> Why is it a bad thing?  Cheney was in the private sector before he became Veep and he had a right to earn a living.  Many companies pay out deferred compensation as it is a cheaper and easier way to get quality people.  I am glad that Cheney and Bush have actually worked in the private sector.  I believe it helps them better understand the economy and how businesses operate.  I would much prefer somebody like that than a career politician that has no idea what it is like to make a payroll, go to a bank looking for commercial financing, etc., etc.  A matter-of-fact, in my opinion that is what is wrong with the Democratic Party.  They used to be called the "Party of the Working Man" because they knew what the working man was going through.  Now the Democratic party is made up of career politician and attorneys that have no clue what the "Working Man" goes through.  THEY are the party that is out of touch.



Very good point.  Isn't it amazing that libs today prefer to elect to leadership those who have been career politicians and never done an honest day's work in their lives?  Libs prefer to place into office socialist idiots who view the average American as a resource to be strip-mined while they are suspicious of those who have actually built a business, held a job, employed people, lived within a budget and did something with their lives besides kissing babies and tap dancing.

And I think that pretty much sums up the socialist french attitude too.


----------



## j07950

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Screw off, communist.


Don't tell me to screw off...you fuck off...you dick...Who asked you?


----------



## rtwngAvngr

j07950 said:
			
		

> Don't tell me to screw off...you fuck off...you dick...Who asked you?



I speak with the weight of my own authority.  The light of my intellect blazes forth to squelch communism without invitation.


----------



## j07950

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I speak with the weight of my own authority.  The light of my intellect blazes forth to squelch communism without invitation.


LOL...you fucking weirdo!!!!


----------



## rtwngAvngr

j07950 said:
			
		

> LOL...you fucking weirdo!!!!



I fart in your general direction!


----------



## no1tovote4

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I fart in your general direction!




Your father was a hamster and your mother smells of elderberries!


----------



## j07950

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I fart in your general direction!


That's going to get you far in life...


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> That's going to get you far in life...




It comes from a movie.  A funny english movie.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

j07950 said:
			
		

> That's going to get you far in life...



THose monty python boys also love insulting the French.


----------



## j07950

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> It comes from a movie.  A funny english movie.
> 
> Monty Python and the Holy Grail.


What does? "I fart in your general direction!"?


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> What does? "I fart in your general direction!"?




Yup.


----------



## j07950

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> Yup.


It sounded more like another insult...but Ok if you say it's only from a movie


----------



## Said1

j07950 said:
			
		

> It sounded more like another insult...but Ok if you say it's only from a movie




More like a jab, and a line from a movie.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

j07950 said:
			
		

> It sounded more like another insult...but Ok if you say it's only from a movie



To clarify,  it IS an insult, AND it's from a movie.


----------



## j07950

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> To clarify,  it IS an insult, AND it's from a movie.


Thought so...
I'll stay with my "weirdo" than...


----------



## rtwngAvngr

j07950 said:
			
		

> Thought so...
> I'll stay with my "weirdo" than...



 I really can't argue with that one.

Hey are you a chick or a dude?


----------



## j07950

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I really can't argue with that one.
> 
> Hey are you a chick or a dude?


You don't look at profiles than I guess...


----------



## freeandfun1

j07950 said:
			
		

> You don't look at profiles than I guess...



Not to be picky or anything, but that is twice in the last couple of posts you have made where you use "than" where you should be using "then".

I am used to correcting my wife (her native tongue is not English) so don't take this as a jab, just a little correction.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

j07950 said:
			
		

> You don't look at profiles than I guess...



 Que est ce que  say Julien =  :sausage: ?


----------



## j07950

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> Not to be picky or anything, but that is twice in the last couple of posts you have made where you use "than" where you should be using "then".
> 
> I am used to correcting my wife (her native tongue is not English) so don't take this as a jab, just a little correction.


Yeah I know...I've got a problem with that one...still haven't figured it out...please tell me when to use one or the other...never been told.


----------



## freeandfun1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Julien =  :sausage: ?



I'm guessing so since the profile doesn't have any reference to his gender.


----------



## j07950

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Que est ce que  say Julien =  :sausage: ?


Another mature post...I give up.


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> Yeah I know...I've got a problem with that one...still haven't figured it out...please tell me when to use one or the other...never been told.




then deals with time.

than is a comparison word.

Life is better than death.

Life is the beginning, then death.

Does that help?


----------



## j07950

Ok right...I'm a guy...sorry to dissapoint some of you...lol


----------



## freeandfun1

j07950 said:
			
		

> Yeah I know...I've got a problem with that one...still haven't figured it out...please tell me when to use one or the other...never been told.



Q. What is the difference between then and than?

A. These two words are quite different!

Their only similarity is in the way they sound. Than is used to compare or contrast things, as in "He is a lot smaller than his older brother." Then refers to time or consequence: "And the Canaanite was then in the land" (Gen. xii. 6.); "If all this be so, then man has a natural freedom" (Locke). So if one thing follows or results from another, use then. 

Than is also used before a pronoun, as in "Paul loves pizza more than me."


----------



## no1tovote4

j07950 said:
			
		

> Another mature post...I give up.




French names are often difficult for Americans to be able to tell sex from.


----------



## j07950

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> then deals with time.
> 
> than is a comparison word.
> 
> Life is better than death.
> 
> Life is the beginning, then death.
> 
> Does that help?


Thats good, thanks!!!!


----------



## rtwngAvngr

j07950 said:
			
		

> Another mature post...I give up.



 :bj2: 

This is mature.


----------



## j07950

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> :bj2:
> 
> This is mature.


Thought you were comparing me to a sausage...not a dick for whether I was a guy or not.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

j07950 said:
			
		

> Thought you were comparing me to a sausage...not a dick for whether I was a guy or not.




Try to keep up, Hugo!


----------



## padisha emperor

> Que est ce que say Julien =  ?



????

Julien is a male name, it comes from the latin "Iule", the son of Enee, and gave the name "Julius", like Julius Caesar.
It gave Julien, Jules, (male names) and Julia, Juliette, Julie (female names)


Now, you know


----------

